StellarRat

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barrold713: You have the basics of a good point that would be better if the facts about the software industry worked like any other business. Consider if you bought a $45 ink pen and what your reaction might be if it either didn't write directly out of the package or was a different color than it was labled. Software seems to be a unique product that the producers seem to believe that 'close enough' is a good point to go gold and ship. Having the repeated experience of getting burned by vaporware would likely create the type of reactions described. On the other hand they could just be whiners being squeeky wheels. BDH<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you have ever done any complicated programming you would know why this is the way it is. Imagine being a doctor where every patient has a different anatomy or a mechanic where the same model car comes with 2,000,000 different options and you'll start to understand why writing perfect software is basically impossible. Not only is everyone's computer a little different than everyone else's computer, but any complex software will have literally millions of different possible paths through the code. Throw in some deadlines and budgets which restrict testing and debugging time and the problem gets even worse. CM is amazing because it is nearly perfect. It's never crashed my machine (except for beta patches.) And it really doesn't do anything major completely wrong. I'm really impressed with these guys. Having a small development is a big plus when it comes writing quality software because everyone knows how everything works. [ 05-05-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

Well, if I know the enemy will be defending a town I buy the big guns. There is nothing like watching your enemy's town disintergrate around his ears and his squads running around like an ant nest that someone dug up!

Maybe Tank Man is tanked...

For what it's worth...I knew a guy that went to Grenada and actually killed someone. He said he couldn't pull the trigger until the Sergent came up and ordered him to fire. He said the sergent was running up and down the line screaming at them to fire and had to literally kick some of the guys in the ass to get them to fire their weapons at the enemy. These were "green" troops and I have no reason to dis-believe this story.

I don't know if the US could withstand a Foster's embargo.

Steve, I'm with you 100% on this one. I don't know why Username choose fire off a big tirade. I believe all the questions Mr. Dorosh asked were relevent. Certainly, without knowing numbers, positions, training, area, etc, etc...no one could make any type of logical conclusions or analysis of the problem. The only games where you can make-up numbers and not lose the respect of any intelligent gamer would be some type of science fiction or fantasy game. I respect all the work you guys have done to make CM as realistic as feasible and hope you continue your efforts along those lines. Your company is one of the few that actually listens to the users and tries to fix anything that appears to be a not right. The number of patches you released for CM is a testament to that fact. [ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tailz: Interesting how he shunned turret rotation in favour of simply turning the whole vehicle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Everyone, please, please, don't start another turret rotation thread. The last one was worse than the MG threads. LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Actually, that's Mine Horses and remember, it was my idea first! he said dripping with sarcasm....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm a witness for him. Michael invented horses in his genetic engineering lab.... [ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

I think the best solution to the problem (and the easiest) is to make "running" more dangerous and allow firing units to switch targets more rapidly and fire more bursts if they are in close contact. I think these changes should apply to all units not just MG teams. That would solve most of what people have complained about.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: [snort]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I second that snort and also claim that I was instrumental in getting other people to realize that a snort was necessary.

I'd be happy with the same engine and graphics with a couple tweeks for Russia (like bigger maps) and smarter AI. I'm glad that BTS is going to try and improve a bunch of stuff, but I think that the current engine with a different database of unit types would probably be a pretty good game in it's own right. If you think about it the game already has everything you really need to do a pretty good sim of any WW II combat. Everyone should bear in mind that BTS is marketing to a very small group. They can't afford to turn it into a big production like BG II or something because they would never sell enough units to recoup their costs. Us WW II hardcore sim fans are a tiny population of the computer game market. Think back to your school days...How many wargamers were in your high school? We had three out of 1200 students! [ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Homba: Surely someone can provide a reference on muzzel velocities of WWII machine guns? We have one first hand account from the other thread of MG bullets' 'cracking' sound as they broke the sound barrier passing overhead (though IIRC this was a more modern MG.) Homba<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Even a cheesy rifle will have a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second. Also, most rifle bullets tend to rise in the first few yards of flight, so the guy with the calculations above is a little off. WW II MGs are definately above 1500 feet per second (900 is supersonic). Just as an interesting side note a modern SABOT round has a muzzle velocity of about 5000 feet per second. Think of the wallop those carry! Small wonder they literally blow vehicles to pieces! [ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wreck: I am a bit surprised by this. Certainly LOS is already being computed quite frequently during a turn resolution, right? So the LOS check cannot be *that* expensive. Given a vector that the MG is firing, grazing can be approximated using LOS. If the MG has LOS to a unit, and the angle between the vector to that unit and the target vector is below some critical angle, the unit will be "grazed". If you wanted to get fancy about what angle to use you could factor in distance so as to decrease the fire lane's angular dimension w/ range (which is probably the right way to do it). Obviously this fails to take into account units that are near to the fire but which the MG cannot see. But it would certainly be sufficient for the vast majority of situations. And in any case at least the more experienced soldiers would be unlikely to be affected by fire from an MG that cannot hit them, even if it does happen to be going close by. Am I incorrect in assuming that LOS checks are happening in great multitudes during resolution?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Three dimensional vector calculations with an arc thrown in are not trival. They involve a lot of floating point trignometric calculations and these are CPU hogs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sten: StellarRat, what does 'sytle' mean? Sten<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It means I was up late and typing too fast! LOL! I realized the typo right after I hit the post button. AAHH! I'll try to improve my styling next time.

I'm with Marlow!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: Ah, well that's different. Okay, well it does make some sense to try to account for the ... call it residual effects ... of the other weapons in a squad. The problem then goes to one of volume of fire. Your standard issue bolt action rifle will not produce a volume of fire that is effective enough to have a game worthy result on any unit other than the target of that fire. Ten men all firing across an area with rifles is going to produce fire that will be more ragged (in terms of when each man chooses to fire) and less concentrated (because each man is aiming at his own target) than an MG fired by one man that is concentrated in an area that the gunner alone is aiming at. So, the area and the concentration of fire is going to be more dispersed with rifle fire, thus lessening the effects of residual fire - dispersing it to the point of making it ineffective at influencing the enemy. Another factor is ammunition. A standard load out for a German infantryman is between 45 and 60 rounds of ammunition. He is not very likely to be 'spraying and praying' with his precious 45 rounds of ammo - especially with the weak volume of fire that a bolt action rifle will produce. He is most likely going to be aiming at a man - or the suspected location of a man - and trying to hit him. The odds of hitting someone in between the firer and the target are just too small. How's that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Considering the number of SMGs, Rifles, Semiauto Rifles, BARs and light MGs that each squad carries I think these effects could be at least as high a single MMG or HMG at closer ranges. I think one must bear in mind there a lot of riflemen shooting compared to the number of MGs firing. (If you've ever seen a picture of Bonnie and Cylde's car after the FBI hosing it down with Tommy guns you'll get the idea.) As far as the "spray and pray" comment I meant that they would fire where they THINK the enemy is without a lot of aiming. Most of the time you don't really see the enemy unless they are very close or very brave/dumb. Also, if you're position is about to be overrun I don't thing you're going to be careful about how many rounds you're firing. Unfortunately, I didn't write it that way in the original response. Also, grazing fire would only be effective in locations where the firer and target were able to engage on the same geometric plane. Hills, depressions, buildings could definately screw the "grazing effect".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: If I haven't shed some light on this subject for you after this .. well, then I guess you either lack the fundamental knowledge required to understand the issue or you can't be convinced to change your world view on the way machine guns work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand what you're trying to say here. MGs are purposely employed to fire a line of bullets down the line of advance and you want it have the effect that it should have in real life. That's great. I get it. I've understood this from the beginning. What I'm saying is that if this added to the game for MGs it should work for other weapons too. (Possibly not as well, but we can worry about that later.) Here is my reasoning: Any weapon firing down the line of advance would have essentially the same effect even if it isn't done intentionally. There is a chance that those bullets would pass through squads down the line (other than the target squad) and could cause casualities/suppression to them. (Obviously you are more likely to hit someone when firing across the enemy line because there are likely to be more squads in the bullets path. This is also the reason it's a good idea place MGs on the enemy's flanks.) So, while your manual says "Machine guns are most effective when delivering enfilade fire down the line of the enemy assault formation." I would argue that ALL guns are most effective when delivering enfilade fire down the line of the enemy assault formation. In fact, from what I've seen in WWII combat footage and Vietnam footage it appears that in heavy combat small infantry weapons are fired by pointing in the general direction of the enemy and firing without much aiming. The troops "spray and prey" because no one wants to expose themselves long enough for careful aim, therefore "misses" probably kill more unintended enemy targets then intended targets, so taking stray rounds into account is important. If BTS writes the code to make it work for MGs then it will/should also work for other direct fire weapons. This would also make it important that you keep in mind friendly units that are down range from your fire! What happens if an enemy unit is in the street with friendly units in the buildings on each side? Do you think it would be a good idea to cut loose with everything you've got? I bet well over half the bullets would end up across the street in buildings your friends are in! See I do have a reasoning behind my questions. [ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: Seems to me that all this (8 pages of sifting through to find the "facts") proves one thing and one thing only: Grazing fire is not modelled in CM. Everything else regarding firepower ratings or the effects of MG fire on enemy infantry are subject to each individual's world view on the effectiveness of MGs in combat - be that a pro BTS or anti BTS position. I'm not sure why there is such a hurry to 'wrap up' this discussion since we are merely discussing the effects of MGs in combat. I don't have any personal axe to grind or any 'theory' to prove. Grazing fire is a fact - there is nothing to prove there (although some on this thread apparently do doubt its existance which I find incredible).[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No one has proven to me why ALL small arms fire across the line of advance shouldn't have a chance to hit someone or why this should only be a magic power given to machineguns.

One of the posters did a test that showed he could stop an assault at 250m everytime. Is it possible that 100m is just too close to stop an overrun attack with MGs? 100m is not very far! I mean anyone can run that far in 15 sec. (Yes, I know without equipment, etc...) Still this doesn't seem like a lot of distance to cover and expect everyone to get shot or stopped specially when we're talking about 100 plus men who know their best chance for survival is to reach cover or kill the enemy that is shooting at them. [ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

Whoever it is at BTS that is working so late tonight, thank you, thank you, thank you and my eyes thank you too... [ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: [QB]Grazing fire is fundamental - and it is 100% not represented in CM. CM does represent a 'beaten zone' by allowing other (nearby) units to get hit by the incoming MG fire, but there is in no way shape or form any means of using MGs in CM in a manner that does justice to the MGs ability to use grazing fire.QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, now I'll be serious. My understanding of grazing fire is a stream of bullets going across the enemy line of advance that has chance to hit someone that happens to walk/run/sit into them. I still maintain that this is not a special ability of MGs. Anyone firing any small arm across the line of advance creates this same effect. As I stated in my earlier post 10 guys with rifles could easily put 200 rounds per minute across the line of advance plus they could also aim at specific targets down the line. Don't you agree that this would have the same affect as one or two MGs? Perhaps it should be coded into CM2, but if it is it should apply to all small arms fire. Any squad along a bullets path should have a chance to be hit or suppressed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dima: I am a programmer myself (Java) that's why I ask. And I never asked about release date, only some plans or features. And preferably from the source, not speculations and rumours by everyone else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That was meant as a light-hearted comment about the software industry. Sorry if I put you out.

"Most of my CM MG experiences have been similar to those experiments posted by Ron. They show that MGs are plenty powerful weapons when used correctly (ideally, with interlocking fields of fire, etc.). I think the firepower is pretty much exactly right, and I think that the suppression level of the troops in the open is modelled about right, too." This is exactly my opinion too. I think some of the posters have been tainted by too many years of playing Squad Leader. LOL!

Besides anyone who has been a programmer will tell you that setting a deadline is the worst thing you can do! HE! HE! If you want a complete and low bug count CM2 let them have whatever time it takes to get it done. Believe it or not most of us programmers are perfectionists. The bugs come when products are released before the programmers say they are ready.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: I havent read through this whole thread so ignore me if this has been mentioned. Or just ignore me if you like.. I have had 30 cal MG fired over my head and unless you were part of an organized assault, you get low quick.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, I can buy that someone would get "low" quick when fired at by an MG, but wouldn't someone firing a rifle at you also make you get "low"? As I pointed out in my previous posts I'm having a hard time understanding why these effects should be limited or enhanced for MGs. Do really think you could tell or care what type of weapon is firing at you? If bullets are whizzing around everywhere I'm sure I wouldn't care what was firing them. [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]