pamak1970

Yes I understand that, best way I've heard it described, that I understood, is the golf course sprinkler. Though it's aimed at the perimeter of the arc, anything between gets wet. I'm not arguing with you, just thinking outloud that perhaps your understanding of what the game currently models is a little bit off. do not worry about arguing. The idea of a forum at least in my opinion is to be used as an area of brainstorming which might give ideas to designers for future developments. For this it is nessesary to both present ideas and argue about them. For example, yankeedog made some good observations regarding possible unrealistic results. Our difference is mainly that if i have to choose between the unrealistic results under the current engine and the unrealistic results of the method i propose, i will choose the second. I beleive that in this kind of modelling i discuss with you, there will be fewer opportunities for unrealistic effects and even in these cases it will not be so obvious to the observer as i explained in the previous post. I think under the current model ,it is very often the case where you see that your LOF passes over enemy units without affecting them either by killing or pinning them. On the other hand ,i am not also eager to see grazing fire effect up to maximum range of a MG. After all even in real life you can not do that since at long ranges the fire is nessesarily plunging. It is also nessesary to have the ability to initiate overhead fire to cover your troops during an assault,assuming that there is friendly-fire effect. Imagine for example that you have a base fire on a hill covering an assault against an enemy position in front. If grazing effect applies without restrictions,then your troops will be affected by it,inspite the fact that in real life conditions this fire would be overhead. On the other hand i beleive that there is a compomise,which will lead to the simlation of grazing fire,without making the game less realistic overall,although it is true that some current unrealistic effects will vanish and some others will appear sporadically. For example, in real life according to some information i gathered from internet, you might have a "grazing range" between 400-700 meters. Longer ranges demand a high angle for the shooter,leading to a a higher trajectory which will exceed the height of a man along its path. Tragectories within 400 meters will be relative low and they will fly all the way up to the end below the height of a man. Of course we assume that there are not certain substancial elevation differences between the shooter and the target or along the path of the trajectory. It is possible that even in some cases where there is even elevation difference betwen the target and the shooter, grazing effect is not affected significantly. Think for example, that both shooter and target are on the same hill side with the shooter firing towards the foot of the hill. The same might be true regarding the topography of the area the trajectory crosses. For example, small obstacles or small variations of elevation of up to 1 meter for example, do not negate the effect of grazing fire,since the height of a man exceeds these obstacles and is still vulnerable to bullets . So let say that we adopt a grazing fire for up to a range of 300 meters. How often do you think will be the case where multiple enemy units inside this distance are BOTH visible to the MG and at the same time they are seperated by such an elevation distance ,which will make it unrealistic to have all of them affected by a single LOF? Keep in mind ,that enemy units DO HAVE to be visible before they are affected by the grazing fire. So, if for example you have a defence in reverse slope, grazing fire will not affect unobserved units on the opposite side. The same is true if any large obstacle like a tree or a house or even a rise of elevation of 2 meters for example protects the enemy unit from LOS and therefore from LOF as well. I will put it in another way. Try to make a CM map where 3 enemy units are 1 up to 300 meters from a MG 2. all are visible to the MG 3. they are seperated by such an elevation difference,where real life geometry can not justify a single trajectory from the firing MG affecting all of them. It will not be so easy to find a realistic topography where all the above conditions are met. Thoughts?

I agree with the first observation that if there is substantial different elevation between squads, you can not expect a single LOF affect all of them. On the other hand ,i beleive that this will be rare at least regarding squads inside platoons. Meaning that squads of a platoon's formation occupy a relative small area and it will be rare to find substancial elevation difference in such a confined space. Even in cases with a substancial elevation difference, the end result will not be unrealistic according to my opinion. The end result will be similar to the one you described under the current engine where a MG can shift fire from one unit to another. So ,the result that the player will see on map will not be very much different from today's engine. The only difference will be that the same result which happens during the current engine,will be accomplished faster and with fewer ammunition under the new engine. So, in some cases where there will be a substancial elevation difference, the MG will act in a more powerful way. I am personally willing to accept this as a trade of simulating crossfire and grazing fire. Regarding the second case where you have obstacles -brushes, i do not see why you consider this a problem. The engine will not decide to engage targets just because they are along the same LOF. Think of the case where 4 different squads are along the same LOF. The engine will "break" this LOF in 4 parts. creating 4 different LOFs with each one being one above the other. The first LOF will start from MG and end to the first squad. The second LOF will start from MG -pass over the first squad and end to the second squad. Same with the rest. So if for example there is brush in front of the second squad, then the segment of LOF regarding the second squad,will not be resolved. The segment of LOF regarding the first squad can still be reolved as long as the brush is after the first squad. Make sense? [ January 26, 2005, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

I agree with the first observation that if there is substantial different elevation between squads, you can not expect a single LOF affect all of them. On the other hand ,i beleive that this will be rare at least regarding squads inside platoons. Meaning that squads of a platoon's formation occupy a relative small area and it will be rare to find substancial elevation difference in such a confined space. Even in cases with a substancial elevation difference, the end result will not be unrealistic according to my opinion. The end result will be similar to the one you described under the current engine where a MG can shift fire from one unit to another. So ,the result that the player will see on map will not be very much different from today's engine. The only difference will be that the same result which happens during the current engine,will be accomplished faster and with fewer ammunition under the new engine. So, in some cases where there will be a substancial elevation difference, the MG will act in a more powerful way. I am personally willing to accept this as a trade of simulating crossfire and grazing fire. Regarding the second case where you have obstacles -brushes, i do not see why you consider this a problem. The engine will not decide to engage targets just because they are along the same LOF. Think of the case where 4 different squads are along the same LOF. The engine will "break" this LOF in 4 parts. creating 4 different LOFs with each one being one above the other. The first LOF will start from MG and end to the first squad. The second LOF will start from MG -pass over the first squad and end to the second squad. Same with the rest. So if for example there is brush in front of the second squad, then the segment of LOF regarding the second squad,will not be resolved. The segment of LOF regarding the first squad can still be reolved as long as the brush is after the first squad. Make sense? [ January 26, 2005, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

For me the problem is not the one you mention Yankeedog. First of all let me clarify that i am not dealing with the beaten zone but with the dangerous zone in general which includes mainly the space outside of the beaten zone. The current type of effect inside beaten zone is not a problem according to my opinion. Anyway, in my opinion the issue is not dead space. Think for example the following. Let say that the LOF in the new engine passes over or near over 4 different squads. Now , according to the old engine, you can not target simultaneously all of these 4 squads,even though they are along the same LOF. Still, you can target them seperetaely in 4 different turns. During each turn , the engine calculates if the chosen target is visible. If there are not obstacles and the target is visible,then the LOF inflicts certain casualties,suppression and so on. I envision the new engine to be able to do this "multiple targeting" in a single turn applying results simultaneously to all targets. In order to do this, you do not need to change the way the engine "sees" terrain features and visibility or dead space. The only issue ,i do not know about is speed,since the new engine will execute 4 times the amount of procedures it executes in current state (4 times cause in this example we have 4 different squads affected by the same LOF). On the other hand i am thinking that we have now processors with higher speed, plus there will be not too many machine guns in any given scenario, plus it will be often the case where a LOF will affect less than 4 units . I think it will be reasonable to expect that the common situation will be to have two units affected simultaneoulsy along the same LOF,rather than more. That is why i think that this approach might work

For me the problem is not the one you mention Yankeedog. First of all let me clarify that i am not dealing with the beaten zone but with the dangerous zone in general which includes mainly the space outside of the beaten zone. The current type of effect inside beaten zone is not a problem according to my opinion. Anyway, in my opinion the issue is not dead space. Think for example the following. Let say that the LOF in the new engine passes over or near over 4 different squads. Now , according to the old engine, you can not target simultaneously all of these 4 squads,even though they are along the same LOF. Still, you can target them seperetaely in 4 different turns. During each turn , the engine calculates if the chosen target is visible. If there are not obstacles and the target is visible,then the LOF inflicts certain casualties,suppression and so on. I envision the new engine to be able to do this "multiple targeting" in a single turn applying results simultaneously to all targets. In order to do this, you do not need to change the way the engine "sees" terrain features and visibility or dead space. The only issue ,i do not know about is speed,since the new engine will execute 4 times the amount of procedures it executes in current state (4 times cause in this example we have 4 different squads affected by the same LOF). On the other hand i am thinking that we have now processors with higher speed, plus there will be not too many machine guns in any given scenario, plus it will be often the case where a LOF will affect less than 4 units . I think it will be reasonable to expect that the common situation will be to have two units affected simultaneoulsy along the same LOF,rather than more. That is why i think that this approach might work

Is that 100% correct? I was under the impression that even though MG fire now is modeled firing at a point, there is some effect to the immediate surrounding area. </font>

Is that 100% correct? I was under the impression that even though MG fire now is modeled firing at a point, there is some effect to the immediate surrounding area. </font>

IIRC "grazing fire" is applied to any fire where the trajectory height is low enough to hit a standing man. A similiar defintion once used to be used to define "close range", i. e. that range at which the trajectory of a bullet fired by a prone firer would not rise more than six feet above the ground. This definition gives some pretty long "close range" numbers, like 600 yards for the Lee-Enfield firing .303 ball. From memory, the British Army's circa-1970s terminology divided the trajectory into sections. That part of the trajectory where the bullet stayed above head height was known as the "safe zone". The point at which the bullet descended to head height was called the "first catch". The point at which the cone of fire first intersected with the ground was called the "first graze", and the zone from first catch to first graze was called the "dangerous area". The elliptical area over which bullets were striking the ground was known as the "beaten zone". Obviously there was a "dangerous area" from the muzzle of the weapon to the point at which the trajectory rose above head height, and if fire was being conducted at "close range" (using the definition above) there would be no safe zone. It's all a good deal clearer with a diagram. Comments and corrections welcome -- this is one of the things I can't find an authoritative source for, and I'm speaking from memory of a training film on the GPMG. All the best, John. </font>

IIRC "grazing fire" is applied to any fire where the trajectory height is low enough to hit a standing man. A similiar defintion once used to be used to define "close range", i. e. that range at which the trajectory of a bullet fired by a prone firer would not rise more than six feet above the ground. This definition gives some pretty long "close range" numbers, like 600 yards for the Lee-Enfield firing .303 ball. From memory, the British Army's circa-1970s terminology divided the trajectory into sections. That part of the trajectory where the bullet stayed above head height was known as the "safe zone". The point at which the bullet descended to head height was called the "first catch". The point at which the cone of fire first intersected with the ground was called the "first graze", and the zone from first catch to first graze was called the "dangerous area". The elliptical area over which bullets were striking the ground was known as the "beaten zone". Obviously there was a "dangerous area" from the muzzle of the weapon to the point at which the trajectory rose above head height, and if fire was being conducted at "close range" (using the definition above) there would be no safe zone. It's all a good deal clearer with a diagram. Comments and corrections welcome -- this is one of the things I can't find an authoritative source for, and I'm speaking from memory of a training film on the GPMG. All the best, John. </font>

Hello everybody. I follow the discussion about the new engine and i have the following comments . I noticed that LOS and LOF will change and i am wondering if the new engine will permit a more realistic presentation of machine-gun fire. With the current engine ,there is not any advantage if machine guns create crossfire ,by firing diagonally in front of the defence positions. In fact many times ,this type of fire is less effective compared to having MG firing directly ahead, cause in the latter case ,the range to target is lower. Still, the advantage of firing a flanking MG shot, is very high since it maximizes casualties . Think about an enemy deployed formation advancing towards the defender. The formation will have troops spreaded inside an area of a parallelogram. Now imagine the trajectory of a MG which fires directly ahead against an enemy formation . The trajectory INSIDE the parallelogram of the enemy formation has a certain length. Try to imagine now the trajectory of a MG fire which "penetrates" the formation diagonally. The trajectory in this case is much longer compared to the first one. Longer trajectory which crosses a larger portion of the enemy formation during a longer time ,maximizes chances to hit "something" ALONG the path. This is much more important for MGs compared to range accuracy since MG do not aim targets with precision anyway. The current engine concentrates the effects of MG fire burst to the selected target, ignoring possible additional targets in front or behind it. I beleive that in order to simulate better MG fire, it IS NOT NESSESARY to calculate accuratelly trajectories. All is needed is to apply results of fire against ALL targets along the Line of fire. I was reading in other posts that in the new engine, a unit (tank) will block LOS and LOF against friendly units behind it. This is really good news. I just hope that it will not be the same with infantry units behind other friendly infantry and enemy MG fire . I also hope that MG fire will have multiple effects against more than one targets along the line of fire. Especially inside the "sweeping fire- range". I am not sure if i use the correct English term but i am talking about the range where the height of the trajectory does not exceed the height of a man. (In contrast ,when you aim a target at the maximum range, the trajectory will have to be high enough in order to reach the target ,which means that at a certain area around half the distance of the maximum range, it will pass over other enemy targets ) Again, i point that there is no need for calculating this trajectory. Simplifications will work fine ,by defining the sweeping-fire range of a MG as a certain percentage of its maximum range . When a MG aims a target inside this range, the LOF will affect every other target along the LOF. When a MG fires near the maximum range, the LOF will not affect additional targets located around the middle of the distance. The effect of distance to the firepower can still be a factor. So at the end , we can have a MG acheiving a LOF against an enemy formation, affecting multiple targets alongs this LOF, with diminishing effects as the distance between MG and these targets increases. Additionally, if the "prime" target of the fire is inside the "sweeping fire range" then the LOF will affect all targets BOTH BEFORE and AFTER the prime target along it and UP to the distance of the "sweeping fire range". If the "prime" target is towards the maximum range ,the LOF will not affect additional targets AFTER the "prime" one. It will still affect other enemy units along the LOF BEFORE the "prime" target provided that they are not located near the middle of the length of the LOF Any comments? Are my thoughts logical both from a military point of view and computer programming ? [ January 26, 2005, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

Hello everybody. I follow the discussion about the new engine and i have the following comments . I noticed that LOS and LOF will change and i am wondering if the new engine will permit a more realistic presentation of machine-gun fire. With the current engine ,there is not any advantage if machine guns create crossfire ,by firing diagonally in front of the defence positions. In fact many times ,this type of fire is less effective compared to having MG firing directly ahead, cause in the latter case ,the range to target is lower. Still, the advantage of firing a flanking MG shot, is very high since it maximizes casualties . Think about an enemy deployed formation advancing towards the defender. The formation will have troops spreaded inside an area of a parallelogram. Now imagine the trajectory of a MG which fires directly ahead against an enemy formation . The trajectory INSIDE the parallelogram of the enemy formation has a certain length. Try to imagine now the trajectory of a MG fire which "penetrates" the formation diagonally. The trajectory in this case is much longer compared to the first one. Longer trajectory which crosses a larger portion of the enemy formation during a longer time ,maximizes chances to hit "something" ALONG the path. This is much more important for MGs compared to range accuracy since MG do not aim targets with precision anyway. The current engine concentrates the effects of MG fire burst to the selected target, ignoring possible additional targets in front or behind it. I beleive that in order to simulate better MG fire, it IS NOT NESSESARY to calculate accuratelly trajectories. All is needed is to apply results of fire against ALL targets along the Line of fire. I was reading in other posts that in the new engine, a unit (tank) will block LOS and LOF against friendly units behind it. This is really good news. I just hope that it will not be the same with infantry units behind other friendly infantry and enemy MG fire . I also hope that MG fire will have multiple effects against more than one targets along the line of fire. Especially inside the "sweeping fire- range". I am not sure if i use the correct English term but i am talking about the range where the height of the trajectory does not exceed the height of a man. (In contrast ,when you aim a target at the maximum range, the trajectory will have to be high enough in order to reach the target ,which means that at a certain area around half the distance of the maximum range, it will pass over other enemy targets ) Again, i point that there is no need for calculating this trajectory. Simplifications will work fine ,by defining the sweeping-fire range of a MG as a certain percentage of its maximum range . When a MG aims a target inside this range, the LOF will affect every other target along the LOF. When a MG fires near the maximum range, the LOF will not affect additional targets located around the middle of the distance. The effect of distance to the firepower can still be a factor. So at the end , we can have a MG acheiving a LOF against an enemy formation, affecting multiple targets alongs this LOF, with diminishing effects as the distance between MG and these targets increases. Additionally, if the "prime" target of the fire is inside the "sweeping fire range" then the LOF will affect all targets BOTH BEFORE and AFTER the prime target along it and UP to the distance of the "sweeping fire range". If the "prime" target is towards the maximum range ,the LOF will not affect additional targets AFTER the "prime" one. It will still affect other enemy units along the LOF BEFORE the "prime" target provided that they are not located near the middle of the length of the LOF Any comments? Are my thoughts logical both from a military point of view and computer programming ? [ January 26, 2005, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

hello everybody. I am not posting often in this forum but i follow the conversations often. The reason of this post is Hoolaman and his idea of "command zones" expressed in another thread. I find this concept very interesting but i still do not know from the discussion until now , if it "on the right track" according to the ideas of the designers or if it does not fit in their philosophy . I have noticed that Steve did not post any comments regarding this concept

Greetings everyone. I am new in this kind of game.I would like to ask a question knowing from the beginning that the answer is complicated Anyway, i try to figure out about the minimum required ratio between an attacker and defender in order an attack can have reasonable chances to succeed in CMBB. Count and compare similar units.(infantry battalion to infantry battalion for example) Another case is when units are not similar (tank battalion against infantry one) Another case is when you have a group of forces against an enemy group (infantry battalion with artillery support against opponent unit with artillery support. I would like to ask if based on your experience you have certain norms established about ratios? Do you have also a certain method to add the combat firepower and compare it (ratio) against the enemy one? What about when someone is stronger in artillery byt weeker in infantry strength? i ask cause i have found from a research i did that the US college for staff had established certain procedures to calculate fighting power of a force and compare it to a Soviet one, during cold war period.Although of course the procedure was just theory based on assumptions and was not accepted as valid from many,still it gave a guidance for commanders. What are your assumptions about ratios,based in your experience?

does anybody know here about steel beasts?It is a tank simulator game but it is also a game where you can assume command of up to a task force unit.Although not fancy in graphics and without many elements that combat mission includes,it seems to me that it uses a better ballistics programme.Plus the tools a player has as a commander and which are based on boolean logic(if-then conditions),is the best thing i have ever seen in tactical war games. I am not expert in computers but i was thinking that CMAK could do better regarding ballistics.

since my english is not perfect,What do you mean by borg spotting?

hello everyone, i am very new and with little experience regarding combat mission games.I want to point something that i was hoping it could be included in the improvements in CMAK.I was hoping that it could be simulated through an algorithm the effect of friendly fire on units,and i am talking specifically about machine gun file.This would restrict players from having machine guns directly behind frindly units and firing supporting fire through them towards enemy positions.What i was thinking was a kind of algorithm which would minimize the fire power of supporting machine guns when the line of fire passes near a friendly unit-simulating the restriction that the operators of the machine gun have to pay attention to the presence of the friendly unit.I would also like to see a morale check algorithm for the friendly infantry forward and even friendly casualties in random.This would force players to use proper tactics for the placement of machine guns. [ November 30, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]