rocketman

The upper body of a HT gunner is about a 0,5 m2 target. At almost 300 m, was a regular soldier in WWII with a rifle without a scope able to hit that consistently? Anyone have data or source to confirm or dismiss?

If that is the case with the game engine, I'd like BFC to confirm that. Otherwise it is an assumption I don't really believe in. The map is completely flat, but the engine simulates undulations of 1 m over long distances so that isn't the fact here. We can place bushes and even brush on the map, none of which exists here so there shouldn't be any "invisible ones". If there was foilage I'd agree to a degree, without a single tree nearby I tend to disagree. That a soldier that walk and then run would pause to take cover every now and then, then surely they wouldn't advance at a constant speed. And also it is my impression that the engine does simulate bullit hits by the pixel, so if what we see is different than what counts, I'm confused... But I might be completely wrong, but in that case I have the wrong view of the game engine and what goes on under the hood.

First preliminary test with German HTs show that at 300 m vs rifles the gun shield is a life saver. The same concentrated fire as in screenshots above was noted, lots of them hitting the shield and harmlessly bounced off. Out of 4 HTs, no gunner was killed during 1 min of fire.

Saw this clip and thought of your comics Bud, check it out (link in Swedish, but just start the video) it is about the origin of "the comic book font": http://tjock.se/sinnet/art/354332/ursprunget_till_typsnittet_i_s/

This is the place for all mods now as BFC plans to rework their webpage and close the repository. I'm not sure what CMSF mods have been migrated yet (I don't own the game) but should in time. Didn't see your link at first.

Here you go: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/

Here are some of my thoughts on snowy uniforms and gear. I must say I don't envy the task of making this realistic as there is now way to make a layer of snow look thick as the textures are 2D. Must have been hard and here are some suggestions on how to make it even better. From my experience snow sticks to rugged textures better than slick ones which would mean more snow on greatcoats than regular uniforms. It tends to stick in folds and creases and to anything that "sticks out". Arms usually as you walk or run, shoulders and on top of gear especially backpacks, water flasks, ammo pouches and radios. If you wear a backpack snow would for sure stick a lot between tha backpack and your back. Not much snow would stick to helmets, unless you sit still. If very very cold, they would probably be layered with thin ice crystals as sweat and humidity from the head gets cold. I would rather see more smaller patches of snow rather than two big ones across each shoulder. Some uniforms have more of a frozen look to them with less patches which looks great for a uniform that has been wet and then more or less frozen. That kind of look is in a way more convincing as snow can't be thick due to 2D. Finally, can uniforms be tagget for weather rather than ground conditions? Snow on the ground but clear weather can suggest clean uniforms/gear while falling snow would start to accumulate on uniforms/gear. It might even be possible to tag the weather to different sets of uniforms/gear, with blizzard conditions meaning lots of snow on uniforms/gear. My 2 cents .... thanks for making them and even if you leave them at this I will probably use them.

After making three scenarios I have come to the conclusion that map making is the most fun for me and AI plans the least. Currently working on a large map for Ouren (opening stage of the Bulge) in FB and Breville St Come for BN (D-day+6) and outlines of outskirts of Messina for FI.

Consider also that the tracer screenie is from four rifles during less than a turn and not all traces are in the pic. Imagine then in a real battle situation, the gunner unbuttons and all of a sudden becomes the priority target for several squads, some at closer range, with automatic weapons, from several angles - no wonder the gunner doesn't last long Next test will be to put the HT sideways as that would make it an even bigger target. Let's see if that changes anything. Then I'll probably have a look at a german HT with gun shield. But that will be later today/tomorrow.

Ok back on topic then I decided to change the test somewhat to try what I above called the "HT hit bonus" idea. Ian's comment above that the HT and gunner are one and the same target, but when the enemy spots the gunner they direct their fire at him - made me think that the HT being a large target makes incoming fire adjust almost too well, compared to a man alone in the open. So I let the HT be stationary at 280 m and a sniper team reduced to 50% (one man) walk (so not to lie down if stationary) and eventually he starts running (can't be avoided). So he gets a bit closer than the HT but for now that has to do. This time I didn't count number of bullets to kill or time to kill, but rather how close the shots were to each target. It is not easy to capture screenshots of tracers but it got good enough. I edited in Photoshop (not perfectly good) and put tracers into one picture. The camera was behind the unit all the time but the sniper sometimes strayed off the path. Here are the pics: To me it seems like incoming fire towards the HT gunner is considerably more concentrated and "on target" than the ones aimed at the sniper. So there seems to be some kind of "HT hit bonus" in effect vs the gunner. And yes, I know it is stationary, but I saw much the same pattern in earlier tests when it moved.

Thanks Ian for an insight into the inner workings of the game. So, if I understand correctly, a unit will start to aim at the center and then gradually adjust aim which seems perfectly well and realistic. But does that mean as a unit or per soldier? That is, a single sniper will much sooner adjust his aim and hit its target (let's say afte 10 shots) rather than a five man team firing two shots each - everything else equal?

I use slow if there are enemy units that I don't want to bother too much about that would cause a "hunting" vehicle to stop.

Thanks! I'm a "snow grog" and will have a look at them. You should come to Sweden when it is -20C and 3 feet of snow, the landscape is simply stunning.

I was about to put these ideas forward as well. In my test, does the TacAI see two targets: HT and gunner and picks one? Would it be different if I set a manual Target on the HT? Might have to check for that as well. Also, is there some reason as to where the TacAI aims at a target - always at its center?

Sure, if I come across what I think might be a good photo I might do one. If you have pics you think are good - please send links.

The grass is ancle high, so that is not much of a problem and also the FO team only cowers once one is hit or the test is pretty much over. The speed of the foot soldiers is about the same as the vehicles. Them being stationary is not an option as per Ian's remark. Could try walking speed but they might cower more quickly? The auto weapons don't even enter into play at the distance that the HT gunner is killed, but I will watch for that error or eliminate them.

I will check that. My recollection on top of my head is that the HT is "dead" before 200 m mark most of the time. I'm actually thinking of ditching the other units and just test how many bullets it takes to kill a stationare HT gunner at 250 m. What would be reasonable?

The FO team keep running even with bullets wizzing by, but as noticed above - not as close as to the halftrack. I will make screenshots to show this. The HT gunner is not of higher priority than any other units as each unit is opposed by only one grenadier unit. I will look out if the amount of incoming fire differs, but if the number of bullets before "kill" is a better measure this point is moot.

Again Ian, good points that I will look into in the coming days.

I'm afraid that it doesn't look better than that at this stage. Sometimes not even 10 ...

Ran the test a few times more and the correct view on the test isn't "time to kill" but "bullets required to kill". But most of the time it still takes 10 or fewer bullets to kill the HT gunner. That is pretty good marksmanship from regular troops without scoped rifles. But perhaps more important, it is my impression at closer inspection that the aim towards the HT itself is much better/concentrated than at the FO unit which is missed by a large margin more often. Maybe this can all be caused by that a HT is easier to aim at in itself, and thereby the HT gunner becomes easier to hit "by accident" or even too easy if he is the intended target - like a "HT hit bonus". Still, the "area" of the entire HT frontal area that the gunner's upper body covers isn't that big. A comparison on hight, it is my guesstimate that the gunner is about 1-1,5 m higher up than a running soldier. From my experience at firing a rifle at a gun range at 250 m (over completely flat ground like in the test) is that I'm not sure the higher target would be that much easier to hit. The gunner always faced forward. I wonder what the test would yield with German HTs - don't they usually have a gun shield that covers more of the gunner?

Good follow-up questions Ian - I'll have a look at them.

The reason for this test was mainly to test the notion of HT gunners being "bullet magnets". Something that has been debated a lot since the release of BN and IIRC has been tweaked somewhat. BFC has also responded that halftracks were not used in combat of this scale a lot and that a HT gunner would become a priority target and get a lot of incoming fire. Both are valid points so the test is not to be seen as a critique of game design, but rather if there is an anomaly/flaw in the engine which leads to HT gunners being killed way to easily. I mean, sometimes you want to use them for suppressive fire and want to do that under a reasonable risk. They way I first intended to do the test was to compare vs a fully exposed infantry unit. The hypotesis was that a fully exposed pixeltruppen shout be hit before a HT gunner who is only half exposed while both being priority (only) targets and only taking fire from one direction/unit. The tank/TC and Jeep were included as references. The range was set to about 260 m which I figured would be a distance from which a regular rifle split squad would struggle to hit its target. And the results are... ...some interesting things. Basically each test ran almost the exact same course with small differences. It can be summed up as: Units were almost immediately spotted (which was expected), but the Jeep usually last which struck me as peculiar as its engine makes noice Units started to attract fire after just a few seconds After taking fire for some 5 sec the TC closed his hatch usually around the 10 sec mark (which seems wise) The Jeep usually lasted to about the 30 sec mark when it started to panic, changed direction or dismounted. Almost never was the driver outright killed, despite being as exposed as the HT gunner The FO team (running in a "conga line" as Bullitpoint put it) surprisingly didn't stop or cower until one pixeltruppen got hit which, if at all, happened on average around the 40 sec mark. Once the FO got killed at the same time as... ...the HT gunner however usually died at the 15-20 sec mark (not the result of "penetration" hit, but direc hit) and never lasted longer than the 30 sec mark. Neither did he sit down (can the even do that?) showing the self preserverance of the TC My preliminary conclusion on this is that there is an anomaly which causes HT gunners to become bullet magnets and die way to quickly. Of course more tests should be done, with other halftracks, but still it pretty much sums up what a lot of people have felt to be strange.

Good idea. My intention is to use this model to test a bunch of stuff and yours is definitely one to try.

All grenadiers have binocs, but since they can only fire at the unit directly ahead of them (and only spot that one), would that spotting shared info matter?