Battle Breaker Bugs and Such

[Erwin]

Am pretty sure that in CM1, inf units only fired when the fire would be effective. Effective took into account (appropriate) range as well as the "exposure" of the inf targets.

So, this should not be an issue one would hope.

[Apocal]

Inability to call for another fire mission on the exact same bit of terrain I just hit with a barrage. Not really a battle breaker in most cases, but annoying and moderately ahistorical.

Am pretty sure that in CM1, inf units only fired when the fire would be effective. Effective took into account (appropriate) range as well as the "exposure" of the inf targets.

So, this should not be an issue one would hope.

I remember in CMBO, they'd gleefully run themselves into LOW status firing at anything they could potentially kill. Someone mentioned this was an easy way to game the AI, hang out at long range until their weapons were dry, then advance. Not that it doesn't still work in CMx2, except in the case of HMGs.

[Redwolf]

Am pretty sure that in CM1, inf units only fired when the fire would be effective. Effective took into account (appropriate) range as well as the "exposure" of the inf targets.

So, this should not be an issue one would hope.

Yeah but in CMx1 the ammo for the whole squad was abstracted. So a squad with 1x LMG and 8x SMG would fire all day long and it was blindly assumed that the ammo fired is LMG ammo. So you waste your ammo and the SMGs will be out later, however at least you get something in return, which is LMG effects on the enemy.

In CMx2 it seems to be SOP that when one weapon in a squad fires, all do, which is realistic in some manners. However, in the extreme example of a squad having a LMG and SMGs the line into unrealism has been crossed. And now there is no abstraction so SMG ammo is wasted in exchange for nothing.

This is another case where the increase in detail in CMx2 misses required additional functionality that is still missing. In this case the ability to have parts of a squad fire and the others don't. You can't have one (the de-abstraction) without the other (proper control or proper SOP). CMx1's solution looks hacky but works OK in practice but now it's not working OK anymore.

[slysniper]

The smg's should be a program fix that can happen I would think.

All they need is a Max range that they should not be able to fire at once the target is at that range.

The mortar squads have that ability right now, so you guys are wrong when you think it is not in the game. Other team members fire when the Mortar is not allowed to if it is under or over it's target ranges. They just need that added to SMG's and that should improve the game plenty.

Now the real question, what should that distance be 100M , 120M ???

[akd]

In CMx2 it seems to be SOP that when one weapon in a squad fires, all do, which is realistic in some manners. However, in the extreme example of a squad having a LMG and SMGs the line into unrealism has been crossed.

That is not the case.

[Sgt Joch]

On SMGs, has anyone noticed a problem with long range fire since 2.01?

I did a lot of testing on MG behavior for 2.01 and soldiers equipped with SMGs seemed to wait until enemy troops were fairly close before opening up.

[Redwolf]

It looks like they use maximum theoretical range instead of some effective range when somebody else in the squad is already firing.

So that creates a problem for mixed squads.

[Sgt Joch]

It looks like they use maximum theoretical range instead of some effective range when somebody else in the squad is already firing.

So that creates a problem for mixed squads.

ok, we'll look into it.

[Guest]

Before this thread gains another 40 pages and people start wondering where the heck we are, a) yes I'm reading this but may not comment on everything and thanks Sgt Joch. This sounds like a perfect report for you guys to check out and bring to us if things look amiss.

I would like to add here that "when somebody else in the squad is firing" is often the same situation as "when the squad is feeling threatened from some direction" at which point men joining in with middling-probability-of-hit shots doesn't seem so incredibly dumb. We'll be happy to look at it if there's an identifiable problem, but this is definitely a fuzzy area with a heap of variable factors.

[poesel]

One small thing: could 'target light' please be of some other colour than 'quick'? They are different but very easily confused. Please make them more distinguishable.

[Baneman]

And while on the subject of colour ... is there any chance of the Covered Arc being made less ... psychedelic ? Or just an outline a la CM1 ?

Is it even on BF's radar or on the ( lengthy, I know ) to-do list ?

It may not seem like much, but to check terrain, you often have to deselect the unit, then reselect and so forth. It's not a deal breaker by any means, but it is annoying and adds to the number of clicks and so forth.

[Nelson 1812]

And while on the subject of colour ... is there any chance of the Covered Arc being made less ... psychedelic ? Quote Baneman

Your right there!

[John Kettler]

Redwolf,

Not only was it a single road, but one elevated well above the polders, which I believe were very wet, in addition to the road's shoulders being very steep. This confined the advance to that road and that road only over much of XXX Corps' drive. Thus, the Germans had but to keep nailing the lead tanks to thoroughly jam things up until such time as the problem gun could be dealt with, the wrecks cleared, the serials sorted out, before the advance could resume. For much of the push, XXX Corps could bring to bear in Direct Fire only the guns of a few tanks. Would further bet the antitank guns were dug in and camouflaged. Also hard to spot when they fired--much harder than in the game!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Georgie,

Battle Breaker Bugs sound like something out of Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS, but I take your point. Loved the gun competition! First saw that done outdoors on a "60 Minutes" piece as a kid. Was awed!

I agree with JasonC that towed guns are being deprived of real historical movement capabilities and that this is hurting them in the game. I would say this is over and above all the other problems they have relative to the real ones. Here, for example, is an le IG 18 in re-enacted urban battle. Note how fast it can be repositioned.

And here we see WW II Germans doing "impossible" things with the Pak 36, 38 and 40.

And wonder of wonders! Figure 38 here shows a German 75mm gun position from the Eastern Front. It features a garage for the gun and a ramp up which the gun is trundled, muzzle first, into position once the barrage is over.

http://www.allworldwars.com/German%20Field%20Fortifications%20on%20the%20Eastern%20Front.html

Will BFC ever bother modeling German smokeless/flashless powder? The contemporary accounts indicate this was a problem from German MGs up. These same accounts repeatedly talk about how difficult it was for American tankers to spot German tanks and antitank guns which fired.

JasonC,

I believe some people split their squads into teams, with the SMGs forming the assault element and therefore easy to control their engagements via a group Cover Arc. I've learned the hard way to do the same with Bazookas and Panzerschrecks.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Kanonier Reichmann]

On the subject of SMG's firing well outside their effective range, I think it would be a mistake to have a carte blanche restriction on all SMG's to only fire at under 120 metres (say) due to the different levels of effectiveness of various models.

The Italian Baretta M38, Russian PPSh-41 & Finnish Suomi SMG's all had effective ranges well over 150 metres due to their higher muzzle velocity, with the Italian & Russian weapons allegedly effective out to 250 metres. This is in contrast to the Thompson and Sten SMG's which had effective ranges of 50 metres & 100 metres respectively.

Therefore, any restriction on what range an SMG should open up should definitely be dependant on the model of the weapon rather than some arbitrary figure that lumps all SMG's together.

Regards

KR

[Michael Emrys]

Good point. Of course, this makes the programmers' job more complicated.

Michael

[Baneman]

Good point. Of course, this makes the programmers' job more complicated.

Michael

We..ell, not necessarily - there's have to be code to give a maximum range for the weapon to be used, but as long as each weapon has a field to store the range value, all you'd have to do is change the number.

[slysniper]

On the subject of SMG's firing well outside their effective range, I think it would be a mistake to have a carte blanche restriction on all SMG's to only fire at under 120 metres (say) due to the different levels of effectiveness of various models.

The Italian Baretta M38, Russian PPSh-41 & Finnish Suomi SMG's all had effective ranges well over 150 metres due to their higher muzzle velocity, with the Italian & Russian weapons allegedly effective out to 250 metres. This is in contrast to the Thompson and Sten SMG's which had effective ranges of 50 metres & 100 metres respectively.

Therefore, any restriction on what range an SMG should open up should definitely be dependant on the model of the weapon rather than some arbitrary figure that lumps all SMG's together.

Regards

KR

VERY GOOD POINT

but the real question is, what is the present game doing as of 2.01 and what should each weapon be allowed to go to in range in the game.

[Guest]

We track and use a huge amount of data for each weapon we model. No need to worry about us needing to do work to add data in - if you're talking about it, we've probably got it.

The idea that there's some hard within-a-meter "effective range" that applies in-game for a particular weapon in all situations is spurious at best, though. It varies, based on experience of the firer, intent of the fire, and weather conditions, just to name a few of the relevant variables, and that's just for *effectiveness*. There are also a heap of soft factors that might make a soldier shoot with little regard for the precise optimal range for his weapon.

These calculations, therefore, are necessarily fuzzy in the engine. There's no one hard number for "effective range", because no one hard number exists that takes into account all these variables, and we wouldn't be simulating warfare very well if we attempted to impose one. We can certainly take a look at reported issues, though.

[Georgie]

Georgie,

Battle Breaker Bugs sound like something out of Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS, but I take your point. Loved the gun competition! First saw that done outdoors on a "60 Minutes" piece as a kid. Was awed!

Regards,

John Kettler

Good morning John, I read all of Heinleins' books many years ago, some phrase of his must have been lurking in my subconscious. Glad you liked the video. There was a video that I watched years ago on gun movement competition that involved , if I remember correctly, cadets from a Southern US military school. They moved the guns over obstacles at a run. Wasn't a modern AT gun but it did show what could be done with teamwork and a well trained crew. The Germans in the videos that you linked were very impressive. Shows that they could move 50 and 75 mm AT guns pretty fast over rough ground and they moved them wheels first.

[Badger73]

We track and use a huge amount of data for each weapon we model. No need to worry about us needing to do work to add data in - if you're talking about it, we've probably got it.

The idea that there's some hard within-a-meter "effective range" that applies in-game for a particular weapon in all situations is spurious at best, though. It varies, based on experience of the firer, intent of the fire, and weather conditions, just to name a few of the relevant variables, and that's just for *effectiveness*. There are also a heap of soft factors that might make a soldier shoot with little regard for the precise optimal range for his weapon.

These calculations, therefore, are necessarily fuzzy in the engine. There's no one hard number for "effective range", because no one hard number exists that takes into account all these variables, and we wouldn't be simulating warfare very well if we attempted to impose one. We can certainly take a look at reported issues, though.

Phil,

Do such soft factors include experience, training, fatigue, and morale? I think I hear you saying that the game allows Green troops to fire foolishly where Veterans would know better and hold their fire. It also sounds like nervous troops do in fact have itchy trigger fingers. If that's the case, even more kudos to you guys! Thank you.

[Georgie]

Not knowing which building to occupy. Hear we go again, in CM1 a building was labeled "light" or "heavy" so you stayed out of the light ones and made a bee line to the heavy ones. Can't do that in CMBN, yet-maybe.

[Guest]

Phil,

Do such soft factors include experience, training, fatigue, and morale? I think I hear you saying that the game allows Green troops to fire foolishly where Veterans would know better and hold their fire. It also sounds like nervous troops do in fact have itchy trigger fingers.

The TacAI takes a huge number of factors into account when making decisions. Experience, training, fatigue and morale factor into many of those decisions, certainly.

If that's the case, even more kudos to you guys! Thank you.

Well, we try. In my case there's quite a bit of "shoulders of giants" going on though. Charles is a really, really fantastic programmer.

[Erwin]

Given this is a computer program and there are numbers programmed in for everything, should there not be a relatively simple calculation regarding firepower at x range, taking into account y cover and z target type, and calculate whether it's worth firing.

[Guest]

Given this is a computer program and there are numbers programmed in for everything, should there not be a relatively simple calculation regarding firepower at x range, taking into account y cover and z target type, and calculate whether it's worth firing.

No, not really. It's not simple at all. Like I said above a large number of variables factor into it. We're not just modeling weapons, we're modeling psychology, and weather, among other things. Those aren't just a handful of numbers in a simple equation, they're separately modeled systems that influence each other in non-obvious ways.

Like I said, we're happy to look into potential issues, but this is not a simple problem / simple solution part of the game.