a test of automatic weapons

[poesel]

It has often been posted here that automatic weapons were too effective. Especially the goose line the pixeltroopers often creates lots of unecessary deaths.

 

I had a hunch that the root of the problem is not in the modelling of the weapons, trajectories or somesuch but in the moment of death.

A dead soldier provides concealment but no cover. So - lets have a soldier be hit by a burst from an automatic weapon. The first bullet hits and CM decides he is dead. From here it is guessing: the now dead soldier provides no cover and the next bullets from the burst can pass through the body as if it were air much to the detriment of the soldier directly behind him. He may be hit or killed.

In real life the first soldier could have been hit by several bullets before falling down and so shielding his comrade behind him.

 

Test:

 

1) we have to establish if CM models overpenetration. If it does it would be nearly impossible to test the next step as there is no way to discern between overpenetration and the 'ghost' soldier effect mentioned above.

 

2) find events were at least two soldiers are killed by one burst at the same time

 

 

Problem:

 

The 3D view is not an exact representation of the actual bullets. But that a shot or burst has been fired or the death of a soldier are all events that are discenible.

 

Setup:

 

The usual gun range. Initial distance is 300m, firing starts at 150m. All units are elite fanatics. Attackers are always Russian rifle squads with tigh CA.

 

 

 

First test:

 

The defenders are 50% German sniper teams (=one man team). I tested 9 lanes and I didn't have a single incident where a shot killed more than a single soldier. Even when they were literally on top of each other.

Examples:

 

 

or:

 

 

 

Second test:

 

The defenders are now Russian scout teams at 50%. Half of them are one man, the other two man teams. Here I found several incidents were one burst killed two men.

Examples:

 

 

 

or:

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion:

My assumption looks right and would be an explanation of the effects seen above. The combination of goose line and ghost soldier lead to more deaths through burst fire than in real life.

Of course only Charles knows if this is right and if can or will be fixed.

[womble]

Is it safe to assume that the scout teams are uniformly armed with some kind of SMG? If that's the case, it's certainly fair enough to say that the sniper rifle's bullet is more likely IRL to overpenetrate at a given range, and your test isn't showing any incidence of that.

 

It's also fair to say, I think, that the "dead man = thin air for the next bullet" thing compensates for the lack of modelling of overpenetration in the case of rifle calibre automatic weapons. By which I mean that an MG42 burst, say, should have a chance of one "streak of light" dropping more than one body at a time if they're lined up like that (because a given burst is likely to have a bullet exit the first target with lethal energy). Similarly, at close range, so should an SMG burst, though the chance ought arguably to be less in comparison. So it's arguable that what's undermodelled is the single rifle-calibre shot, at most ranges, and what's overmodelled is the SMG at the end of its effective ranges where you would start to expect fewer instances of overpenetration, but where the frequency of overpenetration in-game is not reduced (because it's all an abstration). It's difficult to argue that the close range SMG is overmodelled in terms of overpenetration: military rounds aren't hollow point, and even hollow point 9mm parabellum can just about get through a torso in the unlikely case it doesn't hit any bone; we don't know quite what the distribution of bullets in and around any given "streak" is (it seems to me that you don't get a tracer streak per bullet) so some of the apparent overpenetrations might be "near misses" of the first target which slip "between arm and body", so to speak, to get to the next guy in the conga line and do him a mischief.

 

Still, it certainly emphasises that it is inadvisable to have your men string out into lines advancing directly at the enemy like that, even if it takes a mite more micromanagement.

[poesel]

Is it safe to assume that the scout teams are uniformly armed with some kind of SMG? If that's the case, it's certainly fair enough to say that the sniper rifle's bullet is more likely IRL to overpenetrate at a given range, and your test isn't showing any incidence of that.

 

Yes, the scout teams all had SMGs. Mostly PPSh and some of the others which I can't look up right now.

 

It's also fair to say, I think, that the "dead man = thin air for the next bullet" thing compensates for the lack of modelling of overpenetration in the case of rifle calibre automatic weapons. By which I mean that an MG42 burst, say, should have a chance of one "streak of light" dropping more than one body at a time if they're lined up like that (because a given burst is likely to have a bullet exit the first target with lethal energy). Similarly, at close range, so should an SMG burst, though the chance ought arguably to be less in comparison. So it's arguable that what's undermodelled is the single rifle-calibre shot, at most ranges, and what's overmodelled is the SMG at the end of its effective ranges where you would start to expect fewer instances of overpenetration, but where the frequency of overpenetration in-game is not reduced (because it's all an abstration). It's difficult to argue that the close range SMG is overmodelled in terms of overpenetration: military rounds aren't hollow point, and even hollow point 9mm parabellum can just about get through a torso in the unlikely case it doesn't hit any bone;

I agree with you on over- and undermodelled. Also I should add a test where the SMGs fire near their max range to really count out overpenetration although no overpenetration for rifles at close range show that CM does not model that (for infantry).

But I don't agree on that 'compensation' thing. CM tries to model reality and so far the slight nerfing of HE blast because of the inabilty to spread out troops is the only case AFAIK where BFC has publicly stated so. If the effect described above is also intentional (and actually real) then I would like to hear the reasons.

 

we don't know quite what the distribution of bullets in and around any given "streak" is (it seems to me that you don't get a tracer streak per bullet) so some of the apparent overpenetrations might be "near misses" of the first target which slip "between arm and body", so to speak, to get to the next guy in the conga line and do him a mischief.

 

Yes, that is a fault of the test. Since the probabilty of shots 'between arm and torso' is unknown it is impossibly to rule it out with such a test.

 

Still, it certainly emphasises that it is inadvisable to have your men string out into lines advancing directly at the enemy like that, even if it takes a mite more micromanagement.

You can't totally avoid it with the tools we have. From the various discussion we had here about that subject IIRC it is even not totally unrealistic that men are prone to run behind each other.

 

[womble]

 

Also I should add a test where the SMGs fire near their max range to really count out overpenetration although no overpenetration for rifles at close range show that CM does not model that (for infantry).

 

I don't really think that's necessary. The sniper test seems to be fairly clear evidence that there is no overpenetration explicitly modelled for small arms on infantry targets. I can't conceive why Charles would consider modelling overpenetration by the lesser cartridge ahead of the more powerful, when any algorithm would be applicable to either.

 

 

 

But I don't agree on that 'compensation' thing. CM tries to model reality and so far the slight nerfing of HE blast because of the inabilty to spread out troops is the only case AFAIK where BFC has publicly stated so. If the effect described above is also intentional (and actually real) then I would like to hear the reasons.

 

I don't mean to imply that it's necessarily an intended design, more an emergent property of the design which means the cases where it would greatly increase realism to explicitly model small arms overpenetration are fewer than they would be. It's the sort of thing where a programmer could look at the end result and decide it's "good enough" for the level at which the sim is operating. Do we really care whether that single burst took out two troops because the first dead one "vanishes" from the perspecitve of following bullets rather than because a single bullet went through-and-through? I submit that we don't need to very much: men in rows get scythed down, and that's as it should be. It's well within the "error bars" of the simulation.

 

 

Yes, that is a fault of the test. Since the probabilty of shots 'between arm and torso' is unknown it is impossibly to rule it out with such a test.

I don't think it can be ruled out with any sort of test available to us, the players.

 

 

 

You can't totally avoid it with the tools we have. From the various discussion we had here about that subject IIRC it is even not totally unrealistic that men are prone to run behind each other.

 

You can strongly mitigate it though, by not advancing directly at the unsuppressed enemy, and doing so in short bounds where they don't have the chance to all get into single file. As I say, it takes a lot of micromanagement, and letting them string out into lines remains risky

[Sublime]

Poesel im quite intrigued by your test. Good work, now we see where the questions in the other thread led you. I have to also say that though it.s conjecture your idea of dead or seriously wounded infantry becoming ghost soldiers once impacted is an inspired guess, and seems to feel right to me as a possible reason we see the bursts of fire hit more than one man. Since after all this is a computer game there has to be a moment.for the computer to decide a soldier is alive then dead with the resulting changes in his effect on the field..

[womble]

The "dead unit doesn't exist any more" has been postulated (a tickle at the back of my head is trying to tell me BFC confirmed it, but that's just a vague memory and could well be wrong) before as an explanation of some through-and-through multi-kill shots by AT weapons that seem unlikely at first sight to retain enough energy having penetrated the armour on the "exit side" as well as the entry side,

[A Canadian Cat]

Eek, I don't recall anything related to AP rounds over penetrating as a result of the dead vehicle becoming a ghost as the shell passed through it. If I missed that somewhere I would love to read the posts around that.

 

Interesting discussion here BTW.

[poesel]

...

I submit that we don't need to very much: men in rows get scythed down, and that's as it should be. It's well within the "error bars" of the simulation.

...

 

To be exact: men in rows get scythed down by automatic weapons and only those.

 

 

The "dead unit doesn't exist any more" has been postulated (a tickle at the back of my head is trying to tell me BFC confirmed it, but that's just a vague memory and could well be wrong) before as an explanation of some through-and-through multi-kill shots by AT weapons that seem unlikely at first sight to retain enough energy having penetrated the armour on the "exit side" as well as the entry side,

 

IIRC there was a discussion and tests if dead soldiers would give cover. Result was that they give some concealment but no cover (as cows do )

 

Eek, I don't recall anything related to AP rounds over penetrating as a result of the dead vehicle becoming a ghost as the shell passed through it. If I missed that somewhere I would love to read the posts around that.

 

That was one of the theories. Can't be confrmed from the players side and it is such a rare event that it probably ended in the 'wontfix' bucket (if there was anything to fix in first place).

[Sublime]

Theres definitely a difference in what happens with dead vehicles as opposed to dead bodies. Dead vehicles will still get hit by incoming fire, i.ve routinely seen it. Bodies on the other hand are much less clear cut probably not least because theres no hit text for bodies

[Vanir Ausf B]

Bodies on the other hand are much less clear cut probably not least because theres no hit text for bodies

Would be a nice addition to the game. "HIT: PENETRATION SIDE CRANIUM"

[womble]

Would be a nice addition to the game. "HIT: PENETRATION SIDE CRANIUM"

In some ways that'd be ickier than having "gore" and "splatter". The cold analysis of death and maiming has a psychological impact...

[Baneman]

...

You can strongly mitigate it though, by not advancing directly at the unsuppressed enemy, and doing so in short bounds where they don't have the chance to all get into single file. As I say, it takes a lot of micromanagement, and letting them string out into lines remains risky

 

Agree here, I've learned to advance with mild zig-zag movement orders - that way even if they do end up in single-file, it's not front-on to the enemy.

 

Not necessarily unrealistic either.

[A Canadian Cat]

That's a good idea.  Also the longer the movement order is the more likely they will form the conga line so keep things sort and the stay more spread out.  But they also stop at each way point to form up again. So, it is a balancing act.

[womble]

At least when you know there are enemy up ahead, the bounds should be short and interspersed with Pause orders (and maybe Target orders too, depending) to be keeping the fire bearing down on the opposition, anyway, so the stopping isn't such a negative issue.