Jump to content

Hard coded SMG range limit.


MOS:96B2P

Recommended Posts

Sgt. Joch had an interesting post (link below) on Soviet SMGs having a hard coded range limit of 200 meters.  

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120480-soviet-smgs-ii/?p=1628695

 

 

This may be common knowledge to most people but it surprised me.  The Red Thunder game manual pages 68 & 69 have the effective range for the PPSh at 250 meters and the PPS-42 at 200 meters. I thought the SMGs could be used for area targets past their effective range.  They would just become less and less effective to the point where you were mostly wasting ammo.  Not the case.  They will not engage targets past 200 meters and will not follow area target orders past 200 meters.

 

I then did some experimenting with the German MP40 and the American Thompson.  Same thing.  The UI would allow the SMGs to be given a target order past 200 meters but in the playback phase the SMG troops would not fire.  Even with spotted OpFor at 205 meters the SMG troops would not fire. 

 

I did not try out all SMGs for all nationalities however I suspect the following holds true for all SMGs:  SMGs will not fire past 200 meters (area target or AI acquired targets).  This information may, in some situations, be useful for tactical solutions when confronted by SMG troops (especially in CMRT).  I had German troops with MG42s and Kar 98s fire on Russian SMG troops, from 205 meters, with impunity.       

 

Below are some screenshots from the experiments. 

 

SOV%20SMG1_zpsfikm12fs.jpg

 

 

Sov.%20SMG%20Hard%20Code%20Range2_zpsi4e

 

 

Sov.%20SMG%20Hard%20Coded%20Ranges3_zpsy

 

 

MP40%20Hard%20Code%20Range%20Limit_zpsid

 

 

I did notice a partial counter that SMG troops can use when the OpFor was just outside the 200 meter range.  The SMG troops can be ordered to area Target at 200 meters directly in front of the OpFor.  Depending on terrain some bullets will travel past the 200 meter mark and hit the OpFor position (especially if they are only 205 meters as in one of my experiments).

 

A possible TACSOP:  Hose the identified or suspected SMG unit from approximately 240 meters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, it is not a perfect solution, but prevents what we saw in the past, namely the TacAI using SMGs in indirect fire at 300+ meters to hose down enemy pixeltruppens.

Hopefully we can eventually find a more elegant solution. Based on the SMG II thread, we have been discussing internally what to do about SMGs. Note this is a debate which has been going on since CMBO. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say this is a good system, considering that the effective range of an SMG is more like 50-100 meters. 200 meters would then seem a reasonable maximal range for area targets, beyond that the weak pistol ammo isn't very lethal anyway, even if it would happen to hit anything.

Edited by JSj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's worth noting what the official Soviet combat regulations for infantry have to say about SGM range: "Submachine fire can be opened at a range of up to 500 meters. It is however most effective against ground and air targets when fired at a range of no more than 300 meters."

(for comparison: ordinary rifles, bolt action or semiautomatic, were considered capable of area fire at ranges up to 1000m)

 

In the section about the SMG Squad on the defense, it's stated that: "The submachinegun squad allows the enemy to approach to 100 to 200 meters' range and opens a destructive fire from all the submachineguns".

(for comparison: the ordinary rifle squad was suggested to open fire, in the defense, at 800m range with the LMG, at 600m with designated marksmen and at 400m range with all the riflemen)

 

Now, it's known that, in actual practice, Soviet infantry tended to open fire at closer distances than those set in the regulations, and I'm talking also about MG and rifle fire, not only SGM fire. But the aforementioned passages are a clear indication that firing at ranges above 200m for a PPSh armed soldier was a technical and tactical possibility.

 

The quotes above suggest that the Soviets considered the practical effectiveness of an SMG be roughly the same of a rifle at double that given range, at least in the 200m-500m interval.

I see no point in nerfing the maximung range of a PPSh-41 to compensate for a possible overmodelling of its accuracy. Especially in a game that models single bullet ballistics!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Snip>

In the section about the SMG Squad on the defense, it's stated that: "The submachinegun squad allows the enemy to approach to 100 to 200 meters' range and opens a destructive fire from all the submachineguns".

(for comparison: the ordinary rifle squad was suggested to open fire, in the defense, at 800m range with the LMG, at 600m with designated marksmen and at 400m range with all the riflemen)

<Snip>

 

Thanks Amedeo, this is interesting info.  

 

On the defense I always seem to struggle with what range of Target arc to assign different weapons.  Of course if you have your SMGs, LMGs, marksmen, and rifles approximately the same distance from the advancing OpFor and they open up individually at their recommended ranges HMGs 1000m?, LMGs 800m, Marksmen 600m, riflemen 400m and SMGs 200m they will be identified and eliminated one at a time.

 

I try to identify a kill zone and place the different weapon teams at approximately their (Combat Mission) effective range away from the kill zone and give most of them the Hide command.  Then hopefully they will open up at the same time with such force it pins the OpFor's advance.  (often does not work out this way but I try) Info like you posted helps in determining what the distances should be in doctrine before it is modified by terrain and set up zones.

 

There was another thread recently that had recommended ranges for weapons.  IIRC someone on that thread recommended using half the effective range.  I should try to find and link that.

 

Good info.  Thanks again.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Amedeo, this is interesting info.

On the defense I always seem to struggle with what range of Target arc to assign different weapons. Of course if you have your SMGs, LMGs, marksmen, and rifles approximately the same distance from the advancing OpFor and they open up individually at their recommended ranges HMGs 1000m?, LMGs 800m, Marksmen 600m, riflemen 400m and SMGs 200m they will be identified and

There was another thread recently that had recommended ranges for weapons. IIRC someone on that thread recommended using half the effective range. I should try to find and link that.

Good info. Thanks again.

That might have been me recommending the half range rule of thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's worth noting what the official Soviet combat regulations for infantry have to say about SGM range: "Submachine fire can be opened at a range of up to 500 meters. It is however most effective against ground and air targets when fired at a range of no more than 300 meters."

Heh... aircraft... heh :D

In the section about the SMG Squad on the defense, it's stated that: "The submachinegun squad allows the enemy to approach to 100 to 200 meters' range and opens a destructive fire from all the submachineguns".

(for comparison: the ordinary rifle squad was suggested to open fire, in the defense, at 800m range with the LMG, at 600m with designated marksmen and at 400m range with all the riflemen)

Yup, that sounds much better.  Using SMGs at a range of 100-200m along with other weapons is quite reasonable.

 

Now, it's known that, in actual practice, Soviet infantry tended to open fire at closer distances than those set in the regulations, and I'm talking also about MG and rifle fire, not only SGM fire. But the aforementioned passages are a clear indication that firing at ranges above 200m for a PPSh armed soldier was a technical and tactical possibility.

Of course it is technically possible with a favorable wind at your back on a summer's day and other highly favorable conditions.  You might just land that bullet in the enemy's lap and annoy him. :D

 

I see no point in nerfing the maximung range of a PPSh-41 to compensate for a possible overmodelling of its accuracy. Especially in a game that models single bullet ballistics!

We've had discussions like this tons of times over the years.  Modeling weapons for maximum range is a very, very bad idea.  So we do not do it for any weapon, including the ones mentioned in this thread.  There is nothing special about the range limit of the PPSh.

A reminder that ballistics characteristics are pretty well known and established fact.  What a pamphlet printed in wartime says is not necessarily to be believed.  There's plenty of examples of bad information being given to soldiers.  The part you quoted about shooting at aircraft with SMGs is hilarious!  My favorite example is a US Army training film that said the MG-42 wasn't a big deal and was inferior to US M1919A4.  "Its bark is worse than its bite" is what they said.  Not the best thing to base game modeling on, don't you agree?

Steve

Edited by Battlefront.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you code your weapons to fire at their maximum range, instead of their maximum effective range, you will run out of ammunition before killing anything.

That's true of any game that models realistic ballistics data, you have to compromise theoretical maximum range, to make the weapons effective enough for the player to use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, that's the primary lesson we learned way back in the early days of CMx1.  The best example of the time was Bazookas and Panzerschrecks.  They fired mostly at their maximum ranges, as did everything else, and the result was as one would expect... lots of rockets arcing high in the air and then hitting something that wasn't aimed at.  Then when the targets got closer, you had no more ammo.  Yup, people did not like that one bit :D

It is, of course, possible for us to allow the player to override the TacAI and fire at maximum range.  At times in CM's past we did allow this.  But we found there were three primary problems with this:

1.  Trying to communicate to the player the folly of "spray and pray" beyond effective range was very difficult.  The result was players complained loudly that they ran out of ammo too quickly and then were mowed over by even AI units (which, of course, had plenty of ammo).  In part because if the player is allowed to tell the TacAI to get stuffed, the TacAI can't automatically decide when the waste of ammo should stop.  Which means if you pay attention to the UI and past experience telling you that firing long distances is not a good idea, you have to micromanage the units to avoid them running out of ammo.  Since players habitually blame the game instead of their own actions, we got a lot of complaints.

2.  It's a cheat.  People would weigh the options of poor ammo management with the possibility of cumulative suppressive effect.  If successful they bought themselves some time and/or fixed the enemy unit could be hit with something like artillery or a mobile asset that was moved into position.  This is inherently unrealistic because in real life the degree of control necessary to get units to selflessly blow through their ammo for a theoretical greater good just doesn't exist.

And that is why the game is as it is.  We've learned what does and doesn't make sense through direct experience with our customers.  Since nothing is changed in terms of how people play, it is pretty certain that if we went back to the way things used to be that people would quickly (and with no small amount of anger ;)) demand that we "fix or do somefink".  We're not in the habit of being deliberately stupid, therefore no change coming.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, that's the primary lesson we learned way back in the early days of CMx1.  The best example of the time was Bazookas and Panzerschrecks.  They fired mostly at their maximum ranges, as did everything else, and the result was as one would expect... lots of rockets arcing high in the air and then hitting something that wasn't aimed at.  Then when the targets got closer, you had no more ammo.  Yup, people did not like that one bit :D

It is, of course, possible for us to allow the player to override the TacAI and fire at maximum range.  At times in CM's past we did allow this.  But we found there were three primary problems with this:

1.  Trying to communicate to the player the folly of "spray and pray" beyond effective range was very difficult.  The result was players complained loudly that they ran out of ammo too quickly and then were mowed over by even AI units (which, of course, had plenty of ammo).  In part because if the player is allowed to tell the TacAI to get stuffed, the TacAI can't automatically decide when the waste of ammo should stop.  Which means if you pay attention to the UI and past experience telling you that firing long distances is not a good idea, you have to micromanage the units to avoid them running out of ammo.  Since players habitually blame the game instead of their own actions, we got a lot of complaints.

2.  It's a cheat.  People would weigh the options of poor ammo management with the possibility of cumulative suppressive effect.  If successful they bought themselves some time and/or fixed the enemy unit could be hit with something like artillery or a mobile asset that was moved into position.  This is inherently unrealistic because in real life the degree of control necessary to get units to selflessly blow through their ammo for a theoretical greater good just doesn't exist.

And that is why the game is as it is.  We've learned what does and doesn't make sense through direct experience with our customers.  Since nothing is changed in terms of how people play, it is pretty certain that if we went back to the way things used to be that people would quickly (and with no small amount of anger ;)) demand that we "fix or do somefink".  We're not in the habit of being deliberately stupid, therefore no change coming.

Steve

KHAAAaaannn !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hey Bulletpoint.  i never was able to find that post.  Are you still using that rule of thumb or do you have a different TACSOP now?

Still using it. But it's not always I have the luxury of deciding exactly which range to fight at. Especially in bocage maps it's often difficult to find good places to set up the machine guns so they end up with the rest of the squad firing at too close ranges simply because that's where the only LOS is. They still work at close range, but it's not where they shine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh... aircraft... heh :D

I'm glad that only the part on firing at aircraft made you chuckle. I presume that this means you have no objections on the other quotes about firing at ground targets! ;)

Yup, that sounds much better.  Using SMGs at a range of 100-200m along with other weapons is quite reasonable.

I have no problem in stating that optimal (not maxmimum, nor effective) ranges for PPSh fire are between 100-200m. In fact the Soviet manual for PPSh-41 states that the best range is 200m for short bursts and 100m for long bursts.

Of course it is technically possible with a favorable wind at your back on a summer's day and other highly favorable conditions.  You might just land that bullet in the enemy's lap and annoy him. :D

Well, if I were asking for something like that, I would have quoted the part of the Soviet PPSh field manual that says that bullets retain their stopping power up to 800m. ;)

We've had discussions like this tons of times over the years.  Modeling weapons for maximum range is a very, very bad idea.  So we do not do it for any weapon, including the ones mentioned in this thread.  There is nothing special about the range limit of the PPSh.

You are totally right. Modelling weapons for maximum range is a very bad idea. In fact it's such a bad idea that, as far as I know, nobody here is asking for such a thing! :D

Actually, I'm speaking about effective range, that is neither maximum range nor the best range. And, as far as I can see, weapons' ranges are not capped at the point where they obtain their best results, in CM.

A reminder that ballistics characteristics are pretty well known and established fact.  What a pamphlet printed in wartime says is not necessarily to be believed.  There's plenty of examples of bad information being given to soldiers.  The part you quoted about shooting at aircraft with SMGs is hilarious!  My favorite example is a US Army training film that said the MG-42 wasn't a big deal and was inferior to US M1919A4.  "Its bark is worse than its bite" is what they said.  Not the best thing to base game modeling on, don't you agree?

Yes, I agree that it's not the best thing to base game modelling on what a manual says about enemy weapons! :P

On the other hand, I presume that examining what doctrine and technical manuals say about their own armies' practices and weapons is important. And I'm sure you do too.

If this is not the case, I apologize for quoting primary historical sources instead of making numbers out of thin air. Yes, I know that the reader's discretion is required in examining all kind of sources, even primary ones but it's obvious that there's no point in totally dismissing a source just because there's a single dubious piece of information.

By the way, since you said that ballistic characteristics are pretty well known (and it's true), in the PPSh-41 manual, while the generic ballistic tables at the end of the book are listing figures up to 500m range, the tables, contained in the section about combat shooting, list relevant data for ranges from 0m to 300m in 50m intervals. Of course, is also repeated in the text that effective fire against ground targets is possible at ranges up to 300m. By the way, I'm not talking about the wartime tactical regulations I quoted before, now. I'm talking about the SMG manual that was reprinted in 1946 and 1955 with the relevant parts unchanged. Not exactly a wartime pamphlet ridden with propaganda and inaccurate intelligence.

Let it be clear, I am not advocating for Soviet "über"SMGs to be introduced into the game. I think that the PPSh, in many respects, is already too powerful and, although I usually play the Soviet side, I'm already content the way the game is. Hey, I remember that, when I was playing good ol' Squad Leader, my PPSh armed squads were costantly out-gunned and out-ranged by MP 40 toting Germans. In this respect, the realism of CMx1 and CMx2 is to the realism of SL/ASL what Quantum Field Theory is to Looney-Tune level physics! :lol:

Summing up, I don't think the 200m cap is a game breaker, What I do think is that removing that cap, while letting SMG accuracy rapidly decline to crappy levels just above that optimal range, could be a more realistic feature worth having. A feature that won't lend itself to gamey behaviour while improving the realism of some (rare and odd) situations.

Regards,

   Amedeo

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion

I have to agree with BF as the approach they have taken

Setting some logical restrictions makes more sense than having to create a method for unlikely or unwanted long range fire with weapons not designed for that purpose.

 

Personally. I don't even let my smg's fire at 200 meters.

I like to keep them quite and hidden until the enemy is within a 100 meters. I want my ammo to do something other than to be wasted.

 

But as with anything within the game there is always times for anything , so its a interesting topic.

 

What I would like, is for BF to come up with a button that would override any of their programming and turn it off and allow you to fire any weapon as you so see fit at any point if you felt the need. Or even not fire when it has programming that makes it fire.  (So in other words, activate that button and then it will allow the unit to fire 300 meters whether it make sense or not. But the player is the one making that choice, thus the AI need not change, just allow the player to override it with a active feature that is intended to do just that..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are totally right. Modelling weapons for maximum range is a very bad idea. In fact it's such a bad idea that, as far as I know, nobody here is asking for such a thing! :D

Actually, I'm speaking about effective range, that is neither maximum range nor the best range. And, as far as I can see, weapons' ranges are not capped at the point where they obtain their best results, in CM.

Yes, we are talking about the same thing.  The general consensus is that SMGs are only effective to about 200m as a general rule.  I've seen quoted maximum effective range or a PPSh as between 150m and 200m.

 

Yes, I agree that it's not the best thing to base game modelling on what a manual says about enemy weapons! :P

On the other hand, I presume that examining what doctrine and technical manuals say about their own armies' practices and weapons is important. And I'm sure you do too.

Indeed, but there is a lot of bad information baked into official documentation.  You seem to be aware of this as well.  There are many reasons for this, but generally "stretching the truth" is designed to give the soldier more confidence than the weapon actually delivers.

 

If this is not the case, I apologize for quoting primary historical sources instead of making numbers out of thin air. Yes, I know that the reader's discretion is required in examining all kind of sources, even primary ones but it's obvious that there's no point in totally dismissing a source just because there's a single dubious piece of information.

Who has done that?  Certainly not I. 

 

By the way, since you said that ballistic characteristics are pretty well known (and it's true), in the PPSh-41 manual, while the generic ballistic tables at the end of the book are listing figures up to 500m range, the tables, contained in the section about combat shooting, list relevant data for ranges from 0m to 300m in 50m intervals. Of course, is also repeated in the text that effective fire against ground targets is possible at ranges up to 300m. By the way, I'm not talking about the wartime tactical regulations I quoted before, now. I'm talking about the SMG manual that was reprinted in 1946 and 1955 with the relevant parts unchanged. Not exactly a wartime pamphlet ridden with propaganda and inaccurate intelligence.

Small quibble.  I did not say that incorrect information in military training manuals is limited to wartime propaganda.  It existed before, during, and after WW2.  It might be that in times of war the information got more "stretched" than at other times, it is incorrect to say things only got "stretched" for a specific time.

As for reprinting after the war, that is not relevant.  Manuals are often reprinted without corrections or modifications because such things are more expensive, more difficult (bureaucracies do not like change!), or other factors.  Changing the wording of the PPSh manual would be a statement that prior manuals were incorrect.  That is reason enough to not revise it.

Let it be clear, I am not advocating for Soviet "über"SMGs to be introduced into the game. I think that the PPSh, in many respects, is already too powerful and, although I usually play the Soviet side, I'm already content the way the game is. Hey, I remember that, when I was playing good ol' Squad Leader, my PPSh armed squads were costantly out-gunned and out-ranged by MP 40 toting Germans. In this respect, the realism of CMx1 and CMx2 is to the realism of SL/ASL what Quantum Field Theory is to Looney-Tune level physics! :lol:

Summing up, I don't think the 200m cap is a game breaker, What I do think is that removing that cap, while letting SMG accuracy rapidly decline to crappy levels just above that optimal range, could be a more realistic feature worth having. A feature that won't lend itself to gamey behaviour while improving the realism of some (rare and odd) situations.

See previous comments about why we do not do this.  It has been tried before, players were not happy with it.  If we were to change things it would have to be changed for pretty much every weapon system in order to be consistent.  Since we view this as a bad idea, based on practical experience, it's not something we are going to do.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we are talking about the same thing.  The general consensus is that SMGs are only effective to about 200m as a general rule.  I've seen quoted maximum effective range or a PPSh as between 150m and 200m.

You say that we're talking the same thing. and it might also be. After all, according to the CM manuals, the effective range of different weapons, more or less match what the regulations ad technical manuals say. For example: Sten 100yd (reg.) 100m (CM), PPSh 300m (reg.) 250m (CM), just for comparison the effective ranges listed in CM manuals for the AK/AKM and the AK74 are exactly those listed in Soviet manuals as the ranges at which one expects to obtain: "the most effective fire", that is 400m and 500m respectively. But, generally speaking, even the others ranges I quoted from the CM manuals are spot on: the difference between 100yd and 100m, for the Sten, is irrelevant and the 250m listed for the PPSh could be considered as an average between the best range (that is 200m) for short bursts, listed in the manual and the maxmimum range at which is suggested to open fire against ground targets, that is 300m.

 

Indeed, but there is a lot of bad information baked into official documentation.  You seem to be aware of this as well.  There are many reasons for this, but generally "stretching the truth" is designed to give the soldier more confidence than the weapon actually delivers.

We agree on this, I only pointed out that the offical Soviet manuals state that effective fire can be opened against ground targets at ranges up to 300m. We cannot be sure that a piece of information contained in a primary source is always more accurate than one contained in a secondary source but you'll agree that, unless additional compelling evidence surfaces, we should lend some credit to the primary source.

Of course, as I said and as you too implied, readers discretion is required. Just for example, in the official manual for the Sten, i.e. Small Arms Training Volume I, Pamphlet No. 22 - Sten Machine Carbine - 1942, it's written that: "The machine carbine is a short range weapon introduced for the purpose of engaging targets at the ranges of from 10 to 100 yards. At greater distances the speed of the bullet is so reduced that has lost much of its penetrative power.".

Yet, in trials conducted by the British Army at the School of Infantry in 1944 - as detailed in the report WO 291/476 Comparison of rifle, Bren and Sten - the Sten was tested, as the other two weapons: SMLE and Bren, up to 300yd (additional tests were performed to confirm the letality of 9mm bullets at least up to that range). And it was noted that: "the average firer has a higher overall chance of hitting an enemy at 200 yards with a Sten that with a rifle". Shocking, isn't it?

Well, for me it was, since I never expected someone to really have a 68% chance of hitting a man sized targed at 200yd with a Sten SMG (well, with any SMG for what matters). Now, I still have a problem in taking that comment at face value. There are a number of reasons that let me think that the results are skewed in favour of the SMG (I'll not enter into the details since this is way off topic) nonetheless, for an army that prized so much individual rifle marksmanship, it's a striking conclusion.

After all, the birth of the assault rifle is, in some respect, a testimony to the fact that effective automatic fire from submachine guns was longer legged than was initially thought and that aimed fire from rifles was effective at shorter ranges than what was thought.

 

 

Who has done that?  Certainly not I. 

Well, I wasn't suggesting you did.

 

Small quibble.  I did not say that incorrect information in military training manuals is limited to wartime propaganda.  It existed before, during, and after WW2.  It might be that in times of war the information got more "stretched" than at other times, it is incorrect to say things only got "stretched" for a specific time.

As for reprinting after the war, that is not relevant.  Manuals are often reprinted without corrections or modifications because such things are more expensive, more difficult (bureaucracies do not like change!), or other factors.  Changing the wording of the PPSh manual would be a statement that prior manuals were incorrect.  That is reason enough to not revise it.

You're right, incorrect information is not necesarly limited to wartime propaganda, but my point was that it takes exceptional evidence to doubt a piece of information that is taken from a primary source and that only hard data or additional information from other primary sources should supercede that info.

You said, above, that the general consensus is that SMGs are effective only up to 200m, as a general rule. Yet not all SMGs are created equal. And you too, obviously, agree since, as I wrote at the beginning of this post, we practically agree on what effective ranges are, for most weapons.

One could ask whether weapons should be ever allowed, in the game, to fire at ranges exceeding their effective range. You said, if I'm not mistaken, that's that not a good idea, in general and I might also agree with you. The point is that capping the maximum SMG range at 200m, regardless of the model considered, already allows some of the weapons to do this, thus favouring the shorter ranged SMGs against the longer ranged ones.

 

See previous comments about why we do not do this.  It has been tried before, players were not happy with it.  If we were to change things it would have to be changed for pretty much every weapon system in order to be consistent.  Since we view this as a bad idea, based on practical experience, it's not something we are going to do.

I do not know the inner workings of the CMx2 code nor I claim any expertise on how things should or could be done in implementing a given feature in the game. I have had experience with computer programming but this doesn't, even remotely, qualify me to speak about what to do with CM and how to do it. Yes, I might guess that it could be better to have different range caps for individual weapon modeld or that it could be better to have a much larger cap for each category and simply let the different performances at extreme ranges sort things out. But if you say that, trying to improve the realism of a game feature might cause a worse realism drop in other areas I cannot but take your word for that, since you're the one that knows how the CM engine works, not I.

Nonetheless, I think that you could concede that, in an ideal world, it would be better not to have a "one size fits all" range cap and that, if the future iterations of the CM engine will move us closer towards that ideal world, more "individualized" behaviours from the various weapons systems would be a nice feature to have.

Regards,

   Amedeo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amedeo - except the actual report doesn't support any such conclusion.  It is endlessly cited but the actual table of results isn't.

That table specifies that the "200 yard shots" (see below for the actual range) were made by the rifles *unsupported*, and still had a 57% hit chance per shot.

While the hit change at that range, also unsupported, with the Sten, was only 40%, *with a burst*.  It was 68% only *supported* with a burst.

There wasn't any comparison to the rifle *supported*, firing at 200 yards.  (Personally I just don't miss with a supported rifle at such ranges, with a nice man sized stationary target and 5-6 seconds per shot etc).  One only arrives at the 68 higher than 57 "overall greater chance" by comparing supported fire with the SMG to unsupported with the rifle.

There are other issues, like trying to infer ranged accuracy equivalents at 25 yards, and testing vs moving targets as close as 17 yards, that show the tests were systematically skewed to favor automatic weapons.  Worst of all, the 200 yard conclusion occurs in a table that says it was tested at 30 yards and the dispersions "adjusted" to what they would be at 200.  Which captures inherent dispersion and aimer jitter, perhaps, but definitely doesn't capture the effect of low muzzle velocity on bullet drop.

 In the previous table for actual shoots at up to 300 yards, it says the Sten was fitted with a backsight that is doesn't actually have to allow firing at that range (then fired supported, and only inches of dispersion reported, "translated" to 25 yard spread, etc).  Also it is only compared to the Bren, to measure dispersion with range, not compared with a rifle, and not given as the actual spread of the bullet spray at the listed range, but only as a number of inches "adjusted" to 25 yards (an angle measure, effectively).  Those shots are also all bench rested.

Basically, as a way of determining the relatively accuracy of a burst from an SMG vs a supported rifle shot, the study is "pants".  They practically had to determinately exclude that actual comparison from the items tested - it is a "studied" "miss" to *not* show a 200 yard supported rifle shot vs a Sten burst at the same range, actually at that range.

Edited by JasonC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS on the issue with the actual hard cut off, I don't have a problem with saving the players from their soldiers wasting ammo they really want to hold for effective fire ranges, at ranges where a significant portion of that load could be fired off without achieving any hits.  While it might be "realistic" to "let" players fire at ineffective ranges without any appreciable results, I certainly agree with the coders that it would be seen as a bug and not a feature, for their SMGers to all blaze away at ineffective range and run dry before they ever had a chance to fire effectively.  My own issues are quite in a different direction - I just think the effectiveness of the SMGs is marginally too high *at* and right up to that 200 yard cut off.  And rifles are too weak at the same ranges (from low rate of fire, mostly - if they were firing 10 to 12 shots per minute the hits per round level they are at, would be fine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amedeo,

I've skipped responding to most of what you said because JasonC did a fine job responding to them.  Not only does one have to look skeptically at official information, one also has to be VERY careful about relating studies to specific aspects of the game.  We've had many years of experience sorting through both.  I think JasonC did an excellent job showing why one needs to understand the test conditions in detail before applying it to something in the game.

Nonetheless, I think that you could concede that, in an ideal world, it would be better not to have a "one size fits all" range cap and that, if the future iterations of the CM engine will move us closer towards that ideal world, more "individualized" behaviours from the various weapons systems would be a nice feature to have.

 


Of course I agree, which is why the game works like that already :D  The performance of each weapon is simulated individually and the min/max range is also set individually.  It just so happens that short barreled SMGs firing pistol ammunition pretty much have similar characteristics.  Rate of fire, inherent accuracy, and lethality are the variables that are more at play in CM.

Aside from that, changing the range for the PPSh has nothing to do with code limitations.  We could change that to 1000 meters in a few seconds if we wanted to.  It requires only one variable to be located and changed.  No problem at all.  However, we won't do that unless there is some error in the number we chose or the logic we used for choosing it.  So far you haven't shown the number we use as wrong and the logic we're using is definitely better than the alternative you have suggested.  Again, we know this for a fact because the game at one point did allow people to shoot beyond the effective range and they complained endlessly about it until we changed it to the current behavior.  Now we have only one person complaining about it.  I think that's a major improvement :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amedeo - except the actual report doesn't support any such conclusion.  It is endlessly cited but the actual table of results isn't.

That table specifies that the "200 yard shots" (see below for the actual range) were made by the rifles *unsupported*, and still had a 57% hit chance per shot.

While the hit change at that range, also unsupported, with the Sten, was only 40%, *with a burst*.  It was 68% only *supported* with a burst.

There wasn't any comparison to the rifle *supported*, firing at 200 yards.  (Personally I just don't miss with a supported rifle at such ranges, with a nice man sized stationary target and 5-6 seconds per shot etc).  One only arrives at the 68 higher than 57 "overall greater chance" by comparing supported fire with the SMG to unsupported with the rifle.

There are other issues, like trying to infer ranged accuracy equivalents at 25 yards, and testing vs moving targets as close as 17 yards, that show the tests were systematically skewed to favor automatic weapons.  Worst of all, the 200 yard conclusion occurs in a table that says it was tested at 30 yards and the dispersions "adjusted" to what they would be at 200.  Which captures inherent dispersion and aimer jitter, perhaps, but definitely doesn't capture the effect of low muzzle velocity on bullet drop.

 In the previous table for actual shoots at up to 300 yards, it says the Sten was fitted with a backsight that is doesn't actually have to allow firing at that range (then fired supported, and only inches of dispersion reported, "translated" to 25 yard spread, etc).  Also it is only compared to the Bren, to measure dispersion with range, not compared with a rifle, and not given as the actual spread of the bullet spray at the listed range, but only as a number of inches "adjusted" to 25 yards (an angle measure, effectively).  Those shots are also all bench rested.

Basically, as a way of determining the relatively accuracy of a burst from an SMG vs a supported rifle shot, the study is "pants".  They practically had to determinately exclude that actual comparison from the items tested - it is a "studied" "miss" to *not* show a 200 yard supported rifle shot vs a Sten burst at the same range, actually at that range.

Jason, when I wrote: "Now I still have a problem in taking that comment at face value. There are a number of reasons that let me think that the results are skewed in favour of the SMG" I was thinking about the very same observations you made in your post.
Probably I was too verbose and didn't manage to express clearly what puzzles me about the current weapon modelling in the game.

I'll try to be more concise: why is the Sten permitted to fire at more than double its effective range and the PPSh is not even permitted to fire at its full effective range?

And, please, notice that CM manuals and official manuals substantially agree on what the effective ranges of those weapons are, as I showed in my previous quotes.

PS on the issue with the actual hard cut off, I don't have a problem with saving the players from their soldiers wasting ammo they really want to hold for effective fire ranges, at ranges where a significant portion of that load could be fired off without achieving any hits.  While it might be "realistic" to "let" players fire at ineffective ranges without any appreciable results, I certainly agree with the coders that it would be seen as a bug and not a feature, for their SMGers to all blaze away at ineffective range and run dry before they ever had a chance to fire effectively.  My own issues are quite in a different direction - I just think the effectiveness of the SMGs is marginally too high *at* and right up to that 200 yard cut off.  And rifles are too weak at the same ranges (from low rate of fire, mostly - if they were firing 10 to 12 shots per minute the hits per round level they are at, would be fine).

This is another issue. Possibly a more important issue than that at hand in this discussion. I didn't raise the point here simply because there's already a dedicated thread. Anyway, I think you'll agree that, having the 200m cap for the PPSh, only exacerbates the problem you mentioned.

 

Amedeo,

I've skipped responding to most of what you said because JasonC did a fine job responding to them.  Not only does one have to look skeptically at official information, one also has to be VERY careful about relating studies to specific aspects of the game.  We've had many years of experience sorting through both.  I think JasonC did an excellent job showing why one needs to understand the test conditions in detail before applying it to something in the game.

See my question to Jason above.

 

 

Of course I agree, which is why the game works like that already :D  The performance of each weapon is simulated individually and the min/max range is also set individually.  It just so happens that short barreled SMGs firing pistol ammunition pretty much have similar characteristics.  Rate of fire, inherent accuracy, and lethality are the variables that are more at play in CM.

Similar characteristics beyond the resolution allowed by the game engine? I beg to differ. All SMGs are not created equal, and this applies not only to ROF, letality etc. but also to effective ranges (that are, in turn, mainly a function of: ballistics, sights , doctrine; all other things being equal).

 

 

Aside from that, changing the range for the PPSh has nothing to do with code limitations.  We could change that to 1000 meters in a few seconds if we wanted to.  It requires only one variable to be located and changed.  No problem at all.  However, we won't do that unless there is some error in the number we chose or the logic we used for choosing it.  So far you haven't shown the number we use as wrong and the logic we're using is definitely better than the alternative you have suggested.  Again, we know this for a fact because the game at one point did allow people to shoot beyond the effective range and they complained endlessly about it until we changed it to the current behavior. 

You said that you expect me to show that the numbers you use are wrong or the logic you used to chose them is wrong. Fair enough.

For what concernes the first point I'm willing to post more info but first I'd like to know whether you do really think that the effective range of a Grease Gun is the same of a PPsh. Do figures quoted in the official manuals support this claim? Do weapons' ballistics support this claim? Do even the figures quoted in CM manuals suppor this? My answer is no to all of them, from my examination of  the manuals and the ballistics data.

Yet, you seem to have a different answer from mine, but I confess I'm still unable to exactly understand why. You made a reference to older complains but, unless the old whiners have sumberged you with a deluge of primary sources, historical reports and ballistics tables to make you change your mind, I can only guess it's a problem of the AI not being able to realistically cope with the old ranges, since I assume that the weapons' ballistics are correctly modelled. You'll agree that speaking of a vague "general consensus" is not enough to doubt a primary source.

For what concernes the second point, I don't see how allowing only a few weapons to shoot beyond their effective range is logically a better solution than allowing all, or none. Would you consider a sensible idea to cap both an AK and an M14 at 400m in a Vietnam game? Would you consider fair to cap both a T-72's main gun and an Abrams' main gun at 2000m in a Desert Storm game?

 

   Now we have only one person complaining about it.  I think that's a major improvement

:D

Perhaps you're referring to the original poster, since I'm not really complaining! :lol:
Jokes apart, I'm just curious about the rationale of this design choice. Well, I admit that I would have made a different choice. I'm not sure it would have been the best choice but, since I'm unable to see where the problem lies with the mentioned previous complains, perhaps I'm not in the best position to judge.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...