Hard coded SMG range limit.

[ASL Veteran]

My view is that if accuracy was erm, more accurately portrayed, you wouldn't need an artificial max range.........

That would be true if the game or the player was smart enough to know when to shoot and when not to shoot.  The problem before the max range was implemented was that the Tac AI would fire at the max range regardless as to how effective it was.  Therefore, having a weapon that has no hard coded max range with a rapidly declining accuracy just means a lot of wasted ammo as the unit fires off all its ammo before the ideal time to use it comes up since the game only knows 'enemy there.  I shoot there'.  Then when the enemy is close your guns are all dry.  So you see, it is a game problem not a reality problem.  That's what the max range is supposed to ensure.  A max range is in the game to ensure that the game only tells the unit to fire at an enemy when the enemy is at a range where firing at them can achieve an effect.  However, having a rapidly declining effectiveness would serve to decrease calls for eliminating the hard coded max range because if the weapon wasn't effective at the hard coded max range then the player shouldn't see any value in eliminating it.. 

[Amedeo]

Amedeo, just an observation on the data, informed by my experience dealing with that kind of data while working on another game

Always take that kind of figures as the "best that weapon can do". [snip]

I agree with your observation. But, please, notice that I was quoting those figures not because I do believe that the game should model actual weapon effectivenes using firing range data, but because those piece of information could be useful in assessing the relative effectiveness of the PPSh relative to the Mosin (the topic at hand was SMG vs rifle).

Thanks, Amedeo my friend.  No problem, we're good.  

Speaking of TACSOPs .......... IIRC you came up with (or had some role in) the  Khrizantema / BMP-3s with IR blocking smoke screen tactic against US tanks.  That one was very clever.      

Yes, it was me.

My view is that if accuracy was erm, more accurately portrayed, you wouldn't need an artificial max range.........

That was also my point. The fact that this view is held by persons that have a different perception of the effectiveness of SMG fire, is a testimony to the logical "neutrality" of this solution. But, as I guessed above and as subsequent answers seem to confirm, range caps are useful to manage the TacAI.

[Battlefront.com]

That was also my point. The fact that this view is held by persons that have a different perception of the effectiveness of SMG fire, is a testimony to the logical "neutrality" of this solution. But, as I guessed above and as subsequent answers seem to confirm, range caps are useful to manage the TacAI.

Yes, we should not confuse good modeling of a weapon with good game conventions.  The two are inherently different.  For example, the SMGs could be 100% to people's liking all the time every time (NEVER going to happen ) but the range cap still kept in place and hotly debated.  And vice versa.  We could remove the cap today and still have long discussions about SMG performance.  The two concepts, therefore are entirely separate.

One slight clarification to what ASLVet said.  The TacAI has always (since CMBO days) used effectiveness as one factor in determining when it should fire at a target.  Range, enemy cover, and even remaining ammo are other factors.  We can, therefore, quite easily have a unit highly reluctant to fire at 200m range and yet still allow the player to target beyond that.  This is essentially how the game used to work.  Two problems arose from this:

1.  Because the TacAI wouldn't fire at units beyond certain ranges the players perceived it to be "broken".  Threads were started complaining that we need to "fix it or do somefink".  The thinking was that if the player could target something then the TacAI should.  Arguments were put forth that blowing off some ammo for a moderate suppressive effect was desirable.  Tweaks to make the TacAI less reluctant to withhold fire were tried and usually produced complaints about ammo being wasted. 

2.  When the player overrode the TacAI's rather sound judgement there was complaints about wasted ammo and/or "the enemy is bulletproof!!  Fix or do somefink!".  The complaint arose from watching their little pixel soldiers dutifully fire and fire and fire with little to no effect on the enemy, but a big effect on ammo consumption, spotting, missing other targeting opportunities, etc.

This was true even back in CMx1 days when the system was far more simplistic and, therefore, theoretically easier to explain to players that it was basically within their control to avoid these problems.  In fact, the old LOS/LOF tool had a "Firepower" rating and there were charts to show effectiveness at various ranges.  Information that current CM games do not provide, and yet despite the less complex environment with much better UI feedback people still blamed the game for bad results. 

When we developed CMx2 we started out with mimicking a lot of CMx1 behaviors and features.  This was one of them and we at some point (I forget when) changed it to better protect the player from bad decision making. 

Steve

Edited September 25, 2015 by Battlefront.com

[Alchenar]

So I can believe that a rifle is accurate to x by y target dimensions at a certain range.  I can also believe that a riflemen can work a bolt, level a rifle and fire it once every 4-5 seconds.

But there's no way in hell that the rifleman in the second scenario is going to be achieving the accuracy in the first.  That rapid rifle drill the British army liked to train for is about being able to cause suppression and win the firefight against another rifle-equipped unit, not about having an army of guys shooting down enemy soldiers the moment they appear.  Never mind the fact that anyone firing 10-11 rounds a minute is going to shoot through all the ammo they have and find themselves in trouble very rapidly. 

So it would be nice if the game modelled riflemen from different nationalities and facing different targets varying their rate of fire depending on what they might plausibly have done in real life, but it seems like an incredibly marginal feature and rifle fire seems fine now.

[Battlefront.com]

It would also be extremely arbitrary and very difficult to quantify even if we did try to.  Which is why we stay as far away from baking nation based traits into game fundamentals.  It's a very dark and deep rabbit hole to go down.  Especially because the official doctrine is often not what the units practice in real life.  That means not only having to qualify/quantify the theoretical national differences, but then have to qualify/quantify how/when they apply to a tactical battlefield.  This is a case where we get better and more consistent results by not investing vast amounts of time in a fool's errand.

Steve

[Migo441]

@Alchenar, I don't think anyone is advocating firing range accuracy and ROF for rifles (or any weapon), but the concern voiced by some is the relative firepower effects (accuracy + ROF) of SMG and rifles as experienced in game particularly at the outer envelope of the SMG range ~ 150- 200m.  That's where (the argument goes) you'd rather be pulling a rifle trigger than an SMG trigger because the significant accuracy advantages of the rifle should carry the day (on average) against the abilities of the SMG to throw more bullets.

In that respect, rifle fire doesn't seem "fine" or SMG fire seems "too fine" however you'd rather look at it. 

And this seems like a bigger deal than the one-size-fits-all SMG cut off of 200m (Which, admittedly, may discriminate in some way against the 7.62x25 in the sense that it objectively performs better than the 9mm Parabellum and .45 ACP.).  There are many more cases of rifle armed troops in the CM-multiverse performing against opponents armed with various other weapon types than there are of PPSh armed troops who were unable to fire on a target at 220m due to the cut-off.

But that's a topic for a different thread -->  Rifles: Where's the Love?

[JasonC]

Alchenar - if one shot every 5 or 6 seconds counted as "rapid" that would be one thing, but it just doesn't.  Rapid fire hits 15 and 20 rounds a minute with a bolt rifle, but yes accuracy degrades shooting that fast, so that there isn't much point in it.  But 5-6 seconds to line up a shot, take it, work the bolt once, and realign?  That is just the perfectly normal rate at which it can be done, with seconds of time for careful aiming.  As for the comment that people would run out of their 60 to 90 shots of ammo rather quickly firing that fast, if they hit anything they won't need to fire their whole load.  If they have a visible target, they can and will fire that fast until they hit it - or need to move or duck themselves I suppose.  They can last as long that way with their single shots as an SMG can firing off 6 to 9 round bursts.  A rifleman carries 12 to 18 5 round clips, and there is no reason it should take them longer to fire a couple of them than it takes a tommy gunner to fire off one of his 6 or 7 magazines.  They certainly don't need to make each clip last 2 minutes or anything of that sort.  Does the typical bolt rifleman fire off his 60 or his 90 rounds in 6 to 9 minutes of combat?  No.  But that is because targets don't typically stand in full view of enemy riflemen for 5 or 10 minutes straight, at 200 yards.  If they tried it they'd all be dead in a fraction of that time.  With no SMGs or LMGs or mortars or special sniper scopes required...

[WinOrLose]

That would be true if the game or the player was smart enough to know when to shoot and when not to shoot.  The problem before the max range was implemented was that the Tac AI would fire at the max range regardless as to how effective it was.  Therefore, having a weapon that has no hard coded max range with a rapidly declining accuracy just means a lot of wasted ammo as the unit fires off all its ammo before the ideal time to use it comes up since the game only knows 'enemy there.  I shoot there'.  Then when the enemy is close your guns are all dry.  So you see, it is a game problem not a reality problem.  That's what the max range is supposed to ensure.  A max range is in the game to ensure that the game only tells the unit to fire at an enemy when the enemy is at a range where firing at them can achieve an effect.  However, having a rapidly declining effectiveness would serve to decrease calls for eliminating the hard coded max range because if the weapon wasn't effective at the hard coded max range then the player shouldn't see any value in eliminating it.. 

So the hardcode is there to stop the AI firing at longer ranges. Wouldn't it be easier to set a % of max range that the AI will fire at? Anyway its not the max range of SMG's that overly concerns me - its just the accuracy. I cant confess to having fired an SMG but I don't believe you would hit anything with a burst at 150 to 200m in RL combat conditions (ie not on a range).

[ASL Veteran]

So the hardcode is there to stop the AI firing at longer ranges. Wouldn't it be easier to set a % of max range that the AI will fire at? Anyway its not the max range of SMG's that overly concerns me - its just the accuracy. I cant confess to having fired an SMG but I don't believe you would hit anything with a burst at 150 to 200m in RL combat conditions (ie not on a range).

Steve clarified my earlier remarks.

[WinOrLose]

Steve clarified my earlier remarks.

Yep - sounds like the hardcode is the only real way they can deal with firing off all your ammo outside of effective range.  Maybe we need a new thread on accuracy...

[rooibos]

one element of Ye Olde Close Combat series I've always enjoyed was its "effective range" indicators. It was the little bar in the unit panel at the bottom that showed the unit's overall effectiveness at given ranges. This was a very elegant piece of information displayed in a tidy, easy to read and easy to digest fashion. Much in the way that the armour indicator displays the effectiveness of various rounds, something like this could be a quick and easy way for players to quickly check some important info (ahead of memorizing various ranges, especially in later games like BS where there's all sorts of different devices). Or even perhaps, some sort of opacity change to the target line/bar indicator thingy (the one that trails your cursor as you click and drag) In CC it turned from bright green to paler yellow to red. 

 

While it doesn't *solve* the problem of ranges being a little wonky, it might help *address* it at least and make quick visual references much easier. 

 

Has anything like that ever been considered?