The one minute gun range survivability test

[rocketman]

I devised a little test to try some things out. There was a main goal with the test, but I don't want to reveal that just yet.

One one end of a gun range (four lanes divided by high walls) are four split squads of grenadiers wit one Mp40 and 4 G43/Kar98k, regular out of command units like this:

They have perfect view over a flat landscape, no wind and clear weather.

In the other end of the range are: One FO team of three pixeltruppen, one Jeep (driver only), one halftrack (M3A1) with gunner unbuttoned and one Sherman M4A1 (late) with tank commander unbuttoned - all advancing forward at just about the same pace, with cover arcs close so not to fire back at the grenadiers. All US units are regular.

The US units are about 260 m away. Only one grenadier unit can see one US unit that approaches them directly head on.

The test runs for one turn. I have run it 10 times so far, but before revealing preliminary results - in your gaming experience with CM, what results do you think will present themselves? Also, are there any flaws in this test that will bias the comparability of what will happen to the four US units?

Edited August 30, 2016 by rocketman

[Wicky]

Split squads (some with binocs) are still within voice range to share what they are spotting with other squads....

Edited August 30, 2016 by Wicky

[Erwin]

I would expect a hit on exposed TC and/or halftrack gunner (or at least they button up).  The Jeep driver is harder to hit.  The FO would crawl/be suppressed.

[rocketman]

5 minutes ago, Wicky said:

Split squads (some with binocs) are still within voice range to share what they are spotting with other squads....

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?

[Bulletpoint]

28 minutes ago, Wicky said:

Split squads (some with binocs) are still within voice range to share what they are spotting with other squads....

I believe units can only directly share spotting info with other squads that are very close to them (up to 4 squares I think). But if they all have LOS to their squad leader, then he acts as a hub for sharing the info. It seems these units are not in contact with their superior, so I would not expect them to share info.

[Bulletpoint]

37 minutes ago, rocketman said:

before revealing preliminary results - in your gaming experience with CM, what results do you think will present themselves?

I think there won't be that many casualties, since it's starting at 260m range. SMGs are capped to 200 metres, so the leader won't fire anything. The three other guys have slow firing rifles that only really start being accurate at around the same distance. In addition, it will take some time for them to zero in on the targets.

The foot infantry will run in a straight "conga line" towards the shooter, which would be really bad if the enemy had automatic weapons, but I'm not sure it means much against rifle fire, since one bullet can't pass through several human targets in this game.

I guess you're doing the test to show vehicle crew survivability? In my experience, unbuttoned crew definitely seem more vulnerable than foot soldiers, but I've never really been able to find out if that's because they are sitting high in the terrain and so are in LOS of more enemies, or if it's because they are too slow at ducking down (this was maybe fixed in the latest patch?), or if it might be because they don't get the special protection bonus that infantry get from abstracted microterrain.

In any case I will be interested in seeing your results, thanks for doing the test.

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, rocketman said:

The test runs for one turn. I have run it 10 times so far, but before revealing preliminary results - in your gaming experience with CM, what results do you think will present themselves?  

Pretty much what @Bulletpoint said.  The rifles will get more accurate at 220 meters and the SMGs will kick in at 200 meters.  

Another thing that might also be interesting when your done with your current test.  Button the half-track and give it a small target arc. See how close the grenadiers will let it get before they shoot at it.     

[rocketman]

38 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Another thing that might also be interesting when your done with your current test.  Button the half-track and give it a small target arc. See how close the grenadiers will let it get before they shoot at it.     

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

[rocketman]

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:

1. Units were almost immediately spotted (which was expected), but the Jeep usually last which struck me as peculiar as its engine makes noice
2. Units started to attract fire after just a few seconds
3. After taking fire for some 5 sec the TC closed his hatch usually around the 10 sec mark (which seems wise)
4. 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
5. 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...
6. ...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.

Edited August 31, 2016 by rocketman

[A Canadian Cat]

Hummm.  Is that really the correct conclusion though.  I am not sure it is not - but I am not sure it is either.

From the infantry's point of view the HT gunner is by far the biggest threat that they can actually do something about (clearly the tank is the biggest actual threat but rifles cannot really do anything).  What effect does that have on the number of rounds fired?  So the questions I have are:

1. How many rounds were fired at the HT gunner?
2. How many were fired at the soldiers in the open?
3. Based on the answers to #1 and #2 then you have to ask: Should it really be harder / easier to hit the HT gunner vs the soldiers running in the open?  Is the fact that the gunner is raised above the round make it easier / harder to hit?  Does it make up for the better protection he has?
4. Was the HT gunner always facing forwards and behind the gun shield?
5. Based on #1 and #2 you might also wonder if it is correct to compare a group of soldiers in the open to a single guy in the HT?  Yeah I can already answer that - no because you are taking one man down in the FO group as equivalent to the HT gunner going down. - Yes I realize that fixing this may even strengthen your conclusion - so go for it.

Those are my initial thoughts - other people could have other questions. We should go where the evidence takes us - It will be interesting.

[rocketman]

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

[rocketman]

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?

[JoMac]

43 minutes ago, rocketman said:

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?

You mean, more realistically 10 Volleys to KO a HT Gunner at that ranage...Right ?...Cuz, if it's only 10 bullets, then that's one of the most absurd things I have heard about CM. 

Yes, we have established HT/TC Gunners/Crew are 'Bullet Magnets' and are KO'ed far to easily a long time ago, but BF thinks that's Ok anyways. 

Joe

Edited August 31, 2016 by JoMc67

[rocketman]

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

[A Canadian Cat]

18 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

You mean, more realistically 10 Volleys to KO a HT Gunner at that ranage...Right ?...Cuz, if it's only 10 bullets, then that's one of the most absurd things I have heard about CM. 

Yes, we have established HT/TC Gunners/Crew are 'Bullet Magnets' and are KO'ed far to easily a long time ago, but BF thinks that's Ok anyways. 

Joe

I recommend turning the hyperbole down a notch.  I always found that stating the case with actual facts works well with BFC.

Sigh - no one did any such thing.  HT gunners are very high priority targets. So, if you mean "bullet magnets" in the sense that lots of people on the battlefield want to shoot the gunner then yes they attract a lot of attention.  But if you mean "bullet magnets" in the sense that they are easily hit then this is the first test that shows the beginnings of a possibility that they might be easier to hit.  At least that is my recollection.  Remember having tons of people say "my HT gunners die frequently - whaaaa" is not evidence and the previous discussions of this have been not much more than that.

@rocketman is putting together a nice test that will be useful - lets help him to succeed instead of derailing this in to the abyss.

Edited September 1, 2016 by IanL

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, rocketman said:

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.

Sounds like you are onto something interesting.  So, how many bullets did it take to hit a member of the FO team?

 

2 hours ago, rocketman said:

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.

Some of this could be a good thing.  When shooting at the FO team the enemy soldiers NCO will likely be OK with rounds going wide because where there is one enemy soldier there are more.  I remember my drill Sargent saying when we had no one in particular to aim at he didn't really want us to be hitting exactly the point he asked us to aim towards because he wanted the rounds to spread out. Now that's for area fire and I have no idea if the game is meant to do this in these cases or not.

I would be curious if the FO team were reduced to a single man (might need a scout team at 50% for that) if that would make a difference.  Might change from "fire aimed at a group" to "aimed fire at an individual".  Aimed fire at an individual would be more like the HT gunner case.  It might not make any difference if the Tac AI teams' NCO are not doing that.  It would be good to rule it in or out.

 

2 hours ago, rocketman said:

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.

Yeah, I was just wondering out loud there.

 

2 hours ago, rocketman said:

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?

Ack - I for some reason had German HTs in my head even though you clearly said US HTs earlier.  Yes, they have a gun shield that should offer more protection from the front.  You can add a German HT to the test on the US side.  Do that by switching the game to Red on Red and adding the HT to the US order of battle and then switching back.

One more question: Are the opposing teams the same?  You already said they had the same weapons but I was wondering if they are all lead by the same rank?  Are they all A teams or are the a mix of A, B and C teams?  I honestly don't know if that matters but if one lane has a Sargent leading three guys and the other lane has a Corporal leading three guys it might make a difference and your test will amplify it since the same team is always shooting at the same target (sorry for using the wrong ranks there).

[rocketman]

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

[General Jack Ripper]

Well, your results are in line with what I expected from the test before scrolling down.

The Tank Commander's head is too small a target to hit, and will simply button up if rounds get too close. It would take luck, a scoped rifle, or a stabilized gun tripod to hit him easily. All of my rifle or smg kills against TC's have come at 100m or less.

The jeep driver is sitting behind an engine block and a windshield, and anyone who has ever tried to shoot through a pane of glass will tell you it's hard to hit a target behind it, even with a high powered rifle. I've seen enough police sniper footage to be convinced. Of course, once the jeep bails out in panic, the driver will cower and be an even harder target.

The FO team is three infantry jogging while standing upright in a straight line, technically they are by far the easiest target to hit. However, as soon as a couple bullets go by, they will stop, drop, and cower, making them a very hard target to hit.

The Half-Track gunner is partially protected by thin armor plate, but does not have a gun shield (unless the late-war HT's have them?). Technically vehicle gunners are a high-priority target, because they're holding a lot of firepower, yet are still relatively easy to hit. He is incapable of cowering, and short of buttoning up, is exposed to enemy fire. Even buttoned up, bullet spall can still produce a casualty, especially in the American halftracks.

Well, that's my thought process at any rate.

[Bulletpoint]

14 hours ago, rocketman said:

...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.

Since your test involves driving towards the shooters, what ranges does he get hit at? 

[c3k]

Get rid of the grass. It may help to conceal the FO team. (As Ian posted, above, a one man team would be a better comparison.)

Tank Commander may be better compared to a German halftrack gunner as far as exposure over the shield/armor is concerned.

Keep the targets stationary. Eliminate all variables. Are moving men more difficult to hit than a man stationary on a mechanically moving platform? (Running men duck down in game.) Is the speed of the foot-soldier movement the same speed as a vehicle? Just make 'em stationary.

Shooters: get rid of the auto weapon. It introduces another variable. When does THAT guy shoot, versus when do any of the other guys shoot?

Yes, a lot of holes to be poked, but you're at least trying to see if there is something amiss. Thanks.

[A Canadian Cat]

Yes, thanks.

@c3k, the only problem with keeping things stationary is that the soldier in the open will tend to kneel or go prone - even before the shooting starts.  Is there a way to avoid that?  As soon as that happens he should be much harder to hit and that creates a change during the test.  Would having them move at move speed be better?  I'm just thinking out loud here...

[rocketman]

16 hours ago, SLIM said:

The FO team is three infantry jogging while standing upright in a straight line, technically they are by far the easiest target to hit. However, as soon as a couple bullets go by, they will stop, drop, and cower, making them a very hard target to hit.

The Half-Track gunner is partially protected by thin armor plate, but does not have a gun shield (unless the late-war HT's have them?). Technically vehicle gunners are a high-priority target, because they're holding a lot of firepower, yet are still relatively easy to hit. He is incapable of cowering, and short of buttoning up, is exposed to enemy fire. Even buttoned up, bullet spall can still produce a casualty, especially in the American halftracks.

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.

[rocketman]

7 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Since your test involves driving towards the shooters, what ranges does he get hit at? 

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?

[rocketman]

2 hours ago, c3k said:

Get rid of the grass. It may help to conceal the FO team. (As Ian posted, above, a one man team would be a better comparison.)

Tank Commander may be better compared to a German halftrack gunner as far as exposure over the shield/armor is concerned.

Keep the targets stationary. Eliminate all variables. Are moving men more difficult to hit than a man stationary on a mechanically moving platform? (Running men duck down in game.) Is the speed of the foot-soldier movement the same speed as a vehicle? Just make 'em stationary.

Shooters: get rid of the auto weapon. It introduces another variable. When does THAT guy shoot, versus when do any of the other guys shoot?

Yes, a lot of holes to be poked, but you're at least trying to see if there is something amiss. Thanks.

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.

[MOS:96B2P]

3 minutes ago, rocketman said:

Them being stationary is not an option as per Ian's remark. Could try walking speed but they might cower more quickly?

If they get shot at while walking they will probably Quick to the next waypoint. 

Would having the FO team sit on a stationary, buttoned, tank be useful for comparison?  Not sure.