The one minute gun range survivability test

[cool breeze]

Another thing that shows off how BFC sometimes lets the units natural accuracy out vs. its fudge factored accuracy, is shooting at windows.  They aim pretty good when shooting at the windows, its only the super good saving throws that the building provide that gives the window guys a chance. 

[cool breeze]

If you wanted to do the same sort of test but reduce the roll of fudge factors to a minimum, you could give the shooter a height advantage to reduce the micro terrain, and make the whole thing pavement to reduce the micro terrain.  Comparing it with shooting at a window makes sense too.  Unfortunately they both seem like a lot of work.

[rocketman]

12 hours ago, cool breeze said:

 

I think the regular short grass ground cover has built in small undulations.  Playing the game I notice that on paved surfaces my pTruppen die more, and I dont think it just ricochets.  Plus the game isnt designed to simulate the sort of test situations we devise, the fudge factors have all been adjusted with actual game play on regular maps not for test set ups. 

 

 

  There was no real source for that, I just pulled the number out of my butt.  After I sent it I kinda wished I had used a less questionable made up number.  I'm totally unqualified, having only had one shooting session with a rifle, and it had a scope and bipod, so didn't count  ( but I did nail it, am a natural shooter   ) .  But I'm also vaguely referencing JasonC and his unscoped rifle range condition numbers hes thrown out a few times.  Training was less back then than now but firearms proficiency was more widespread, at least in the US. Marines are supposed to all be able to pretty reliably hit a man size target at 500 yards on the range. 

 

 

The micro terrain that you speak of and small undulations surely only affects a stationary target that lies flat on the ground. Then a small undulation might help with avoiding shrapnel from an explosion or such. Moving forward micro terrain can't cover more than up to a soldier's knees (if even that) and then he is still a larger target than the HT gunner.

I know the game isn't designed for artificial test situations, but in order to analyse something I need to isolate an occurance from as many factors as possible. But I will keep a lookout, and I urge others to do so, for in-game situations when this happens. Keep saves, make screenshots, describe situation in detail - only then can we get away from it being dismissed as "anecdotal".

Please post link to JasonC numbers.

[rocketman]

12 hours ago, cool breeze said:

Another thing that shows off how BFC sometimes lets the units natural accuracy out vs. its fudge factored accuracy, is shooting at windows.  They aim pretty good when shooting at the windows, its only the super good saving throws that the building provide that gives the window guys a chance. 

AFAIK windows are abstracted in the game so the window in not always were it seems to be graphically, there might be holes in the wall from which to fire/get fired at etc.

[rocketman]

Here is what the HT and gunner looks like at different zoom levels:

Not sure what corresponds to "real life view", supposedly 1, but perhaps between 1 and 3. Still no much to aim at.

[JoMac]

Rocket, 

Use an Jeep/MG in your test...This will give us an idea how it compares to HT Gunners, and plain just Jeep/Trucks.

Will we still get the same 'Bullet Magnet' situation we see with the HT, or will the Jeep/MG receive sporadic or Small Arms fire aimed against the Jeep itself and not the Gunner (as if it's just a plain Jeep/Truck)...If it's the Latter, then we should ask ourselves why since both should be considered equal threats (both have unbuttoned MG Gunners). 

Edited September 7, 2016 by JoMc67

[rocketman]

Just ran such a test, stay tuned for preliminary results...

[JoMac]

1 hour ago, rocketman said:

Here is what the HT and gunner looks like at different zoom levels:

Not sure what corresponds to "real life view", supposedly 1, but perhaps between 1 and 3. Still no much to aim at.

the Real Life view is probably even alittle worse then #1 (definitaley not #3...except if using a Bino to try and identify target) since there is real-life weather conditions, troops popping up-down, etc, etc...I barely can tell that there is a Vehicle there, let alone someone on top. So how can CM justify having a HT Gunner receive this instant Laser-like Precision Small Arms fire ?...I don't know either.

in the above situation, the HT as a whole (let alone Gunner), at best, should receive sporadic Small Arms or burst of MG Fire with some hits but most miss. 

Slightly off subject, but Contrary to the previous Poster, RL Troops in the Open would probably not give away their position (unless it's short range and knows it can take out threat) knowing the retaliation in this situation can be worse...MG Gunner in protective HT at long range vs Troops in the Open...I report, you decide. 

Edited September 7, 2016 by JoMc67

[rocketman]

I continued with the US test. I replaced the Jeep with a MMG Jeep and pulled it, the HT and tank back to 400 m. Have only run the test once and:

1. No one fired at the Jeep until it was at about 300 m, it showed the same concentrated pattern of incoming fire, despite being a smaller target than the HT (the gunner is more exposed). It didn't take many shots to kill the gunner.
2. No one fired at the tank/TC until the tank opened fire. When incoming fire came the TC buttoned.
3. The HT was targeted at 400 m, showed about the same concentration of accurate incoming fire as at 300 m, but the gunner survived the entire turn

I'm going to pull the HT even further back to see if the incoming fire pattern changes. Right now I'm leaning towards the overall conclusion that a vehicle, with a gunner/TC that is not a seperate target, acts like a "beacon" that attracts incoming fire in a way that seems unwarrented. It would be nice if someone at BFC can shed some light on the issue and if this is an intentional design choice. I'm starting to tire of testing this stuff by now.

[JoMac]

Ok, we now established that the Jeep/MG is also a "Bullet Magnet" with a Concentrated Barrage centered on the Gunner. This now pretty much means that CM considers exposed Personal (Tank Crew, Jeep/MG, HT, AA/Vehicles) as Priority Targets and plain Jeeps/Trucks not so...Ok, Fine. 
 

However...I still have a problem of these Units being an instant "Bullet Magnet" w/concentrated Barrage. As I mentioned earlier, it needs to be toned down abit with things like; alittle longer acquire times, more sporadic (vs. concentrated), and wider dispersal of Small Arms fire of maybe Action-Spot in size...The closer the Target gets, alittle more concentration of Small Arms fire.

Anyways, just my Million-Dollar solution :-)