How is firepower calculated?

[Hawk]

I suddenly started thinking about this when I drow to work this morning. How is firepower for the various weapons in the game calculated? Do you f.ex. just decide that a Mauser rifle has a value of 1 and then work from there? A search didn't reveal any previous discussions about this.

Hawk

------------------

Our's is not to reason "why", our's is but to do and die!

[Guest Big Time Software]

It is complicated The factors involved are different depending on the weapon type. Basically, there are two main groups -> small arms and everything else.

Small arms are the easier of the two to figure out. We looked at the RoF for a typical squeeze of the trigger, size of the bullet (lethality/penetration), and accuracy of the weapon. This then gives the weapon a basica FP value which is then modified over distance based on the weapon's range and performance. So a SMG has wildly different ratings up close and at a distance, while a single shot rifle is fairly consistant.

All other rounds are similar to the above but there is a bit more science involved. The type of shell (mortar, HE, AP, etc.), quantity of HE, shape, and amount of shrap potential are all figured out. Then the weapon that is firing it has a large number of factors like velocity, accuracy, performance over distance, etc. I'm probably forgetting so many things that are factored in here

Safe to say that a lot of science has gone into these numbers. Although the information we use often has holes, some highly educated guesses and observations have shored up the rough spots.

Oh, and remember that the FP rating you see displayed is actually not what is being used to calculate the weapon's performance and combat results. The FP rating in CM is simply an easy to grasp indicator of what the weapon is capable of doing in a very general sense. This is important to note because some games use the FP rating as is, which means the combat resolution model is quite simplistic and probably quite unrealistic. Trying to have one number represent a dozen things is asking for trouble

Steve

[Spook]

Please pardon this very naive question, Steve. (I did a search earlier, but couldn't discern a direct answer.)

Can it be assumed that unit experience also figures directly as a modifier to "firepower" in CM, leastways for the small arms? In effect, does a higher-quality unit have more firepower, with all other things being equal?

[Guest Big Time Software]

No, Fire Power is simply an imperical quality of the weapon. Experience, terrain, weather, etc. are all seperate modifiers.

In most wargames out there, especially boardgames, "Fire Power" is the be all end all used for determining combat results. In CM this is not the case. FP is derrived from a whole host of factors, some of which can be in turn modified by other factors.

For example, Rate of Fire is a seperate variable depending on the Experience, type of unit, and range of the target. So a spooked Conscript might fire twice for every once of a Veteran unit. Other games build RoF into a general Fire Power value. This is a very bad abstraction.

Fire Power should NOT be a watershed for a dozen different variables. Why not? Because when you go to abstract something the more variables that are tossed into the soup, the more watered down each one becomes.

An example is a game that most of you are familiar with. A certain website did an article tearing into the game because it produced some really off the wall results. Two I can remember off the top of my head were direct results of having a watershed FP value.

In this game a Pak38 (50mm AT gun) had almost the same FP rating as a Pak40 (75mm AT gun) because the Pak38 had a higher rate of fire. The result in the game was that a Pak38 was just sa good as a Pak40 when engaging armor, which is just plain silly. Penetration capabilities are the same if you fire one or one hundred rounds. The other example was the massed FP of .50cal MGs taking out King Tigers. This is a problem where FP was not being treated on a 1:1 bases with the target, but was instead being lumped together. If you toss 400 stones into a pond at once you will make a big splash, but the fact is that each stone sinks just as fast as if you tossed one in at a time with a little splash. Shooting a KT with a couple thousand rounds from a dozen .50cal ammo at once is no different than having one shoot the same number of rounds over a longer period of time.

Er... I think I have made clear a point above If not, I am sure I'll have more questions to answer

Steve

[Guest Babra]

(Donning barrister's wig)

So, Mr. BTS, if indeed that is your real name , what you are telling us is that firepower is independent of squad quality; however, and please correct me if I am mistaken, sir, if we conclude that a veteran squad will, all other things being equal, fire more often than a squad of conscripts, then we may conclude, may we not, that though firepower per "shot" is the same, we may reasonably expect better results from the veterans by virtue of their having put out, to use the vernacular, beaucoup rounds viz the conscripts?

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Doug Beman]

Defense: Objection! Counsel is badgering the witness!

Prosecution: Your honor, these records will clearly show that Babra is, in fact, a Doberman.

Da Judge: Overruled.

DjB

[Guest JonS]

[not even trying to be a lawyer] Actually, Steve indicated above that the Vet squad will fire LESS often than the numpties - taking into account better training and fire discipline I presume.

further assumption is that the Vet squad will be able to make each expenditure of ammo 'count' more than the numpties.

Regards

Jon

------------------

Ubique

[Guest Big Time Software]

JonS is correct. A Vet squad will most likely fire less often, but make each one of those shots count more. This is not an absolute thing as there are other factors that will make a unit shoot more or less frequently, such as range and incoming fire.

In general, the weapons in CM work as they should work. Difference in crew training, environmental conditions, and other factors are all treated seperately.

Steve

[Guest JonS]

yah! A correct assumption. Two in fact. Quick, where's my kodak

------------------

Ubique

[Lee]

Interesting. I wonder if a veteran squad would put out a higher

rate of fire if in close proximity to a dangerous enemy squad

than would a green squad. This would simulate the greater

training and experience in fast reloads of their personal weapons

that a vetan or better squad would possess. Is that modeled in CM,

Steve?

And a related question. Do MMG/HMG teams reload their

machine guns faster the more experienced/trained they are?

This alone would enable them to fire at a higher sustained rate

when they needed maximum firepower.

[Herr Oberst]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, let me present you with two hypothetical scenarios, and ask you to evaluate your own impressions...

Scenario A: While the jury is crossing a field, you hear 100 rifle shots fired at you. Remarkably, not a single juror is injured.

Scenario B: While this same jury is crossing the another field, you hear five shots, and four jurors fall to the ground injured.

Which field would you rather cross a second time?

Effective fire, which is the melding of all these factors (RoF, Experience, Terrain, etc), is what matters, and all of the sudden, it isn't easy numbers anymore, because half of those numbers just turned into variables. Which is what makes all of this fun.

And STILL a member!

[This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 02-03-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Herr Oberest is not only a Member, but he is also a correct (and a bit funny too ).

Lee, volume of fire is NOT what the military wants to train its soldiers to master. Skilled and judicious expenditure of ammo is what they strive for. This is one reason the MG42 started to become a liability to the Germans in terms of ammo supply late in the war. Nearly any moron could get that thing to fire gobs of rounds in a short space of time. But only a skilled gunner can use the RoF to practical advantage and not run out of ammo in the first 5 minutes of a firefight.

As you well know, it takes NO time to dump a whole clip from a MP40. That is 20% of the soldiers' entire ammo loadout. So a Veteran unit isn't going to unload everything he has when someone gets up close. They aren't racing to see who can be empty first

I remember a few of our MG guys on this BBS saying that if they fired more than a short burst their Sgt. would huck a rock at their heads, kick their feet, scream at them, etc. If you wonder why, check out a Green SMG team that gets spooked at close range and you will know why

Steve

[Guest JonS]

Gonna contradict you Steve (whoa - did I just say that . Note to self - Self, stop posting after drinking!), but we were trained to unload as fast as possible "in the general direction of the threat" (no aimed shots, use full auto).

Of course, this was for counter-ambush - a very special case where short term weight of fire might just save your ass.

Unlikely (an ambush that you survive was a really BAD ambush), but it might.

Regards

Jon

------------------

Ubique

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 02-04-2000).]

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

JonS is correct. A Vet squad will most likely fire less often, but make each one of those shots count more. This is not an absolute thing as there are other factors that will make a unit shoot more or less frequently, such as range and incoming fire.

In general, the weapons in CM work as they should work. Difference in crew training, environmental conditions, and other factors are all treated seperately.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This quote answered my question better, Steve, that unit experience will usually play some role in "fire effect" or whatever the heck you wanna label it.

What I had in mind as a counter-example was not the TOAW Vol.1 game you cited (yes, Steve, I knew from experience what game you were talking about earlier on) but the Campaign Series (EF/WF) by TalonSoft. A different scale from CM, of course, but it was a wish for many CS gamers like myself that unit experience could be represented more than just by a single morale value. Thus the basis of my question.

Regards,

Ed

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but we were trained to unload as fast as possible "in the general direction of the threat" (no aimed shots, use full auto).

Of course, this was for counter-ambush - a very special case where short term weight of fire might just save your ass.

Unlikely (an ambush that you survive was a really BAD ambush), but it might.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, they taught us not to walk into ambushes

[This message has been edited by Berlichtingen (edited 02-04-2000).]

[Guest JonS]

well, yeah, we got that too ... but sometimes you don't have the choice

never hurts to train for the unexpected

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 02-04-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yup, Jon, you got yourself a genuine exception there We had an interesting discussion about just that a while back. Because of the short distances your guys will likely unload, Vet or not. The difference is that the Vets will be MUCH more effective and less likely to do something stupid right off the bat (like going to ground).

Steve

[Guest JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>something stupid, like going to ground<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

amen. A really hard instinct to break.

(that edit _really_ changes the meaning of that sentence...)

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 02-04-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Ed,

Glad I got your question answered. Yeah, I knew you'd know the TOAW examples Also glad you know exactly why they are such negatives in terms of realism and gameplay.

The #1 rule at Big Time Software is "no magic numbers". That means we break stuff up into as many seperate variables as possible to make sure that the end behavior is based on solid, fine tuned values. When magic numbers you push it one way and it breaks something, push it another and something else doesn't work right.

In a computer simulation there is no reason to do things this way. If you want things to be simple for the player, then do what we did with Fire Power. One value that everybody can easily grasp and compare, but the stuff going on under the hood is far more rich and complex, which means realistic behavior.

Steve

[John Kettler]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Herr Oberest is not only a Member, but he is also a correct (and a bit funny too ).

Lee, volume of fire is NOT what the military wants to train its soldiers to master. Skilled and judicious expenditure of ammo is what they strive for. This is one reason the MG42 started to become a liability to the Germans in terms of ammo supply late in the war. Nearly any moron could get that thing to fire gobs of rounds in a short space of time. But only a skilled gunner can use the RoF to practical advantage and not run out of ammo in the first 5 minutes of a firefight.

As you well know, it takes NO time to dump a whole clip from a MP40. That is 20% of the soldiers' entire ammo loadout. So a Veteran unit isn't going to unload everything he has when someone gets up close. They aren't racing to see who can be empty first

I remember a few of our MG guys on this BBS saying that if they fired more than a short burst their Sgt. would huck a rock at their heads, kick their feet, scream at them, etc. If you wonder why, check out a Green SMG team that gets spooked at close range and you will know why

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While we're on fire discipline/lack thereof and its impact on ammo consumption, I thought I'd mention what happened to the Grossdeutschland Division during the first day of Barbarossa. Seems the division got a little carried away (all right, a lot) and shot off its ENTIRE ammo allotment, then screamed for more. Alas, this cry for help fell on deaf corps commander ears (believe it was Von Kleist), who decreed that the trigger happy unit spend its first night in Russia sans ammo. What fun! Thereafter, fire discipline was a hallmark of Grossdeutschland (which also had larcenous tendencies regarding SS Tiger tanks).

John Kettler

[Kurtz]

I think "weight of Fire" is a more interesting way to calculate firepower. (weight of projectile * rate of fire per time unit)

But most models for calculating firepower (army manuals for example) take into account probability to hit, the weapon´s /ammunitions´s probability of malfunction and other stuff.

Modern military training involves "putting a lot of lead in the air" during assaults. That´ll make the enemy feel sorry for themselves and not shoot back at you. Of course there is a problem with ammo supply, but there is no real alternative to firing, is there.

[CoolColJ]

There is a good firepower model in that book called "Numbers, Predcitions and War" by Colonel T.N.Dupuy - great book! Its realsitic as its based on stats...to predict the outcomes of battles etc. Its 96 % correct with predicting outcome of battles! There is even a wargame application section in the book. NOt sure how it applies to tactical squad level scale though.

------------------

CCJ

aka BLITZ_Force

My Hompage ----> http://www.geocities.com/coolcolj

Double your immersion with my Tweaked Textures and Saving Private Ryan sound set mods for CM!! Check out my music while your there!

[Lee]

Steve: I agree that in general the military wants you to be

conservative if anything about ammo use. But I wasn't referring

to your typical situation, but rather one where the veteran

squad was in serious peril and needed to take really decisive action.

For example, a vet SMG squad is in a house and one or two enemy

green squads comes into the house to clear em out. In this type of

close quarters battle situation a lot of quickly and skillfully

applied firepower is called for. And I just wondered if the

veteran squad would have the advantage with faster reload times

and so be able to maintain a higher ROF during the course of

the firefight. Thus enabling them to apply their superior skill

with their weapons in a more overwhelming fashion. This would

reduce the chances of the green unit getting a few lucky kills

before they are cut down.

And as far as MMG/HMG teams, one could easily imagine a situation

where a MG crew is being assaulted by a fairly large number

of charging riflemen who's intention it is to swarm the position

bayoneting the crew and blasting them at point blank range.

In this type of situation being able to load in a fresh belt

a few seconds faster could make all the difference.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yes Lee, this is simulated. The major way is that a Vet unit is less likely to go to ground. That is the big factor in RoF. Pretty much any noodlehead can change a clip even under fire. But having him use it effectively (or at all!!) is the mark of a well trained soldier.

My point is in a ground zero attack Vets probably wouldn't unload much faster than a Green unit (provided said unit isn't cowering). Yes, the Vets will unload faster than they would if the target were at 50m, but it isn't like they are going to try and race a Green unit to see who can unload faster at 10m

Steve

Steve

[Lee]

Ok, Steve. Sounds good. Yeah, the veteran unit keeping

cool and returning fire in a coordinated skillful fashion

and being resistant to diving for cover and hiding will make

them much more effective on average than the green unit (in addition

to the fact that their fire is much deadlier to begin with). So

the results are about the same as a faster reload, I guess.

Isn't it nice to have a wargame that is so realistic that we

can spend time on minute details like this and not have to

worry about more critical issues like armor penetration being

accurate?

Three cheers for Steve and Charles for making that possible.