Two questions.

[The_Capt]

OK, I didn't do a search cause that thing is a horrible experience.

First question. Spec Fire. I did a test in which a platoon opened up with area fire at an unseen but known (a la Hotseat) Axis section position. The platoon wailed away at 300 nd 200ms for 3 turns..then a .50 cal joined in. Bottom line, couldn't get a Regular infantry section, out of command radius to break cover. They weren't "supressed" or "taking cover" either, just "alert". What gives? Anybody else try this?

Next Question. Arty effects. 155mm barrage next to a platoon standing in the open. Squads at 100, 200, and 300m. BArrage was on a TRP. Closest shell was 82m from the nearest squad didn't even blink!! I have personally been on the recieving end of this calibre and you duck at anything less than 500m. I have had casualties at 225ms. At 85m that sect (in the open 75% exposed) should be taking casualties and scrambling. So how were the lethal radii of the Arty calibres determined. I am beginning to think they are very unrealistic but perhaps this is for a reason. Would appreciate any input...except to tell me that "I should do a search" of course.

[The_Capt]

Bumpity!!

[Guest Babra]

Only BTS can tell you how or why the blast radii of shells is modelled as it is. In any event, I don't think there's a "shrapnel radius" beyond blast radius.

Without seeing a screenshot it's impossible to say why that regular squad didn't go looking for better cover. Maybe there was none to be had? On the other hand, given the volume of incoming fire and since they weren't getting hit, maybe they (rightfully) decided it's better to stay put? Stuff happens.

[The_Capt]

No shrapnel radius!!!??

Well correct me if I am wrong but isn't that the whole point of wrapping the things in steel. Hell pack em in cardboard if all you want is a BOOM.

A 155mm shell has a danger radius of 1100m and a lethal radius of somewhere between 100 and 200m in the open.

As to "stuff happening", OK I can buy that but they should at least "Take Cover" and lie down.

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

[Panzer Leader]

I do not claim to be highly knowledgeable about the impact of artillery, but I would suggest that BTS went as far as they could towards the proper modelling of artillery while still keeping the game balanced and fun.

If artillery did all the things you suggested, I could imagine games being nothing more than huge and horrible slugging matches. If they did lean one way or another I am definitely glad it was towards infantry's ability to survive a barrage.

Even now, enough large calibre artillery will stall most attacks, doubling or tripling the blast radius would cripple the game into unplayability.

[The_Capt]

PzL,

OK I'll buy that but then why don't you pull outthe silly calibres (ie 203mm) and stick with 155 and below.

I mean if you take a British Bn and give it a historical OOB that is well and good but a single 3 in mortar FO that isn't going to do what is suppose to, what is the point of sticking to a historical OOB in the first place?

I am sorry and this is killing me, but the deeper I get into this game the shallower it is looking. I mean it is an absolute riot to play and you will never hear me complain about it's "fun factor" and for that I am enternally thankful but when major weapons systems (ie MGs, Engineer obstacles and Arty) are abstracted to such a degree, it is looking more like "wargaming lite".

What kills me is that there is sooo much detail and accuracy in other areas. I mean armour is modeled in extreme detail,

I am posting on another thread arguing the value of the M1 vs the Enfield but what is the point if arty doesn't work like it should.

Maybe I should just step back and accept that "It is just a game" but it looked soooo close.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

As to "stuff happening", OK I can buy that but they should at least "Take Cover" and lie down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am inclined to agree. While I have no quibbles with the destructive capacity of arty as modeled in the game, it has always seemed to me to be a bit wimpy in the suppression department...but then, unlike yourself, I had nothing to compare it to, just an intuitive feeling.

Michael

[Enoch]

Capt,

I can't speak to how BTS modeled artillery but I will say that I tend to think of CM as a work in progress. They have taken a huge step forward in modeling tactical decision making in a wargame. I think it is pretty clear that it is better than anything yet produced. They will take another step forward with CM:BB. Hopefully they will take another huge step forward with CM II.

Is CMBO perfect? No, but it sure is better than anything else to date.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

I am sorry and this is killing me, but the deeper I get into this game the shallower it is looking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't give up yet. I think their hearts are in the right place. Charles and Steve would, I am confident, like to get everything just right too, but they had already worked on the game for a couple of years and it was time to send something out the door. There is just so much that a single programmer can do.

But CM is an evolving system and a lot of things that are disappointing now (and believe me, I have my own list) may well be corrected in future iterations.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

Closest shell was 82m from the nearest squad didn't even blink!! I have personally been on the recieving end of this calibre and you duck at anything less than 500m. I have had casualties at 225ms. At 85m that sect (in the open 75% exposed) should be taking casualties and scrambling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may be a case of drawing too many conclusions from a single event. Would a shell striking 85m from a 75% exposed squad always cause casualties? Does it never cause casualties in the game? There's a lot of randomness built into CM.

I know there have been RL arty guys post about the arty in CM in the past, and most of them seemed to think the lethality was fairly close to the mark, or at least wasn't wildly off kilter. They had issues with other areas.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So how were the lethal radii of the Arty calibres determined.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did a search. It was a horrible expirience and the flashbacks may haunt me for years, but I'm still here. Not too much detail is available, but here's what I found:

Boom

"The blast radius is done using some fancy math and knowledge of shell types. I don't know the specifics, and don't want to know Charles did all that stuff.

BTW, there is also a blast effect that can kill by shock alone. The bigger the gun, and the closer to the source, the greater the chance of getting offed. There are many accounts of soldiers coming up to someone who, by all examination, looks to be sleeping. But upon further inspection is dead without obvious fatal wound. This is also factored into the blast radius.

Steve"

Bang

"It's actually a value that combines fragmentation with blast radius. For example, the US 75mm gets a better rating than the 76mm. The shells are pretty much the same size (i.e. same potential for fragmentation) but the 75mm has more TNT and hence a larger blast radius. So I measure the killing power a few meters off-center, and that's the blast power rating that gets displayed. This makes it clear that a weaker radius requires greater accuracy to get kills and so, on average, will score fewer kills per shot.

Charles"

I don't know about the area fire thing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am sorry and this is killing me, but the deeper I get into this game the shallower it is looking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every time I start to feel like this I think back to when I played Steel Panthers, Close Combat and those other games that used to pass for "realistic", then I feel better

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Scipio]

I spend my military service in a 120mm mortar platoon. The deadly range of our mortar was ~50m. So I guess that's more or less okay in CM. Can't speak for the big calibers, but keep in mind, if you're close enough it's not necessary to catch some shrapnells with your body to die, the pressure can rupture your lung, and that's it.

As I understand it, the blast range in CM is the deadly range of the shell.

Generally, I must agree, the artillery system has a lot of errors and is a great weakness of CM.

[StellarRat]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

Arty effects. 155mm barrage next to a platoon standing in the open. Squads at 100, 200, and 300m. BArrage was on a TRP. Closest shell was 82m from the nearest squad didn't even blink!! I have personally been on the recieving end of this calibre and you duck at anything less than 500m. I have had casualties at 225ms. At 85m that sect (in the open 75% exposed) should be taking casualties and scrambling. So how were the lethal radii of the Arty calibres determined. I am beginning to think they are very unrealistic but perhaps this is for a reason.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said you have been on the receiving end of 155 mm? When? If I remember correctly WWII shells are far less deadly then modern shells. If I remember correctly modern shells are designed to spray fragments in a very uniform manner which makes it a lot more deadly for infantry. So, if you were comparing modern effects to WW II that might be the problem. Anybody have any thought or facts about this?

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:

If I remember correctly modern shells are designed to spray fragments in a very uniform manner which makes it a lot more deadly for infantry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be my assumption, but I don't know enough about the differences to have a firm opinion. I agree with the Cap'n that even moderately close big-stuff will make you want to get romantic with the worms. But then, I'm a coward by nature.

[Doug Beman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A 155mm shell has a danger radius of 1100m and a lethal radius of somewhere between 100 and 200m in the open.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That far? That's quite near 2/3 of a mile. If that's correct, my impression of artillery was WAY undercutting the reality.

DjB

[StellarRat]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

That far? That's quite near 2/3 of a mile. If that's correct, my impression of artillery was WAY undercutting the reality.

DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds right to me. Danger and lethal are two different things. Rifle bullets are deadly for miles (assuming you are unlucky enough to be hit by a stray bullet), so 2/3's of a mile for artillery fragments (not aerodynamic) seems reasonable. I have a feeling that if you are prone the danger radius is probably greatly reduced (assuming no VT.)

[Dar]

Capt:

Keep 'em coming! I agree with some of the others that sometimes historical accuracy needs to take a backseat to playability, but I appreciate the research and testing you and others do to expose just where CM:BO is lacking. I believe the CM series is and will be for some time the most realistic computer game available, but those areas where it could stand improvement should definitely be brought to attention. Pointing it out and backing it up with facts and documentation is the best way to get BTS's attention.

There will always be unrealistic elements (e.g. instant, global awareness of a newly spotted enemy unit) that won't go away, but minimizing those and maximizing the realism is something I think all of us want.