Cover, concealment, kinetic energy and CMx2

[c3k]

Gents,

Awhile back we had several discussions regarding the relative merits of different small arms. Just this evening I read another thread about armor piercing ammo and its effectiveness against personnel. That got me thinking. I'd like to see a revised treatment of firepower and cover in the new engine.

To expand on that statement, I'll first explain how I _think_ firepower works now: every weapon has a "blast" rating or a "firepower" rating. Their effects on a target are identical, given equal ratings. E.g., a 100 point blast is the same as 100 firepower, whether produced by SMG's or rifles. (There is some solid anecdotal evidence that certain firepowers are tweaked a bit - a .50 cal. MG with 50 firepower will produce more of a morale hit than 50 firepower from a rifle unit.)If a target is in, say, a heavy building, all firepower effects are reduced equally.

Now, this is a great game, but I think that this firepower model can be improved. Namely, the energy of the rounds needs to be taken into account. Should a tile of woods block a .50 round as well as it blocks a 9mm parabellum? Of course not. That's why the kinetic energy of the rounds needs to be tracked and used.

Every piece of cover needs to be given a rating. Call it an equivalent armor rating. Whatever. Use an equivalence of dried #2 pine or homogenous steel - it doesn't matter. Whatever the reference, all cover needs to be rated to that datum. For example, a light building might get 4" of pine (or 2mm of steel - whatever). Every round fired has to penetrate that cover to be effective. Some will do so magnificently. Others will tumble to the floor, spent.

This approach would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of different weapons. Sure, SMG's are great - if you're close and have little cover. But rifles and heavy machineguns will shred whole villages. Need to clear out that house? Set up a .50 and burn some rounds.

This same approach of rating cover could apply to bunkers and pillboxes. Make them just like buildings, but with a limited entry. Any unit inside gains a certain amount of cover.

With my use of cover ratings, any unit which is in concealment may get hit with a lot of firepower. The "Area Target" command could become quite useful.

As well, infantry in foxholes would get pulverized by AP rounds.

Just my thoughts.

Thanks,

Ken

[ng cavscout]

I think that would be a great idea. I know if you have a fire fight in a wooded area, light rifle rounds are often deflected by light branches. But if you open up with a MMG, like an M-60, the rounds will saw through saplings, and some dirt reinforcings, like a mound in front of a fighting position. An HMG, like the .50 Cal

then it will cut down up to medium sized trees.

Another idea I have been kicking around is the effect of HE inside buildings. It is pretty much the rule from ASL about crit hits by HE weapons vs infantry in buildings doubling the firepower. This would simulate the effect of the force of the blast being restricted, and focused on the occupants. Assign a percentage, and then a random multiplier of effective firepower. Any thoughts?

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:

I think that would be a great idea. I know if you have a fire fight in a wooded area, light rifle rounds are often deflected by light branches. But if you open up with a MMG, like an M-60, the rounds will saw through saplings, and some dirt reinforcings, like a mound in front of a fighting position. An HMG, like the .50 Cal

then it will cut down up to medium sized trees.

So can LMGs:

The caption for the photo from the Australian War Memorial is:

LAE, NEW GUINEA. 1944-09-15. NX103739 LIEUTENANT C B LOWE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, HEADQUARTERS, NEW GUINEA FORCE SHOWING A LARGE TREE FELLED BY THE FIRE FROM A BREN GUN. THIS TREE WAS BEHIND THE TARGET USED DURING TRIALS OF CORROSION PREVENTATIVE LUBRICANTS FOR SMALL ARMS UNDER TROPICAL CONDITIONS.

While this particular tree was quite large and obviously, because of its position during what would have been prolonged trials, subject to heavy fire, it shows that even a rifle calibre round can do quite a bit of damage.

I know of another photo, which I'm attempting to find at the moment which shows a palm tree hacked down by a Bren gunner to kill a Japanese sniper hiding in its crown, during fighting in New Guinea. Apparently it was a tactic used but as to how common is another matter.

Another idea I have been kicking around is the effect of HE inside buildings. It is pretty much the rule from ASL about crit hits by HE weapons vs infantry in buildings doubling the firepower. This would simulate the effect of the force of the blast being restricted, and focused on the occupants. Assign a percentage, and then a random multiplier of effective firepower. Any thoughts?

Depends upon several factors. Perhaps the two most important are the construction of the building and the fusing of the round. If the round is nose fused, it will usualy explode as the round enters the building (and if the building is particularly well constructed, on its outside wall). If the round is based fused, it will explode well inside the building (and if the building is particularly lightly constructed, it will explode even beyond it, on the otherside!).

Most HE rounds, unless specifically designed for penetration, tend to be nose fused, so therefore the explosive effect will not IMO be all that well "confined" but rather will centre on or near the wall of entry, rather than in the centre of the room/building.

[ng cavscout]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

If the round is nose fused, it will usualy explode as the round enters the building (and if the building is particularly well constructed, on its outside wall). If the round is based fused, it will explode well inside the building (and if the building is particularly lightly constructed, it will explode even beyond it, on the otherside!).

Most HE rounds, unless specifically designed for penetration, tend to be nose fused, so therefore the explosive effect will not IMO be all that well "confined" but rather will centre on or near the wall of entry, rather than in the centre of the room/building. [/QB]

Exactly, that is why it would be given a percentage chance, say 3 or less %. This would reflect the round going in a window and detonating in the floor, or bursting through a door with out detonating until it hits an interior wall, or whatever. Some kind of "critical hit" that would make that wimpy little 37mm HE suddenly hit just at the right time and place to turn that room in the heavy building into a sausage factory.

[c3k]

Guys,

Thanks for the responses.

I think full power rifle cartridges (which in most armies were also their machinegun, both light and heavy, ammunition) should get a benefit. As you've posted, trees do not give good protection against rounds like that.

Another thought: have the TacAI determine the most effective round and then use it. I'm referring specifically to bunkers and pillboxes. My units seem to like to use HE against these targets. Historically, AP would be used.

Ken

[IntelWeenie]

Intriguing idea.

You could get really detailed and model the amount of pentration by range as well. This could get really CPU-intensive one you start factoring different values for the "hardness" of the cover being fired into or through.

[c3k]

More ramblings along these lines.

Shell splinters have certain physical properties: size, mass, velocity. Perhaps the differing shell case thicknesses would change the damage they inflict or the cover which would protect a unit from a nearby detonation?

Another subject:

I think it was John Waters who either studied this or posted about it, but it seems that the proximity of certain energetic rounds cause infantry to react differently. Small rounds with low energy must be very close to induce an "alerted/cautious" behavior, whereas larger rounds with more energy (velocity, explosive filling, etc) will cause the same behavior from a greater distance. This distance is how close the rounds pass to the individual.

Something to think about for CMx2.

Ken

[c3k]

I thought I'd resurrect this from deep in the bowels of the bulletin board vaults.

Does anyone else, like, say, BATTLEFRONT.COM, have anything to add to this?

Battlefront? Martin? Steve? Matt?

Ken "Okay, even JasonC would be okay"