A modest proposal regarding SMG squad and Rates of Fire

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I cited 20m as 'toe to toe' distance because that is the number that is usually thrown around as the actual approximate radius an infantry squad takes up. IOW, the LOS tool may show two infantry squads as 20m apart, but at this distance the abstracted position of the acutal individual soldiers is such that at least some individuals in the opposing squads may be within handshaking distance of each other.

Yes, I figured that's what you were thinking, but it is my impression (which admittedly may be false) that when the fighting gets that close, the squad formation tends to close up as well. This is as much blind instinct as learned tactics, but it is probably good tactics as well as the soldiers are then better able to support one another.

But as I say, that may not be as typical as I envision it.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Moon:

OK, I reread your second post. Indeed the "low" ammo level can represent a host of things, including scrounging additional ammo or even picking up a new weapon. Or even swapping of mags between the soldiers in the same or other squads. My point remains that the 92% usage is pretty arbitrary whichever way you look at it. One could easily pick another number just as well.

For example, you are assuming that 25 "shots" represent 210 rounds of ammo. SMG squads can carry more ammo points than 25 however (up to 40?). If all members of a squad carried 7 full mags, maybe a better equivalent would be 35 shots in CM instead of 25?

Martin

Indeed, this is the weakest point of my argument. If the ammo 'points' amount of a squad load-out represents, say, only about 80% of a squad's actual load out, with the remaining 20% reserved for the 'low ammo' state, the ammo usage in my example becomes more reasonable. IMHO, it's still a bit high. In my example above, assuming 80% 'usable' ammo, this would drop a 20-point 1 round burn to 135 rounds or only about 3 1/2 clips worth. I only think this is high by about 1/2 a clip, though, but that's a pretty minor difference and one I am much more willing to live with.

Worth noting again, though, that 20 ammo points in a single turn is certainly not the maximum usage seen in the game. I my example, it was actually 23 points in 55 seconds, and that's not the only time I've seen rates this high happen.

You would know better than I just how depleted a squad on 'low ammo' is supposed to be in CMBB. Based upon what is written in the manual, I had always assumed it meant that the squad members were out, or nearly out of their regulation load-out and were getting by on scrounged clips from wounded squad mates, weapons picked up off the battlefield and the like. If this is not the case, I would respectfully submit that it might be a good idea to reword the description of 'low ammo' in the manual for CMAK

For obvious reasons, I generally try to avoid fighting with 'low ammo' squads. What limited experience I have with them suggests that their fire output is VERY low, and more along the lines of a squad relying upon scrounged ammo and weapons, rather than the last 20% of it's carry load.

Once again, I am NOT disputing CMBB ammo load-out and usage in general, but rather the very limited case of point-blank and very short range ammo usage by squads with a high proportion of automatic weapons.

As a secondary issue, I speculate whether certain squads, such as the Volks. Heavy SMG squad, have unrealistically low ammo loads, and IRL actually carried a heavier load to feed their automatic weapons, accepting a greater encumbrance as a trade-off. This is pure speculation and I do not have evidence to back this up, though, and I also recognize that the current engine isn't really set up to model infantry squads with differing levels of encumbrance.

Thanks everyone, and especially Battlefront and LeakyD for their informed comments. Leaky, I appreciate your info about ammo usage in the modern army with the M16A2, but I would ask you to consider whether you think you and three of your squadmates would have really burned through and average 5+ clips of ammo *and* one grenade each in one minute while firing on an enemy *in the same building in an adjacent room*, even with full auto capability. I am still skeptical about this kind of ROF, but I am more than happy to be convinced otherwise.

Thanks again all.

Cheers,

YD

[IntelWeenie]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

In any event, I find it hard to believe that German Volksgrenadier Heavy SMG squads (6 MP40s & 2 MG42s, and a whopping 15 ammo points standard load) went into battle in Real Life with only 2 minutes worth of ammunition for their weapons. Given that they were the long-range fire element of the platoon, I find it much more likley that they simply went into battle more heavily loaded, and left the fast manuvering to the other squads while they held back and laid down suppressive fire.

--and--

As a secondary issue, I speculate whether certain squads, such as the Volks. Heavy SMG squad, have unrealistically low ammo loads, and IRL actually carried a heavier load to feed their automatic weapons, accepting a greater encumbrance as a trade-off. This is pure speculation and I do not have evidence to back this up, though, and I also recognize that the current engine isn't really set up to model infantry squads with differing levels of encumbrance.

I seem to remember somewhere that when only the LMGs of a squad are used (no other weapons being in range of the enemy) that it's possible for an ammo point to not be used? If so, this would certainly help ameliorate this issue with the Volks. Heavy SMG squads.

Of course, the only real solution for this problem would be to track ammo by individual weapon types within the squad.

[Panzer76]

Have people already forgotten the uber SMG sqds in CMBO?

They were so exploited to the extent that people started bainning them in QBs.

Why? Because they had lotsa ammo and lotsa fire power. As I recall, one thing BTS did to reduce the exploiting of SMG sqds, was to up the ammo expenditure and reduce the ammo load out.

If you are so worried about your inf running out of ammo, buy something else than SMG sqds!

As it is, SMG sqds are already overused in hitorical terms, and giving it further improvments wont help!

As for "unrealistic" ammo expenditure etc, remember Steve's mantra "this is an abstraction"

[YankeeDog]

Yes, I do remember the disadvantages of the old CMBO system, Panzer, but to reitrate:

I am NOT advocating a return to CMBO's infantry firepower and ammo modeling, with SMG squads having 40 ammo points AND a ROF, even at point blank, of only 7 points/turn.

Rather, I am advocating a *moderate* toning down of the ammo usage at very close ranges, from the current 20+ points/turn down to a maximum in the 12-15 point range. Everything else about the new modeling would remain the same. This would mean that the fastest SMG squads could burn through their ammo would be about 2 minutes, rather than the current 1.

Would this make SMGs more powerful? A little bit. But I would argue realistically so. And it is certainly not a return to the days of CM's uber-SMG squads.

Since I play almost exclusively scenarios, I do not worry about the 'overused' issue much, but I can understand your point here. One problem here is that basic infantry units like SMG platoons are not given a rarity like vehicles and tanks, so players are free to buy as much as they want of a less common formation without penalty. Another issue that I would like to see looked at is the relationship between projectile energy and 'hardness' of cover - on of the distinct disadvantages of SMGs is that their relatively low power projectile doesn't have much ability to penetrate through cover, so in the urban combat situation in my original example, a rifleman or LMG gunner might be able to shoot *though* the interior walls into the next room, but an SMG gunner might not be able to use this trick.

Intelweenie, I certainly agree that ultimately the solution to modeling units like the Volks. Heavy SMG squad is to model BOTH encumbrance AND ammo for different weapons. I actually don't think It would be really necessary to model ammo for every weapon in the squad. 99% of the time, just splitting LMG ammo and ammo for the rest of the weapons in the squad would work fine. True, for most nationalities the rifle and the LMG use the same caliber and could theoretically share ammo, but practically speaking you're talking about stripping/loading clips in order to make that happen, a slow process that is probably modeled just fine by the 'low ammo' state. Three-way ammo modeling (LMG, Rifle, and SMG) would be even more accurate.

Your info about squads sometimes NOT using an ammo point is interesting, though. I've never seen this happen, but then again I've never looked for it. For now, one trick that I like to use with the 2-LMG squads is to split them and engage with the LMG half only if I need to use them for long-range firepower, since the vast majority of the long range firepower is in this half of the squad, this ends up being a more efficient use of the limited ammo points.

Cheers,

YD

[leakyD]

Thanks everyone, and especially Battlefront and LeakyD for their informed comments. Leaky, I appreciate your info about ammo usage in the modern army with the M16A2, but I would ask you to consider whether you think you and three of your squadmates would have really burned through and average 5+ clips of ammo *and* one grenade each in one minute while firing on an enemy *in the same building in an adjacent room*, even with full auto capability. I am still skeptical about this kind of ROF, but I am more than happy to be convinced otherwise.

Granted, that kind of ammo expenditure is circumstantial.

I rememeber training w. M16A1's, and we used full auto in all closed in environments (thick woods, built up areas, low viz). Now to have ALL members of the squad go through 150rnds and a grenade each *may* be justified, depending on the target (how many enemy, what kind of position, etc.)

Now that I'm thinking about it, for that to happen *every* time does seem a bit excessive.

Perhaps this is something that can be modelled in future releases w. troop quality?

Veteran and above have less ammo expenditure, as they are better at fire management, and are probably quicker at dealing with a given situation (need less volume of fire, as they are better at getting the job done). Regular and below have "normal" expenditures, for the opposite reasons.

Personally, I found myslef much more concious of my ammo (rifle, grenades, AT weapons) and how to use it as I moved through the ranks. There are many situations where timely resupply is not possible, and you must make due with what you have (though no more than 12-24hrs).

Again, this is usually circumstantial per engagement. Anomolies do occur. I remember having to guard a bridge with 3 guys and an M60 MG once. We had ~500 rnds total amongst us all, and no AT weapons. Oh, and the radio crapped out. And we had to ration our food for 3 days....etc etc etc...it sucked, and we got lucky someone remembered about us and sent up a track to check on things.

Anyway....

So, again, perhaps this is something that can be modelled within troop quality, instead of a "blanket" reduction in ammo expediture for full auto units.

I would find it much more realistic, and your vets become that much more valuable!

[YankeeDog]

Interesting comments.

I certainly agree with the idea that Veteran units should be more efficent about their ammo usage. OTOH, especially conscripts and greens are going to be less competent at tasks like changing mags, especially when the adrenaline is flowing. So while they might (inefficiently) spray an entire clip of ammo without so much as a brief pause to aim, they're also more likely to fumble the clip, try to put it in backwards, jam the weapon by getting their uniform caught in the action, etc.

As to where the 'balance' would lie in terms of ammo usage between these two factors, I'm not sure. My guess is that you are probably right, though, and that especially in close combat situations, Veterans and above would use ammo at a lower rate, while still being significantly more deadly than less experienced troops.

Assuming I have translated in-game ammo usage into Real World terms correctly (which, as Moon and others have brought up, I may not have if some of a squad's ammo load is reserved for the 'low ammo' state), I can certainly believe that a few members of the squad might end up burning through 150+ rounds in a minute of close combat. I just don't think this would be the norm for the whole squad except in the rarest and most unusual of situations.

With my 4-man SMG squad I can beleive one, perhaps two of the soldiers might more or less stand fast and empty their PPShes as fast as possible in the general direction of the HMG team. In so doing they might manage a to burn through more than 150 rounds in less than a minute. But more likely than not they're doing this in order to cover their squadmates, who spend the better part of the turn maneuvering around to catch the HMG team in a crossfire, and therefore use substantially less ammo. The average ammo usage across the squad would therefore be between the 'burners' and the 'movers', and would be lower than what you see in CMBB.

I'll completely buy that maybe every once in a while, due to some exceptional circumstance, a squad engaged in close combat might simply stand fast and fire ammo and toss grenades at the enemy for a full minute, but this seems like it should exception rather than the rule to me, with the kind of behavior I described above being more common. As I noted before, I re-ran the turn several times and ended up with more or less the same result each time, so this kind of close combat ammo usage in CM seems to be the rule, not the exception.

Thanks again for sharing your perspective - it's always enlightening to the the view of people who've actually 'been there, done that'.

Cheers,

YD

[Edited to remove the longest damn run-on-sentence I think I've ever written ]

[ August 02, 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Cpt.Kloss]

If you want to decrese SMG firerate, do not forget to decrease its firepower accordingly, which - in my opinnion - even now is too high on distances above 50 m.(that is - spraying not aiming).

You also seem to forget that smg actually do better with "ammo low" status then rifles. You deploy smg in close combat and in enemy's direct proximity (their optimal distance)they shoot more often then "ammo low" rifles at their optimal distance.

Anyway, I would also add one more opinnion:

I think that firepower values are to much spread out, making a god out of a weapon, not man wielding it. More should depend upon skill and luck. Put riflemen close to smgs and in CM they will alsways loose (assuming no surprise). In reality very often one well placed or lucky grenade decided the outcome...which never was so obvious as it is in CM.

[JasonC]

The issue would seem to be the way the cover is interacting with the ammo expenditure.

First, it does not take 5 seconds to change a mag. 2 maybe, but not 5. There is no physical difficulty in expending the entire ammo load in 1 minute. But in actual combat they wouldn't, because they would not have targets continually (and would save ammo when they clearly did not have one).

See, the 4 SMGers are being modeled as though they are holding their triggers down for half the turn. Then, the HMG crew is surviving because the building is being modeled as catching 9 out of 10 bullets fired, even among those aimed right enough to hit if they had been in the open.

If the SMGers held their triggers down that long at men actually in the open, they would annihilate the target in 10-15 seconds, without burning all their ammo. Even if it were more men than in the HMG team. The game is *correctly* modeling this ability to "surge" the firepower by excess ammo expenditure.

But then the building is letting the HMG team survive 55 seconds of that. As though they were hosing as frantically as they would if they were being rushed by men in the open, but more of the bullets are just hitting walls. That is an abstraction gone awry. See, in real life the effect of the building cover is to *prevent shots*, not simple *intercept* ones still made.

As far as hits generated per unit time goes, they are equivalent and that is right. But as far as ammo expenditure goes, they are not equivalent. Shots prevented outright do not burn ammo.

Ammo expenditure per causalty caused should rise with target cover, of course. But not quite as fast as losses per unit time falls. Against men in cover, the shooters are firing somewhat more accurately (at small targets) but less often.

Suppose the chance of expending an ammo point when taking a shot were the 3rd root of the % exposure faced by that shot. The a unit with 12% exposure would last just as long as it does now - 8 times longer than a unit with 100% harazdous movement. But the ammo expenditure to inflict the same losses on that unit would only go up by a factor of 4, instead of going up by a factor of 8. Part of the effect of cover would be, essentially, "non-shots".

I hope this is helpful. It is always a good idea to analyze exactly what doesn't seem to be tracking right.

[Wisbech_lad]

In the next game engine I would like to see differences in penetration FP between small arms. E.g. model the cover that different environments give to different small arms fire separately. A bren firing into woods at 100m should have more effect than a parcel of stens.

But would still give priority to improved modelling of arty...

[JasonC]

I think the penetration of rifle and MG bullets compared to SMG or pistol ammo is not that big a deal, frankly. Most rounds missed - like 999 out of 1000 or upward. Of the tiny portion that hit, most probably did so because the target was actually exposed.

The cover to ammo expenditure issue is a different one. It is not about whether pistol ammo goes through walls (it doesn't). It is about how weapons are actually used in close combat, and how close combat is possible at all.

Understand that every small arm is sufficiently lethal that anyone actually seen at the close ranges where ammo use rises can be dispatched easily by any of them. With a trivial expenditure of ammo. High ammo expenditure comes from blind fire, pinning fire, or fire at wide areas only a tiny portion of which are covered by exposed personnel. All of which mean cover. Without cover, close range combat lasts split seconds. Everyone is ducking behind whatever is available virtually the entire time. Otherwise it would already be over.

As cover rises, it becomes possible to survive to closer ranges, for periods of time long enough that significant amounts of ammo might conceivable be used. But they aren't on the receiving end of a constant blaze of unaimed rounds. Instead, every small instant of exposure by anyone draws fire. In a sense this has to increase a certain sort of "accuracy". Not hits per round fired, but certainly a reduced area aimed at.

My proposal to make ammo expenditure probabilistic is meant to capture this cover to ammo use relationship. Only a target that is 100% exposed would always use up a round of the shooter's ammo. A unit in open ground would use one up roughly 90% of the time. But shooting at a unit in very good cover would only use a round of ammo about half the time. The minimum chance of ammo use would be 45%, or half the chance for an open ground shot (9% exposure in a trench implies third root .45).

So in the initial example, the SMG squad would still "fire" 24 times. But each time it would be "rolling" to see if it used up an ammo point. Against 10% exposure in a heavy building, each of those rolls would be .464 chance. They'd probably use 11 ammo - 10-12 as a range - to wipe out the HMG team. It would still take them 55 seconds, they just wouldn't be as "dry" at the end of it.

I think this is better than trying to limit the rate of fire surge, because the possibility of a rate of fire surge is in fact correct for cases like a "rush" by tons of squads in the open. Then the SMGers - if alive through it all - might fire 24 times at 70% exposed targets, and use up 21 ammo. They'd kill a lot of guys, shooting at men 7 times as exposed as the HMG team was. They'd use nearly twice the ammo (1.9 times expected).

This should also set up interesting and to my mind realistic trade offs when longer range firefights occur between men in good cover against men in poor cover. The guys with good shots are going to do a lot more damage per unit time. But they will also be firing faster. Their ammo loads won't last as long, unless they exercise fire discipline on purpose - e.g. shortened covered arcs.

One is obviously still far better off over a whole ammo load when in good cover than in poor cover. (E.g. the SMGers will hit 3.7 times as many men in 70% open as in 10% cover). But the benefit over the whole ammo load is not quite as large as the benefit per unit time.

Also, probabilistic ammo use should occasionally result in "outliers", spread from unit to unit in ammo usage, etc. All to me realistic, since firing opportunities (at *exposed* targets) on real battlefields are circumstantial rather than deterministic things.

[Michael Emrys]

Nice piece of analysis, Jason. It will be interesting to see how BFC responds to this.

Well done!

Michael

[Cogust]

Jason,

How about the grunt who just fires in the general direction of the enemy, without aiming his fire. He would would fire almost regardless of the cover of his targets.

Not to talk about suppressing fire as it's not aimed at specific persons, but used to force the enemy to take cover/keep their heads down instead. Suppressing fire is arguably the type of fire that consumed most ammo in an infantry company and the volume of fire is independent of the cover the targets happen to be in.

[JasonC]

Cogust - sure. But that just says the ammo used up inflicting damage amount x on men in good cover will be higher than in bad cover. Not that the ratio will be the same as the ratio of damage per unit time.

See, my third root idea is meant to keep the size of the ammo use difference to a factor of 2, when the cover difference is a factor of 8. When the cover difference is only a factor of 2, the ammo use difference will be only a factor of ~1.25.

Concretely, firing at a unit in woods will have about a 52% chance of using an ammo point, while firing at a unit in scattered trees will have a 63% chance. Marginally higher, but close. Because much of the fire is indeed "spray and pray". Just not all of it.

To inflict the same expected damage you'd have to fire twice as often at the guy in better cover, using 0.52 times 2 or 1.04, vs. 0.63, or 1.65 times as much total ammo. Not quite twice as much ammo, but certainly more.

The impact of cover on damage per unit time is linear. By putting in a kind of "correction term" for ammo usage only (leaving per unit time stuff unchanged), but making it third order, the ammo use still grows with cover but slightly less than linearly.

When a unit is not in cover, an SMG squad doesn't blow its whole ammo load against that unit because the target doesn't survive long enough to absorb it all. With the change, the ammo consumption needed to kill off a unit in cover will still be much higher than the ammo needed to kill a unit in the open. But not so high that the squad blows its entire ammo load at men in cover in 55 seconds.

The reason they can last 55 seconds is in part that the SMGers *don't have shots* for the full minute, not that they have their triggers down almost the entire time but the building is catching everything. When they do have shots, they still have to hit small exposed areas - a head visible for a second at one window or whatever - so it still takes a lot of shots overall. But 3-4 times, not 7-8 times, as many.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[snip]

As for ammo loads... soliders did then, do now, and will into the future carry about enough ammo for one good sized firefight. At least while on the go. From fixed positions the story is different, and it is yet another advantage that goes to the defender.

[snip]

Steve

I would love to see defending infantry get more ammo than attacking infantry! This seems realistic and would prevent attackers from simply milking most of the ammo out of a defensive position and then moving in. In reality, the attacker would have no idea how much ammo reserve is there.

Dr. Rosenrosen

[Cogust]

Jason,

Some function for increasing the rate of fire for emergencies or extremely good targets, like a company advancing in the open, would be good to have (we have the former though as squads burn their ammo faster if the enemy is close).

Assuming that ammo cousumption will decrease when the enemy is in better cover though is questionable IMO, as a scared grunt within spitting distance of the enemy will do everything he can to fling lead along the general direction of the bad guys or not fire at all due to paralysis. Whether the enemy is in scattered trees or in well-dug foxholes won't matter to him, he'll act in the same way regardless.

[JasonC]

"the attacker would have no idea how much ammo reserve is there"

These tactics are very effective right now. Defenders certainly did face serious fire discipline problems for ammo reasons, and they often had to hold their fire until attackers were very close because of it. But it is arguably too *predictable* at the moment.

I've made two proposals that address that. Not just a uniform boost to defender's ammo - I don't think that would be terribly realistic or fair. Uncertainty of a modest sort would be introduced by the chancy ammo use idea, though. Sometimes one MG would just happen to flip "heads" a lot and not burn as much ammo, thus remaining in action longer.

The other proposal I made a while ago and hasn't been discussed on this thread (yet). It is to allow chance ammo supply as a "reinforcement" event. Just as right now you can say, 10% chance of air support starting on turn 15, you should be able to say, defender gets a 20% chance of +50% base ammo starting on turn 15. Sometime between turn 15 and turn 20, they'd get more. Nobody knows quite when. And without knowing the scenario settings, neither side would even know whether such a possible even was out there.

This would drastically reduce the *predictability* of *enemy* ammo problems. You just wouldn't know if he'd been "topped off" recently. You might still plan on running him low on ammo. But maybe he is faking it, and is ready to blaze away as soon as everyone comes closer.

Obviously this works best in scenarios. But it could be used in QBs, just with a bit more info to each side. If you set the chance low enough, it would remain relatively unpredictable. You can set attacker levels different from defender levels, but either could get more.

I also think it would be realistic. They did not have tons more ammo than they could carry. But reinforcements did arrive with ammo during firefights, men ran on resupply runs to the nearest ammo point, 1-2 vehicles might pull up behind the frontage and unload.

Such things should not be regular automatic occurances in a scenario only 20-60 minutes long. And there is no point in elaborately modeling every runner or jeep. But a one time, probabilistic, partial resupply, is perfectly believable. And it would interact with double blind intel to create a highly realistic uncertainty about the depth of the enemy's remaining magazines.

[JasonC]

"Whether the enemy is in scattered trees or in well-dug foxholes won't matter to him, he'll act in the same way"

No, not at all. If he isn't cowering, he will certainly fire at anything he can actually see. If he can't see anything, he may blaze away anyway. But some portion of the men are going to be firing or not firing dependent on actual visuals. In fact, if you look at the reports about battlefield firing, one of the most common reasons men in combat fail to fire is they never see the enemy.

This matters more at closer ranges, because men without cover don't survive long at close ranges. And long range fire into good cover is rarely engaged in, because the shooting is so poor. Most short range fire (by volume) is directed at targets that are comparatively hard to see (the easy to see, close range targets are already dead).

It is not fundamentally a behavioral point, however. It is fundamentally a visibility point, which is about how and why cover protects people in firefights. A squad has 10 guys, say, and all 10 can see that enemy squad in the open. Only 5 of them see the head that just popped up at that window.

Either group can miss, and the head in the window is a smaller and harder target certainly. But one of the reasons the guy at the window is less likely to die each second is fewer people are shooting at him, because fewer people have seen him, during his brief exposure.

Smaller target means of each bullet fired, fewer will hit. Less visible target also means somewhat fewer bullets fired, however. The total effect on chances of being hit per unit time combines both of these forms of protection. The effect on chances of being hit per bullet depends only on the former.

Per bullet and per unit time are not the same, because there is protection from flying bullets and there is protection from bullets flying They are not the same.

[IntelWeenie]

Interesting idea, JasonC.

What about adjustment for experience? (how much?) This could help model fire discipline as the higher the experience, the less likely a unit would use up an ammo point.

Overall, I think max ammo loads would have to drop a bit under this plan since an ammo point is not always used when a "shot" is taken.

[Jarmo]

We still need Kwazydog and Madmatt to post here so the thread can be cast

in stone for future generations to awe!

Interesting discussion, in other words.

I like the Jason&Weenie moderated fire suggestion, love to see if the

powers that be like it too..

[JPS]

And while we are developing the most advanced infantry firepower model to date, how about modeling the ammo consumption effects (cover, experience, ...) for each weapon type individually?

For example, automatic weapons used by inexperienced troops would soak up a lot of ammo compared to experienced men shooting proper short bursts (cover or no cover). For non-automatic rifles I would expect experienced troops who are shooting at exposed targets to be able to increase their ammo consumption (effective shots per minute).

[JasonC]

I'd keep it simple. Experience is already modeled as straighter shooting, more fire effect. Unless I saw clear tactical inconsistencies I wouldn't throw in another layer of tweaking. As for modifying ammo loads, I'd look at that if the results seemed wrong, only.

In typical battles, the targets will likely be a mix of 25s and 70s for the attackers, with some of that plus a lot of 9-14 range stuff for the defenders. With third roots that means .9 to .6 numbers for typical shots vs. attackers, call it .75. Some of that and some .50 for shots vs. typical defenders.

Maybe .6 as an average. For both sides combined, it'd be .65 to .70. In open steppe terrain, though, you could easily see .8, and in a stone building city fight maybe it would be .6 or so. Small moves are best, if any adjustment in the ammo loads is required at all.

[YankeeDog]

Sorry I haven't gotten back on this thread for a bit - work has been keeping me busy for a few days.

I love your ideas, Jason, and my only quibble with them is that I am worried they may not be implementable for CMAK. My original intention in starting the thread was to propose a relatively simple 'tweak' to the current model that might be able to be affected for CMAK. While not perfect, IMHO simply adjusting point-blank rates of fire so that the maximum ROF was about double the 'normal' ROF would be a (hopefully implementable) improvement over the present situation. At least in my games, I see more combat with one SMG squad taking on one enemy squad in close quarters and heavy cover than I do single SMG squads trying to stop mad rushes across open ground by entire enemy platoons. As such, I would prefer the model be more realistic in the former, even if I have to sacrifice a little realism in the latter to get it.

Tieing ammo usage into exposure of the target is ultimately a GREAT idea and I'd vastly prefer this to my simple proposal if it is implementable. This would improve the model in a whole host of areas besides just point-blank ROF in tight quarters. Besides what you have already mentioned, it would allow units to 'burst' fire at a briefly exposed, but especially vulnerable target, like a squad exposed crossing a street between two buildings, a behaviour which is currently lacking in the model. Unfortunately, I suspect this great idea will need to wait for CMX2 as it involves adding a new mechanism to the model. With this to other elements like variable encumbrance in the CMX2 though, and I suspect someday we'll all look back fondly at the enjoyable, but simplistically quaint days of CMBO and CMBB. . .

I also think your ideas about cover and ammo usage would tie in well with some of the ideas that have been cropping up on the forum about adding some sort of "ROF standing orders" to the game. Briefly, this command would allow players to give units standing orders affecting how aggressive units should be in terms of ammo usage.

For example, units could be ordered to offer only 'Harrasing' fire, which would be more efficient in terms of ammo used over time, make the the firing unit harder to spot, would pin units in the open or bad cover, but cause few casualties. The next step might be 'Standard' fire, which would be roughly the kind of ROF we see in the game now and would model a typical, disciplined ROF. The last step in the scale might be an 'All Out' ROF, representing a high ROF most useful for units laying down covering fire for a retreat and the like.

Some sort of system like this, combined with your cover-based ammo usage ideas, would allow a player to order a unit in good cover to restrain it's ROF to keep it from burning ammo against enemy units still some distance away in poor cover, or conversely order the same unit to 'go cyclic' to cover a pull back of other units. This strikes me as realistic and I don't think it would put too much control in the hands of the player so long as the TACAI could make units override such 'ROF SOP' orders when threatened, or when simply inexperienced and twitchy.

I do feel obligated to defend my orginal calculations on one particular count, though: I didn't pull the 5-second mag change figure out of thin air; I got it by timing Navy Seals to executing mag changes while running fire and maneuver drills in a documentary on TV. For the Seals, it took an average of a bit under 4 seconds from the time they ran one mag dry until they were actually up and firing again - in the interim, they dropped behind cover, pulled out a new mag, inserted it, charged the action, and then popped up again to fire. The mag change itself may have taken about 2 seconds, but the whole process from the last bullet of one Mag leaving the muzzle to the first bullet of the next leaving the muzzle took about 4 seconds.

Given that the Seals a just a bit more highly trained than your typical grunt, and also given that they weren't actually under fire but were running a drill, I figured 5 seconds was a reasonable average for a typical grunt in a real combat situation.

This is all academic and misses the main point, I think. Even taking your 30 seconds figure to change and clear the mags, I still think there's way too many things to do in 55 seconds of close combat besides actually pulling the trigger to get somewhere between 150 and 200 rounds off per soldier in a single minute. As you have so eloquently pointed out, actually figuring out exactly where the hell the enemy is so you can shoot him is one major important activity, *especially* if the target unit is in heavy cover, as was the case in my example.

'Twould be great if the game modeled this. For now, I will settle for slightly moderated ROF at point-blank range as a small improvement.

Cheers,

YD