CMX2 sweeping -flanking MG fire and LOF effect

[pamak1970]

Hello everybody.

I follow the discussion about the new engine and i have the following comments .

I noticed that LOS and LOF will change and i am wondering if the new engine will permit a more realistic presentation of machine-gun fire.

With the current engine ,there is not any advantage if machine guns create crossfire ,by firing diagonally in front of the defence positions.

In fact many times ,this type of fire is less effective compared to having MG firing directly ahead, cause in the latter case ,the range to target is lower.

Still, the advantage of firing a flanking MG shot, is very high since it maximizes casualties .

Think about an enemy deployed formation advancing towards the defender.

The formation will have troops spreaded inside an area of a parallelogram.

Now imagine the trajectory of a MG which fires directly ahead against an enemy formation .

The trajectory INSIDE the parallelogram of the enemy formation has a certain length.

Try to imagine now the trajectory of a MG fire which "penetrates" the formation diagonally.

The trajectory in this case is much longer compared to the first one.

Longer trajectory which crosses a larger portion of the enemy formation during a longer time ,maximizes chances to hit "something" ALONG the path.

This is much more important for MGs compared to range accuracy since MG do not aim targets with precision anyway.

The current engine concentrates the effects of MG fire burst to the selected target, ignoring possible additional targets in front or behind it.

I beleive that in order to simulate better MG fire, it IS NOT NESSESARY to calculate accuratelly trajectories.

All is needed is to apply results of fire against ALL targets along the Line of fire.

I was reading in other posts that in the new engine, a unit (tank) will block LOS and LOF against friendly units behind it.

This is really good news.

I just hope that it will not be the same with infantry units behind other friendly infantry and enemy MG fire .

I also hope that MG fire will have multiple effects against more than one targets along the line of fire.

Especially inside the "sweeping fire- range".

I am not sure if i use the correct English term but i am talking about the range where the height of the trajectory does not exceed the height of a man.

(In contrast ,when you aim a target at the maximum range, the trajectory will have to be high enough in order to reach the target ,which means that at a certain area around half the distance of the maximum range, it will pass over other enemy targets )

Again, i point that there is no need for calculating this trajectory.

Simplifications will work fine ,by defining the sweeping-fire range of a MG as a certain percentage of its maximum range .

When a MG aims a target inside this range, the LOF will affect every other target along the LOF.

When a MG fires near the maximum range, the LOF will not affect additional targets located around the middle of the distance.

The effect of distance to the firepower can still be a factor.

So at the end , we can have a MG acheiving a LOF against an enemy formation, affecting multiple targets alongs this LOF, with diminishing effects as the distance between MG and these targets increases.

Additionally, if the "prime" target of the fire is inside the "sweeping fire range" then the LOF will affect all targets BOTH BEFORE and AFTER the prime target along it and UP to the distance of the "sweeping fire range".

If the "prime" target is towards the maximum range ,the LOF will not affect additional targets AFTER the "prime" one.

It will still affect other enemy units along the LOF BEFORE the "prime" target provided that they are not located near the middle of the length of the LOF

Any comments?

Are my thoughts logical both from a military point of view and computer programming ?

[ January 26, 2005, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[pamak1970]

Hello everybody.

I follow the discussion about the new engine and i have the following comments .

I noticed that LOS and LOF will change and i am wondering if the new engine will permit a more realistic presentation of machine-gun fire.

With the current engine ,there is not any advantage if machine guns create crossfire ,by firing diagonally in front of the defence positions.

In fact many times ,this type of fire is less effective compared to having MG firing directly ahead, cause in the latter case ,the range to target is lower.

Still, the advantage of firing a flanking MG shot, is very high since it maximizes casualties .

Think about an enemy deployed formation advancing towards the defender.

The formation will have troops spreaded inside an area of a parallelogram.

Now imagine the trajectory of a MG which fires directly ahead against an enemy formation .

The trajectory INSIDE the parallelogram of the enemy formation has a certain length.

Try to imagine now the trajectory of a MG fire which "penetrates" the formation diagonally.

The trajectory in this case is much longer compared to the first one.

Longer trajectory which crosses a larger portion of the enemy formation during a longer time ,maximizes chances to hit "something" ALONG the path.

This is much more important for MGs compared to range accuracy since MG do not aim targets with precision anyway.

The current engine concentrates the effects of MG fire burst to the selected target, ignoring possible additional targets in front or behind it.

I beleive that in order to simulate better MG fire, it IS NOT NESSESARY to calculate accuratelly trajectories.

All is needed is to apply results of fire against ALL targets along the Line of fire.

I was reading in other posts that in the new engine, a unit (tank) will block LOS and LOF against friendly units behind it.

This is really good news.

I just hope that it will not be the same with infantry units behind other friendly infantry and enemy MG fire .

I also hope that MG fire will have multiple effects against more than one targets along the line of fire.

Especially inside the "sweeping fire- range".

I am not sure if i use the correct English term but i am talking about the range where the height of the trajectory does not exceed the height of a man.

(In contrast ,when you aim a target at the maximum range, the trajectory will have to be high enough in order to reach the target ,which means that at a certain area around half the distance of the maximum range, it will pass over other enemy targets )

Again, i point that there is no need for calculating this trajectory.

Simplifications will work fine ,by defining the sweeping-fire range of a MG as a certain percentage of its maximum range .

When a MG aims a target inside this range, the LOF will affect every other target along the LOF.

When a MG fires near the maximum range, the LOF will not affect additional targets located around the middle of the distance.

The effect of distance to the firepower can still be a factor.

So at the end , we can have a MG acheiving a LOF against an enemy formation, affecting multiple targets alongs this LOF, with diminishing effects as the distance between MG and these targets increases.

Additionally, if the "prime" target of the fire is inside the "sweeping fire range" then the LOF will affect all targets BOTH BEFORE and AFTER the prime target along it and UP to the distance of the "sweeping fire range".

If the "prime" target is towards the maximum range ,the LOF will not affect additional targets AFTER the "prime" one.

It will still affect other enemy units along the LOF BEFORE the "prime" target provided that they are not located near the middle of the length of the LOF

Any comments?

Are my thoughts logical both from a military point of view and computer programming ?

[ January 26, 2005, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[YankeeDog]

Some interesting ideas; the MG modeling was considerably improved from CMBO to CMBB, and I hope it makes another leap forward with CMX2.

FYI, in English, MG fire that sweeps along the ground is usually referred to as "grazing fire", and MG fire that hits the ground with a high angle of attack is usually called "plunging fire."

I think one of the more challenging things to do in CMX2 would be to model the difference between the two, and how they interact with terrain and target type. Grazing fire has a large area of effect, and is very good at interdicting movement, but even a small crest or depression creates a "dead zone" it cannot reach, and it is also not very good at causing casualties to troops that have "gone to ground."

Plunging fire, in contrast, is much more effective at causing casualties to enemy that has taken cover, and to a limited extent can reach behind small reverse slopes, but otherwise has a much smaller area of effect.

It will be interesting to see what the boys come up with.

Cheers,

YD

[YankeeDog]

Some interesting ideas; the MG modeling was considerably improved from CMBO to CMBB, and I hope it makes another leap forward with CMX2.

FYI, in English, MG fire that sweeps along the ground is usually referred to as "grazing fire", and MG fire that hits the ground with a high angle of attack is usually called "plunging fire."

I think one of the more challenging things to do in CMX2 would be to model the difference between the two, and how they interact with terrain and target type. Grazing fire has a large area of effect, and is very good at interdicting movement, but even a small crest or depression creates a "dead zone" it cannot reach, and it is also not very good at causing casualties to troops that have "gone to ground."

Plunging fire, in contrast, is much more effective at causing casualties to enemy that has taken cover, and to a limited extent can reach behind small reverse slopes, but otherwise has a much smaller area of effect.

It will be interesting to see what the boys come up with.

Cheers,

YD

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

[snips]

FYI, in English, MG fire that sweeps along the ground is usually referred to as "grazing fire", and MG fire that hits the ground with a high angle of attack is usually called "plunging fire."

IIRC "grazing fire" is applied to any fire where the trajectory height is low enough to hit a standing man. A similiar defintion once used to be used to define "close range", i. e. that range at which the trajectory of a bullet fired by a prone firer would not rise more than six feet above the ground. This definition gives some pretty long "close range" numbers, like 600 yards for the Lee-Enfield firing .303 ball.

From memory, the British Army's circa-1970s terminology divided the trajectory into sections. That part of the trajectory where the bullet stayed above head height was known as the "safe zone". The point at which the bullet descended to head height was called the "first catch". The point at which the cone of fire first intersected with the ground was called the "first graze", and the zone from first catch to first graze was called the "dangerous area". The elliptical area over which bullets were striking the ground was known as the "beaten zone".

Obviously there was a "dangerous area" from the muzzle of the weapon to the point at which the trajectory rose above head height, and if fire was being conducted at "close range" (using the definition above) there would be no safe zone.

It's all a good deal clearer with a diagram.

Comments and corrections welcome -- this is one of the things I can't find an authoritative source for, and I'm speaking from memory of a training film on the GPMG.

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

[snips]

FYI, in English, MG fire that sweeps along the ground is usually referred to as "grazing fire", and MG fire that hits the ground with a high angle of attack is usually called "plunging fire."

IIRC "grazing fire" is applied to any fire where the trajectory height is low enough to hit a standing man. A similiar defintion once used to be used to define "close range", i. e. that range at which the trajectory of a bullet fired by a prone firer would not rise more than six feet above the ground. This definition gives some pretty long "close range" numbers, like 600 yards for the Lee-Enfield firing .303 ball.

From memory, the British Army's circa-1970s terminology divided the trajectory into sections. That part of the trajectory where the bullet stayed above head height was known as the "safe zone". The point at which the bullet descended to head height was called the "first catch". The point at which the cone of fire first intersected with the ground was called the "first graze", and the zone from first catch to first graze was called the "dangerous area". The elliptical area over which bullets were striking the ground was known as the "beaten zone".

Obviously there was a "dangerous area" from the muzzle of the weapon to the point at which the trajectory rose above head height, and if fire was being conducted at "close range" (using the definition above) there would be no safe zone.

It's all a good deal clearer with a diagram.

Comments and corrections welcome -- this is one of the things I can't find an authoritative source for, and I'm speaking from memory of a training film on the GPMG.

All the best,

John.

[Dirtweasle]

The current engine concentrates the effects of MG fire burst to the selected target, ignoring possible additional targets in front or behind it.

Is that 100% correct?

I was under the impression that even though MG fire now is modeled firing at a point, there is some effect to the immediate surrounding area.

[Dirtweasle]

The current engine concentrates the effects of MG fire burst to the selected target, ignoring possible additional targets in front or behind it.

Is that 100% correct?

I was under the impression that even though MG fire now is modeled firing at a point, there is some effect to the immediate surrounding area.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YankeeDog:

[snips]

FYI, in English, MG fire that sweeps along the ground is usually referred to as "grazing fire", and MG fire that hits the ground with a high angle of attack is usually called "plunging fire."

IIRC "grazing fire" is applied to any fire where the trajectory height is low enough to hit a standing man. A similiar defintion once used to be used to define "close range", i. e. that range at which the trajectory of a bullet fired by a prone firer would not rise more than six feet above the ground. This definition gives some pretty long "close range" numbers, like 600 yards for the Lee-Enfield firing .303 ball.

From memory, the British Army's circa-1970s terminology divided the trajectory into sections. That part of the trajectory where the bullet stayed above head height was known as the "safe zone". The point at which the bullet descended to head height was called the "first catch". The point at which the cone of fire first intersected with the ground was called the "first graze", and the zone from first catch to first graze was called the "dangerous area". The elliptical area over which bullets were striking the ground was known as the "beaten zone".

Obviously there was a "dangerous area" from the muzzle of the weapon to the point at which the trajectory rose above head height, and if fire was being conducted at "close range" (using the definition above) there would be no safe zone.

It's all a good deal clearer with a diagram.

Comments and corrections welcome -- this is one of the things I can't find an authoritative source for, and I'm speaking from memory of a training film on the GPMG.

All the best,

John. </font>

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YankeeDog:

[snips]

FYI, in English, MG fire that sweeps along the ground is usually referred to as "grazing fire", and MG fire that hits the ground with a high angle of attack is usually called "plunging fire."

IIRC "grazing fire" is applied to any fire where the trajectory height is low enough to hit a standing man. A similiar defintion once used to be used to define "close range", i. e. that range at which the trajectory of a bullet fired by a prone firer would not rise more than six feet above the ground. This definition gives some pretty long "close range" numbers, like 600 yards for the Lee-Enfield firing .303 ball.

From memory, the British Army's circa-1970s terminology divided the trajectory into sections. That part of the trajectory where the bullet stayed above head height was known as the "safe zone". The point at which the bullet descended to head height was called the "first catch". The point at which the cone of fire first intersected with the ground was called the "first graze", and the zone from first catch to first graze was called the "dangerous area". The elliptical area over which bullets were striking the ground was known as the "beaten zone".

Obviously there was a "dangerous area" from the muzzle of the weapon to the point at which the trajectory rose above head height, and if fire was being conducted at "close range" (using the definition above) there would be no safe zone.

It's all a good deal clearer with a diagram.

Comments and corrections welcome -- this is one of the things I can't find an authoritative source for, and I'm speaking from memory of a training film on the GPMG.

All the best,

John. </font>

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The current engine concentrates the effects of MG fire burst to the selected target, ignoring possible additional targets in front or behind it.

Is that 100% correct?

I was under the impression that even though MG fire now is modeled firing at a point, there is some effect to the immediate surrounding area. </font>

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The current engine concentrates the effects of MG fire burst to the selected target, ignoring possible additional targets in front or behind it.

Is that 100% correct?

I was under the impression that even though MG fire now is modeled firing at a point, there is some effect to the immediate surrounding area. </font>

[YankeeDog]

I think the major difficulty in modeling this type of terrain is terrain effects.

If combat took place on a billiard table flat surface, the kind of simple modeling of beaten zone you're talking about would work very well, but elevation differences substantially change the depth of beaten zones, or can eliminate it entirely. Even small crests, ridges and depressions create "shadows" in the beaten zone.

For example, imagine an MG on one crest, with a small valley and another crest some distance away. The MG is at a higher elevation relative to targets in the valley, so this will create a "plunging fire" situation when the MG is firing into the vally -- the beaten zone will be very small, but the fire will be very dangerous because of the high angle of attack. This is, in fact, why IRL placing MGs on high ground is sometimes a good idea - it increases effective lethality, especially against prone or dug-in targets, albiet at the cost of the size of the beaten zone.

If the MG targets an enemy on the crest of the opposite ridge, the beaten zone will be very small -- confined to the crest itself, pretty much. Depending on the extent of the elevation change, the sound of the bullets whizzing somewhere above their heads might have a mild supressive effect on enemy in the valley below, but certainly no lethality.

Ground cover can also dramatically effects beaten zone. For example, an individual stalk of wheat has very little effect on a rifle-caliber bullet. But the effect of the bullet hitting thousands of stalks of wheat over a hundred meters distance is considerable; the bullet loses velocity, and possibly even destabilizes, losing altitude more quickly. Obviously, this decreases the depth of the beaten zone as well. This is one of the reasons why prone targets are so hard to hit with small arms fire -- the cumulative effect of every blade of grass and little bush along the bullet's path tends to reduce velocity and bring the bullet to the earth. Of course, soldiers are also trained to lie in/behind whatever cover they can find, which further intensifies this effect.

So there's a lot of things you need to consider if you want to model MG beaten zones really well. So simply applying MG firepower to all units along the LOF potentially creates as many realism problems as it solves. With this said, I think the basic structure that pamak lays out is a good place to start -- it's just that then some kind of adjutments for elevation and terrain effects need to be layered in as well.

No MG modeling system is ever going to be perfect, but hopefully the new one will be better.

Cheers,

YD

[YankeeDog]

I think the major difficulty in modeling this type of terrain is terrain effects.

If combat took place on a billiard table flat surface, the kind of simple modeling of beaten zone you're talking about would work very well, but elevation differences substantially change the depth of beaten zones, or can eliminate it entirely. Even small crests, ridges and depressions create "shadows" in the beaten zone.

For example, imagine an MG on one crest, with a small valley and another crest some distance away. The MG is at a higher elevation relative to targets in the valley, so this will create a "plunging fire" situation when the MG is firing into the vally -- the beaten zone will be very small, but the fire will be very dangerous because of the high angle of attack. This is, in fact, why IRL placing MGs on high ground is sometimes a good idea - it increases effective lethality, especially against prone or dug-in targets, albiet at the cost of the size of the beaten zone.

If the MG targets an enemy on the crest of the opposite ridge, the beaten zone will be very small -- confined to the crest itself, pretty much. Depending on the extent of the elevation change, the sound of the bullets whizzing somewhere above their heads might have a mild supressive effect on enemy in the valley below, but certainly no lethality.

Ground cover can also dramatically effects beaten zone. For example, an individual stalk of wheat has very little effect on a rifle-caliber bullet. But the effect of the bullet hitting thousands of stalks of wheat over a hundred meters distance is considerable; the bullet loses velocity, and possibly even destabilizes, losing altitude more quickly. Obviously, this decreases the depth of the beaten zone as well. This is one of the reasons why prone targets are so hard to hit with small arms fire -- the cumulative effect of every blade of grass and little bush along the bullet's path tends to reduce velocity and bring the bullet to the earth. Of course, soldiers are also trained to lie in/behind whatever cover they can find, which further intensifies this effect.

So there's a lot of things you need to consider if you want to model MG beaten zones really well. So simply applying MG firepower to all units along the LOF potentially creates as many realism problems as it solves. With this said, I think the basic structure that pamak lays out is a good place to start -- it's just that then some kind of adjutments for elevation and terrain effects need to be layered in as well.

No MG modeling system is ever going to be perfect, but hopefully the new one will be better.

Cheers,

YD

[pamak1970]

For me the problem is not the one you mention Yankeedog.

First of all let me clarify that i am not dealing with the beaten zone but with the dangerous zone in general which includes mainly the space outside of the beaten zone.

The current type of effect inside beaten zone is not a problem according to my opinion.

Anyway, in my opinion the issue is not dead space.

Think for example the following.

Let say that the LOF in the new engine passes over or near over 4 different squads.

Now , according to the old engine, you can not target simultaneously all of these 4 squads,even though they are along the same LOF.

Still, you can target them seperetaely in 4 different turns.

During each turn , the engine calculates if the chosen target is visible.

If there are not obstacles and the target is visible,then the LOF inflicts certain casualties,suppression and so on.

I envision the new engine to be able to do this "multiple targeting" in a single turn applying results simultaneously to all targets.

In order to do this, you do not need to change the way the engine "sees" terrain features and visibility or dead space.

The only issue ,i do not know about is speed,since the new engine will execute 4 times the amount of procedures it executes in current state (4 times cause in this example we have 4 different squads affected by the same LOF).

On the other hand i am thinking that we have now processors with higher speed, plus there will be not too many machine guns in any given scenario, plus it will be often the case where a LOF will affect less than 4 units .

I think it will be reasonable to expect that the common situation will be to have two units affected simultaneoulsy along the same LOF,rather than more.

That is why i think that this approach might work

[pamak1970]

For me the problem is not the one you mention Yankeedog.

First of all let me clarify that i am not dealing with the beaten zone but with the dangerous zone in general which includes mainly the space outside of the beaten zone.

The current type of effect inside beaten zone is not a problem according to my opinion.

Anyway, in my opinion the issue is not dead space.

Think for example the following.

Let say that the LOF in the new engine passes over or near over 4 different squads.

Now , according to the old engine, you can not target simultaneously all of these 4 squads,even though they are along the same LOF.

Still, you can target them seperetaely in 4 different turns.

During each turn , the engine calculates if the chosen target is visible.

If there are not obstacles and the target is visible,then the LOF inflicts certain casualties,suppression and so on.

I envision the new engine to be able to do this "multiple targeting" in a single turn applying results simultaneously to all targets.

In order to do this, you do not need to change the way the engine "sees" terrain features and visibility or dead space.

The only issue ,i do not know about is speed,since the new engine will execute 4 times the amount of procedures it executes in current state (4 times cause in this example we have 4 different squads affected by the same LOF).

On the other hand i am thinking that we have now processors with higher speed, plus there will be not too many machine guns in any given scenario, plus it will be often the case where a LOF will affect less than 4 units .

I think it will be reasonable to expect that the common situation will be to have two units affected simultaneoulsy along the same LOF,rather than more.

That is why i think that this approach might work

[YankeeDog]

Actually, CM distributes fire from MG very well among multiple visible targets -- just don't give them a direct targeting order. Instead, set a cover arc and let them go at it. As soon as one target "goes to ground", the MG will switch its fire to another, more vulnerable target. In this way, a single HMG can easily pin down an entire platoon, or more, in one turn.

As my previous post shows, just because the LOF "passes over or near" 4 squads does not mean the MG can target all four squads with one burst and one elevation/range setting -- if the squads are at substantially different elevations, or if there is intervening cover such as brush that will intercept of deflect bullets, this won't happen.

So I can't see how it's more realistic to be able to simutaneously target 2, 3 or 4 squads at a time, even if they are along the same LOF. At least, it's not realistic to be able to do so in all situations. Sometimes, the beaten zone would be such that, while firing at one squad, another squads some distance away, but along the same line of fire would also be in the "danger zone", but not always.

Remember, hitting something at anything over 200m with an HMG requires adjustment of the sights and tripod -- you don't just spray bullets around wildly at a broad area. This is what all those dials and sights, and locks on the MG tripod are for. Of course, a good gunner can adjust things and switch targets reasonably quickly, but as noted above, CM already allows this.

At close range, if the HMG is in danger of being overrun, it can unlock the tripod and spray wildly, but CM models this already, too -- as the range gets close, the number of "shots"/turn MGs can put out in CM goes up. This lets the MG distribute its fire very rapidly among a large number of targets. Again, the secret is to not issue the MG a direct targeting order, but instead let it choose its targets on its own.

In short, I'm all for modeling of grazing fire, and, when appropriate, larger beaten zones, interdictive sweeping fire across open, flat spaces, etc. But I find universal targeting of multiple units along one LOF a bit hard to swallow.

Cheers,

YD

[YankeeDog]

Actually, CM distributes fire from MG very well among multiple visible targets -- just don't give them a direct targeting order. Instead, set a cover arc and let them go at it. As soon as one target "goes to ground", the MG will switch its fire to another, more vulnerable target. In this way, a single HMG can easily pin down an entire platoon, or more, in one turn.

As my previous post shows, just because the LOF "passes over or near" 4 squads does not mean the MG can target all four squads with one burst and one elevation/range setting -- if the squads are at substantially different elevations, or if there is intervening cover such as brush that will intercept of deflect bullets, this won't happen.

So I can't see how it's more realistic to be able to simutaneously target 2, 3 or 4 squads at a time, even if they are along the same LOF. At least, it's not realistic to be able to do so in all situations. Sometimes, the beaten zone would be such that, while firing at one squad, another squads some distance away, but along the same line of fire would also be in the "danger zone", but not always.

Remember, hitting something at anything over 200m with an HMG requires adjustment of the sights and tripod -- you don't just spray bullets around wildly at a broad area. This is what all those dials and sights, and locks on the MG tripod are for. Of course, a good gunner can adjust things and switch targets reasonably quickly, but as noted above, CM already allows this.

At close range, if the HMG is in danger of being overrun, it can unlock the tripod and spray wildly, but CM models this already, too -- as the range gets close, the number of "shots"/turn MGs can put out in CM goes up. This lets the MG distribute its fire very rapidly among a large number of targets. Again, the secret is to not issue the MG a direct targeting order, but instead let it choose its targets on its own.

In short, I'm all for modeling of grazing fire, and, when appropriate, larger beaten zones, interdictive sweeping fire across open, flat spaces, etc. But I find universal targeting of multiple units along one LOF a bit hard to swallow.

Cheers,

YD

[pamak1970]

As my previous post shows, just because the LOF "passes over or near" 4 squads does not mean the MG can target all four squads with one burst and one elevation/range setting -- if the squads are at substantially different elevations, or if there is intervening cover such as brush that will intercept of deflect bullets, this won't happen.

I agree with the first observation that if there is substantial different elevation between squads, you can not expect a single LOF affect all of them.

On the other hand ,i beleive that this will be rare at least regarding squads inside platoons.

Meaning that squads of a platoon's formation occupy a relative small area and it will be rare to find substancial elevation difference in such a confined space.

Even in cases with a substancial elevation difference, the end result will not be unrealistic according to my opinion.

The end result will be similar to the one you described under the current engine where a MG can shift fire from one unit to another.

So ,the result that the player will see on map will not be very much different from today's engine.

The only difference will be that the same result which happens during the current engine,will be accomplished faster and with fewer ammunition under the new engine.

So, in some cases where there will be a substancial elevation difference, the MG will act in a more powerful way.

I am personally willing to accept this as a trade of simulating crossfire and grazing fire.

Regarding the second case where you have obstacles -brushes, i do not see why you consider this a problem.

The engine will not decide to engage targets just because they are along the same LOF.

Think of the case where 4 different squads are along the same LOF.

The engine will "break" this LOF in 4 parts.

creating 4 different LOFs with each one being one above the other.

The first LOF will start from MG and end to the first squad.

The second LOF will start from MG -pass over the first squad and end to the second squad.

Same with the rest.

So if for example there is brush in front of the second squad, then the segment of LOF regarding the second squad,will not be resolved.

The segment of LOF regarding the first squad can still be reolved as long as the brush is after the first squad.

Make sense?

[ January 26, 2005, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[pamak1970]

As my previous post shows, just because the LOF "passes over or near" 4 squads does not mean the MG can target all four squads with one burst and one elevation/range setting -- if the squads are at substantially different elevations, or if there is intervening cover such as brush that will intercept of deflect bullets, this won't happen.

I agree with the first observation that if there is substantial different elevation between squads, you can not expect a single LOF affect all of them.

On the other hand ,i beleive that this will be rare at least regarding squads inside platoons.

Meaning that squads of a platoon's formation occupy a relative small area and it will be rare to find substancial elevation difference in such a confined space.

Even in cases with a substancial elevation difference, the end result will not be unrealistic according to my opinion.

The end result will be similar to the one you described under the current engine where a MG can shift fire from one unit to another.

So ,the result that the player will see on map will not be very much different from today's engine.

The only difference will be that the same result which happens during the current engine,will be accomplished faster and with fewer ammunition under the new engine.

So, in some cases where there will be a substancial elevation difference, the MG will act in a more powerful way.

I am personally willing to accept this as a trade of simulating crossfire and grazing fire.

Regarding the second case where you have obstacles -brushes, i do not see why you consider this a problem.

The engine will not decide to engage targets just because they are along the same LOF.

Think of the case where 4 different squads are along the same LOF.

The engine will "break" this LOF in 4 parts.

creating 4 different LOFs with each one being one above the other.

The first LOF will start from MG and end to the first squad.

The second LOF will start from MG -pass over the first squad and end to the second squad.

Same with the rest.

So if for example there is brush in front of the second squad, then the segment of LOF regarding the second squad,will not be resolved.

The segment of LOF regarding the first squad can still be reolved as long as the brush is after the first squad.

Make sense?

[ January 26, 2005, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[Kip Watson]

I thought grazing fire was already modelled.

For example, if you have the right angle and you aim area fire beyond the unit you are targeting (ie. so they must pass thru the brown area fire line), you get grazing fire. It seemed to work for me, was it just a fluke?

[Kip Watson]

I thought grazing fire was already modelled.

For example, if you have the right angle and you aim area fire beyond the unit you are targeting (ie. so they must pass thru the brown area fire line), you get grazing fire. It seemed to work for me, was it just a fluke?

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by pamak1970:

The problem is not the effect of the immdediate area .

This area is like the "beaten zone" which was mentioned earlier.

The problem is that there is no effect against targets not in the immediate area but well in front or behind, along the line of fire.

This is what makes crossfires not nessesary.

In the game, no matter if you fire diagonially against an incoming formation ,or directly infront, the size of the "impact area" (immediatte-surrounding area as you call it), is always the same.

In real life a burst of bullets, is not dangerous only in the area it lands (the immediate area).

It is also dangerous across the whole path of the tragectory as long as the height of the tragectory does not exceed the height of a man.

This lack of representation of danger, when bullets are "on the way", is what makes crossfire not important in the game,which is not realistic at all.

My point is that this effect can be simulated fairly enough ,without asking from the program to calculate the actual tragectory of the bullets from machine fire (see previous post).

Yes I understand that, best way I've heard it described, that I understood, is the golf course sprinkler. Though it's aimed at the perimeter of the arc, anything between gets wet. I'm not arguing with you, just thinking outloud that perhaps your understanding of what the game currently models is a little bit off.

Yes, area effect is not 100% same as grazing fire through the "cone of death" thing, but it, at least from my experience, is abstracted.

Or maybe I'm just rationalizing a misunderstanding of what is modelled v. what I think is modelled! LOL!!

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by pamak1970:

The problem is not the effect of the immdediate area .

This area is like the "beaten zone" which was mentioned earlier.

The problem is that there is no effect against targets not in the immediate area but well in front or behind, along the line of fire.

This is what makes crossfires not nessesary.

In the game, no matter if you fire diagonially against an incoming formation ,or directly infront, the size of the "impact area" (immediatte-surrounding area as you call it), is always the same.

In real life a burst of bullets, is not dangerous only in the area it lands (the immediate area).

It is also dangerous across the whole path of the tragectory as long as the height of the tragectory does not exceed the height of a man.

This lack of representation of danger, when bullets are "on the way", is what makes crossfire not important in the game,which is not realistic at all.

My point is that this effect can be simulated fairly enough ,without asking from the program to calculate the actual tragectory of the bullets from machine fire (see previous post).

Yes I understand that, best way I've heard it described, that I understood, is the golf course sprinkler. Though it's aimed at the perimeter of the arc, anything between gets wet. I'm not arguing with you, just thinking outloud that perhaps your understanding of what the game currently models is a little bit off.

Yes, area effect is not 100% same as grazing fire through the "cone of death" thing, but it, at least from my experience, is abstracted.

Or maybe I'm just rationalizing a misunderstanding of what is modelled v. what I think is modelled! LOL!!

[pamak1970]

Yes I understand that, best way I've heard it described, that I understood, is the golf course sprinkler. Though it's aimed at the perimeter of the arc, anything between gets wet. I'm not arguing with you, just thinking outloud that perhaps your understanding of what the game currently models is a little bit off.

do not worry about arguing.

The idea of a forum at least in my opinion is to be used as an area of brainstorming which might give ideas to designers for future developments.

For this it is nessesary to both present ideas and argue about them.

For example, yankeedog made some good observations regarding possible unrealistic results.

Our difference is mainly that if i have to choose between the unrealistic results under the current engine and the unrealistic results of the method i propose, i will choose the second.

I beleive that in this kind of modelling i discuss with you, there will be fewer opportunities for unrealistic effects and even in these cases it will not be so obvious to the observer as i explained in the previous post.

I think under the current model ,it is very often the case where you see that your LOF passes over enemy units without affecting them either by killing or pinning them.

On the other hand ,i am not also eager to see grazing fire effect up to maximum range of a MG.

After all even in real life you can not do that since at long ranges the fire is nessesarily plunging.

It is also nessesary to have the ability to initiate overhead fire to cover your troops during an assault,assuming that there is friendly-fire effect.

Imagine for example that you have a base fire on a hill covering an assault against an enemy position in front.

If grazing effect applies without restrictions,then your troops will be affected by it,inspite the fact that in real life conditions this fire would be overhead.

On the other hand i beleive that there is a compomise,which will lead to the simlation of grazing fire,without making the game less realistic overall,although it is true that some current unrealistic effects will vanish and some others will appear sporadically.

For example, in real life according to some information i gathered from internet, you might have a "grazing range" between 400-700 meters.

Longer ranges demand a high angle for the shooter,leading to a a higher trajectory which will exceed the height of a man along its path.

Tragectories within 400 meters will be relative low and they will fly all the way up to the end below the height of a man.

Of course we assume that there are not certain substancial elevation differences between the shooter and the target or along the path of the trajectory.

It is possible that even in some cases where there is even elevation difference betwen the target and the shooter, grazing effect is not affected significantly.

Think for example, that both shooter and target are on the same hill side with the shooter firing towards the foot of the hill.

The same might be true regarding the topography of the area the trajectory crosses.

For example, small obstacles or small variations of elevation of up to 1 meter for example, do not negate the effect of grazing fire,since the height of a man exceeds these obstacles and is still vulnerable to bullets .

So let say that we adopt a grazing fire for up to a range of 300 meters.

How often do you think will be the case where multiple enemy units inside this distance are BOTH visible to the MG and at the same time they are seperated by such an elevation distance ,which will make it unrealistic to have all of them affected by a single LOF?

Keep in mind ,that enemy units DO HAVE to be visible before they are affected by the grazing fire.

So, if for example you have a defence in reverse slope, grazing fire will not affect unobserved units on the opposite side.

The same is true if any large obstacle like a tree or a house or even a rise of elevation of 2 meters for example protects the enemy unit from LOS and therefore from LOF as well.

I will put it in another way.

Try to make a CM map where 3 enemy units are

1 up to 300 meters from a MG

2. all are visible to the MG

3. they are seperated by such an elevation

difference,where real life geometry can not

justify a single trajectory from the firing MG

affecting all of them.

It will not be so easy to find a realistic topography where all the above conditions are met.

Thoughts?