CMX2 sweeping -flanking MG fire and LOF effect

[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?

[YankeeDog]

The answer to your situation is very simple and common, pamak.

Put the MG on the upper floor of a building. All close range fire from the MG will then be plunging fire, and therefore have a small beaten zone.

Or, put on the most distant squad in the top floor of a building (if it's one of the closer squads in a building, the building presumably blocks LOS to the more distant squads). If the MG is firing on the distant squad, the fire will be over the heads of the more proximal squads. Conversely fire at the proximal squads will impact the first floor of the building, to little effect.

Or put the MG and the most distant squad on an upper floor.

Of course, a rise or crest in the ground at least the height of a second story window (probably about 6m) also works. . .

Cheers,

YD

[ January 27, 2005, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[YankeeDog]

The answer to your situation is very simple and common, pamak.

Put the MG on the upper floor of a building. All close range fire from the MG will then be plunging fire, and therefore have a small beaten zone.

Or, put on the most distant squad in the top floor of a building (if it's one of the closer squads in a building, the building presumably blocks LOS to the more distant squads). If the MG is firing on the distant squad, the fire will be over the heads of the more proximal squads. Conversely fire at the proximal squads will impact the first floor of the building, to little effect.

Or put the MG and the most distant squad on an upper floor.

Of course, a rise or crest in the ground at least the height of a second story window (probably about 6m) also works. . .

Cheers,

YD

[ January 27, 2005, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Dirtweasle]

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.

Yes, that's my impression too. Except for the area where area fire from MGs does impact with effect already.

It's your ealier post that implied, I felt incorrectly, that there was NO area fire at all.

Your posts make a lot of sense, absent that little nit-picking, I hope MG fire is modeled more accuratley too.

[Dirtweasle]

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.

Yes, that's my impression too. Except for the area where area fire from MGs does impact with effect already.

It's your ealier post that implied, I felt incorrectly, that there was NO area fire at all.

Your posts make a lot of sense, absent that little nit-picking, I hope MG fire is modeled more accuratley too.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

The answer to your situation is very simple and common, pamak.

Put the MG on the upper floor of a building. All close range fire from the MG will then be plunging fire, and therefore have a small beaten zone.

YD

Agreed.

So my question now is the following.

How often you find yourself in a situation like the one you described,urban combat with a SINGLE LOS and LOF against multiple enemy units and how often you find yourself in a situation where MG is on the ground with good observation against multiple units which are not affected by a single burst?

That is my point.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

The answer to your situation is very simple and common, pamak.

Put the MG on the upper floor of a building. All close range fire from the MG will then be plunging fire, and therefore have a small beaten zone.

YD

Agreed.

So my question now is the following.

How often you find yourself in a situation like the one you described,urban combat with a SINGLE LOS and LOF against multiple enemy units and how often you find yourself in a situation where MG is on the ground with good observation against multiple units which are not affected by a single burst?

That is my point.

[YankeeDog]

Actually, for me this kind of situation shows up all the time -- sometimes in urban combat, but much more often in semi-built up terrain like small towns where there are some buildings around, and also in rougher, more varied terrain with lots of crests and depressions.

On average, I would say at least once a game.

For example, when defending a town, I often start the game with HMG and/or LMG teams in the upper floors of large buildings to disrupt enemy infantry formations as they approach the town. Placing the MGs on high floors gives them a wide field of fire, and the MGs will often have multiple infantry targets in their observation zone -- I've had a single MGs taking entire companies under fire at times. Of course, the result is that my opponent usually brings enemy armor forward blow up the buildings my MGs are in, but that's part of my strategy -- force my opponent to show his hand by revealing his expensive armored units for the possible cost of a few, relatively inexpensive MGs.

Pretty much all outgoing fire from such a high-elevation placement is plunging fire, and therefore would be unlikely to affect "more than one enemy unit in LOS," even if said units are along the same LOF, unless the units were quite close togther.

Also, MGs on AFVs -- remember, the co-axial on most tanks is already 1.5m or so above the the US M3A1 Halftrack, or the M7 Priest, or the flexible MG on some tanks, the MG is considerably higher than that. Put a tank on a small 4-5m high rise (only 2 elevation levels in most CM games, a very common placement for an overwatching tank), and suddenly almost all MG fire from that tank is plunging fire.

So, at least in the games I play, situations and deployments that create plunging-type fire with a small beaten zone are not uncommon in CM. In such situations, MG fire affecting more than one unit along one LOF is unlikely, unless said units are very close together.

Cheers,

YD

[YankeeDog]

Actually, for me this kind of situation shows up all the time -- sometimes in urban combat, but much more often in semi-built up terrain like small towns where there are some buildings around, and also in rougher, more varied terrain with lots of crests and depressions.

On average, I would say at least once a game.

For example, when defending a town, I often start the game with HMG and/or LMG teams in the upper floors of large buildings to disrupt enemy infantry formations as they approach the town. Placing the MGs on high floors gives them a wide field of fire, and the MGs will often have multiple infantry targets in their observation zone -- I've had a single MGs taking entire companies under fire at times. Of course, the result is that my opponent usually brings enemy armor forward blow up the buildings my MGs are in, but that's part of my strategy -- force my opponent to show his hand by revealing his expensive armored units for the possible cost of a few, relatively inexpensive MGs.

Pretty much all outgoing fire from such a high-elevation placement is plunging fire, and therefore would be unlikely to affect "more than one enemy unit in LOS," even if said units are along the same LOF, unless the units were quite close togther.

Also, MGs on AFVs -- remember, the co-axial on most tanks is already 1.5m or so above the the US M3A1 Halftrack, or the M7 Priest, or the flexible MG on some tanks, the MG is considerably higher than that. Put a tank on a small 4-5m high rise (only 2 elevation levels in most CM games, a very common placement for an overwatching tank), and suddenly almost all MG fire from that tank is plunging fire.

So, at least in the games I play, situations and deployments that create plunging-type fire with a small beaten zone are not uncommon in CM. In such situations, MG fire affecting more than one unit along one LOF is unlikely, unless said units are very close together.

Cheers,

YD

[pamak1970]

Add also to my previous comment,the one i mentioned before.

That is , even in cases where the position of enemy units is in such a way which does not justify the multiple effect of a single LOF ,the end result is not by itself unrealistic.

That is ,even in the current system a MG can target multiple targets with different bursts in the same turn.

Therefore the only difference with the model i discuss is not the event itself of affecting multiple units , but rather the speed of this effect and ammunition requirements since it is the case of Single burst against multiple ones.

I would prefer to deal with an unrealistic speed of the event, than dealing in current engine with an event which is itself unrealistic (LOF passing without causing anything).

Regarding your remark with the crest and the effect on grazing fire, i have to clarify that there must be certain conditions satisfied ,which is of course possible to happen .

For example some requirements in order to have an unrealistic grazing effect are the following.

1.The MG and the targets should not be placed on the same crest-rise.

Even if the first condition is met (say MG in flat terrain aiming towards a rise), we need the following requrement.

2.Enemy units approaching from the rise should

have a minimum distance BETWEEN THEM ,

in addition of be maximum 300 meters from the MG

This mimimum distance is related with the angle

of the rise.

That means the more gentle is the rise ,the more

the MINIMUM distance between enemy units,in

order to declare that you can not have multiple

effects,the less chances to have a position

where it is unrealistic to have multiple effects

with a single burst.

There will be frequent cases where the same trajectory

produces plunging fire in the area of an enemy

unit located high on the rise and at

the same time grazing fire in the area of a unit

located lower .

No doubt that there will be cases where the conditions are met, but i do not think the frequency will be higher than the one of the unrealistic event we face now (enemy units immune to LOF).

[ January 27, 2005, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[pamak1970]

Add also to my previous comment,the one i mentioned before.

That is , even in cases where the position of enemy units is in such a way which does not justify the multiple effect of a single LOF ,the end result is not by itself unrealistic.

That is ,even in the current system a MG can target multiple targets with different bursts in the same turn.

Therefore the only difference with the model i discuss is not the event itself of affecting multiple units , but rather the speed of this effect and ammunition requirements since it is the case of Single burst against multiple ones.

I would prefer to deal with an unrealistic speed of the event, than dealing in current engine with an event which is itself unrealistic (LOF passing without causing anything).

Regarding your remark with the crest and the effect on grazing fire, i have to clarify that there must be certain conditions satisfied ,which is of course possible to happen .

For example some requirements in order to have an unrealistic grazing effect are the following.

1.The MG and the targets should not be placed on the same crest-rise.

Even if the first condition is met (say MG in flat terrain aiming towards a rise), we need the following requrement.

2.Enemy units approaching from the rise should

have a minimum distance BETWEEN THEM ,

in addition of be maximum 300 meters from the MG

This mimimum distance is related with the angle

of the rise.

That means the more gentle is the rise ,the more

the MINIMUM distance between enemy units,in

order to declare that you can not have multiple

effects,the less chances to have a position

where it is unrealistic to have multiple effects

with a single burst.

There will be frequent cases where the same trajectory

produces plunging fire in the area of an enemy

unit located high on the rise and at

the same time grazing fire in the area of a unit

located lower .

No doubt that there will be cases where the conditions are met, but i do not think the frequency will be higher than the one of the unrealistic event we face now (enemy units immune to LOF).

[ January 27, 2005, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Actually, for me this kind of situation shows up all the time -- sometimes in urban combat, but much more often in semi-built up terrain like small towns where there are some buildings around, and also in rougher, more varied terrain with lots of crests and depressions.

On average, I would say at least once a game.

For example, when defending a town, I often start the game with HMG and/or LMG teams in the upper floors of large buildings to disrupt enemy infantry formations as they approach the town. Placing the MGs on high floors gives them a wide field of fire, and the MGs will often have multiple infantry targets in their observation zone -- I've had a single MGs taking entire companies under fire at times. Of course, the result is that my opponent usually brings enemy armor forward blow up the buildings my MGs are in, but that's part of my strategy -- force my opponent to show his hand by revealing his expensive armored units for the possible cost of a few, relatively inexpensive MGs.

Pretty much all outgoing fire from such a high-elevation placement is plunging fire, and therefore would be unlikely to affect "more than one enemy unit in LOS," even if said units are along the same LOF, unless the units were quite close togther.

Also, MGs on AFVs -- remember, the co-axial on most tanks is already 1.5m or so above the the US M3A1 Halftrack, or the M7 Priest, or the flexible MG on some tanks, the MG is considerably higher than that. Put a tank on a small 4-5m high rise (only 2 elevation levels in most CM games, a very common placement for an overwatching tank), and suddenly almost all MG fire from that tank is plunging fire.

So, at least in the games I play, situations and deployments that create plunging-type fire with a small beaten zone are not uncommon in CM. In such situations, MG fire affecting more than one unit along one LOF is unlikely, unless said units are very close together.

Cheers,

YD

Probable solution.Just an idea

If either a MG or a target is located in any kind of upper building, there will be not grazing effect.

I think this type of decision is easy for the engine to handle.

In other words, if either the base of LOF or its end is located inside an upper building ,the MG will "lose" its grazing effect.

This might also lead players to use more proper real life tactics.

For example ,under these conditions it might be better to have MG on the ground, trading somewhat less observation with the ability to have grazing fire in front of your defence.

I say this ,cause i find it strange in real life to place every MG on the upper floors to resist an attack against the village from the outside.

I can understand it in some cases when you need to cover dead space but i can not see it as a general tactic for the deployment

I understand your point of your tactics in CM.It makes sense there to put even all your MGs in upper floors to have a better observation .

The way the system is now, leads players to use the tactic you describe without a lot of hesitation (at least regarding the effectiveness of the fire plan itself).

In real life ,it is not easy for a commander to decide to form a fire plan which does not produce grazing fire in front of his position.

[ January 27, 2005, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Actually, for me this kind of situation shows up all the time -- sometimes in urban combat, but much more often in semi-built up terrain like small towns where there are some buildings around, and also in rougher, more varied terrain with lots of crests and depressions.

On average, I would say at least once a game.

For example, when defending a town, I often start the game with HMG and/or LMG teams in the upper floors of large buildings to disrupt enemy infantry formations as they approach the town. Placing the MGs on high floors gives them a wide field of fire, and the MGs will often have multiple infantry targets in their observation zone -- I've had a single MGs taking entire companies under fire at times. Of course, the result is that my opponent usually brings enemy armor forward blow up the buildings my MGs are in, but that's part of my strategy -- force my opponent to show his hand by revealing his expensive armored units for the possible cost of a few, relatively inexpensive MGs.

Pretty much all outgoing fire from such a high-elevation placement is plunging fire, and therefore would be unlikely to affect "more than one enemy unit in LOS," even if said units are along the same LOF, unless the units were quite close togther.

Also, MGs on AFVs -- remember, the co-axial on most tanks is already 1.5m or so above the the US M3A1 Halftrack, or the M7 Priest, or the flexible MG on some tanks, the MG is considerably higher than that. Put a tank on a small 4-5m high rise (only 2 elevation levels in most CM games, a very common placement for an overwatching tank), and suddenly almost all MG fire from that tank is plunging fire.

So, at least in the games I play, situations and deployments that create plunging-type fire with a small beaten zone are not uncommon in CM. In such situations, MG fire affecting more than one unit along one LOF is unlikely, unless said units are very close together.

Cheers,

YD

Probable solution.Just an idea

If either a MG or a target is located in any kind of upper building, there will be not grazing effect.

I think this type of decision is easy for the engine to handle.

In other words, if either the base of LOF or its end is located inside an upper building ,the MG will "lose" its grazing effect.

This might also lead players to use more proper real life tactics.

For example ,under these conditions it might be better to have MG on the ground, trading somewhat less observation with the ability to have grazing fire in front of your defence.

I say this ,cause i find it strange in real life to place every MG on the upper floors to resist an attack against the village from the outside.

I can understand it in some cases when you need to cover dead space but i can not see it as a general tactic for the deployment

I understand your point of your tactics in CM.It makes sense there to put even all your MGs in upper floors to have a better observation .

The way the system is now, leads players to use the tactic you describe without a lot of hesitation (at least regarding the effectiveness of the fire plan itself).

In real life ,it is not easy for a commander to decide to form a fire plan which does not produce grazing fire in front of his position.

[ January 27, 2005, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[YankeeDog]

That's a good start, simply constructing an exception for buildings is a bit too limiting -- you need to expand it to also include natural elevation differences created by crests and depressions.

The rule you present also artificially removes the grazing effects at times when it shouldn't -- for example, when the MG is in a building, but the building is in a depression, so most of the potential targets are actually at about the same elevation.

As a a very simple you might do something like this:

Let E(MG) = the elevation, in meters of the MG, including any effects of being mounted on an AFV, or on the 2nd upper floor of a building

Let E(T1) = elevation of MG's primary target

Let D(T1) = distance MG to primary target.

Let L = Flag attached to MG unit for your "LOF Rule". A value of L = 1 = LOF Rule ON. A value of L = 0 MG firepower potentially applies to other units along the MG's LOF.

Using the above variables, which I think the game already tracks and records, it should be possible to code some relatively simple exceptions to you "LOF Rule". For example:

LET L = 1

IF [E(MG) - E(T1)]/D(T1) > .05 THEN L= 0

Basically, this logical routine would assume that the "LOF Rule" is usually ON, but would turn it to OFF if the gradient of the line of fire was 5% or greater, representing the fact that fire with such a steep incoming angle is going to have a limited beaten zone. There would presumably still be a more limited "area of effect" for secondary targets close to the primary target, just as there is in CM now.

But I'm a hack amateur programmer who never got beyond Visual Basic. Someone with more programming and mathematics experience than myself could probably create more elegant exceptions subroutines. For example, you could probably use the difference in the gradients between the target and any potential secondary targets to also create useful exceptions rules.

Since such calculations would only have to be done for potential enemy targets along the LOF, and they don't reqire a complete calculation of the MG fire's parabolic trajectory or anything like that, the processor load shouldn't be too intense.

If would, however, take a lot of testing to make sure you got all the variables right, and that you didn't end up with wierd interactions with other other routines. That's what Beta testers are for, though. . .

Cheers,

YD

[YankeeDog]

That's a good start, simply constructing an exception for buildings is a bit too limiting -- you need to expand it to also include natural elevation differences created by crests and depressions.

The rule you present also artificially removes the grazing effects at times when it shouldn't -- for example, when the MG is in a building, but the building is in a depression, so most of the potential targets are actually at about the same elevation.

As a a very simple you might do something like this:

Let E(MG) = the elevation, in meters of the MG, including any effects of being mounted on an AFV, or on the 2nd upper floor of a building

Let E(T1) = elevation of MG's primary target

Let D(T1) = distance MG to primary target.

Let L = Flag attached to MG unit for your "LOF Rule". A value of L = 1 = LOF Rule ON. A value of L = 0 MG firepower potentially applies to other units along the MG's LOF.

Using the above variables, which I think the game already tracks and records, it should be possible to code some relatively simple exceptions to you "LOF Rule". For example:

LET L = 1

IF [E(MG) - E(T1)]/D(T1) > .05 THEN L= 0

Basically, this logical routine would assume that the "LOF Rule" is usually ON, but would turn it to OFF if the gradient of the line of fire was 5% or greater, representing the fact that fire with such a steep incoming angle is going to have a limited beaten zone. There would presumably still be a more limited "area of effect" for secondary targets close to the primary target, just as there is in CM now.

But I'm a hack amateur programmer who never got beyond Visual Basic. Someone with more programming and mathematics experience than myself could probably create more elegant exceptions subroutines. For example, you could probably use the difference in the gradients between the target and any potential secondary targets to also create useful exceptions rules.

Since such calculations would only have to be done for potential enemy targets along the LOF, and they don't reqire a complete calculation of the MG fire's parabolic trajectory or anything like that, the processor load shouldn't be too intense.

If would, however, take a lot of testing to make sure you got all the variables right, and that you didn't end up with wierd interactions with other other routines. That's what Beta testers are for, though. . .

Cheers,

YD

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

That's a good start, simply constructing an exception for buildings is a bit too limiting -- you need to expand it to also include natural elevation differences created by crests and depressions.

The rule you present also artificially removes the grazing effects at times when it shouldn't -- for example, when the MG is in a building, but the building is in a depression, so most of the potential targets are actually at about the same elevation.

As a a very simple you might do something like this:

Let E(MG) = the elevation, in meters of the MG, including any effects of being mounted on an AFV, or on the 2nd upper floor of a building

Let E(T1) = elevation of MG's primary target

Let D(T1) = distance MG to primary target.

Let L = Flag attached to MG unit for your "LOF Rule". A value of L = 1 = LOF Rule ON. A value of L = 0 MG firepower potentially applies to other units along the MG's LOF.

Using the above variables, which I think the game already tracks and records, it should be possible to code some relatively simple exceptions to you "LOF Rule". For example:

LET L = 1

IF [E(MG) - E(T1)]/D(T1) > .05 THEN L= 0

Basically, this logical routine would assume that the "LOF Rule" is usually ON, but would turn it to OFF if the gradient of the line of fire was 5% or greater, representing the fact that fire with such a steep incoming angle is going to have a limited beaten zone. There would presumably still be a more limited "area of effect" for secondary targets close to the primary target, just as there is in CM now.

But I'm a hack amateur programmer who never got beyond Visual Basic. Someone with more programming and mathematics experience than myself could probably create more elegant exceptions subroutines. For example, you could probably use the difference in the gradients between the target and any potential secondary targets to also create useful exceptions rules.

Since such calculations would only have to be done for potential enemy targets along the LOF, and they don't reqire a complete calculation of the MG fire's parabolic trajectory or anything like that, the processor load shouldn't be too intense.

If would, however, take a lot of testing to make sure you got all the variables right, and that you didn't end up with wierd interactions with other other routines. That's what Beta testers are for, though. . .

Cheers,

YD

Agreed 100%.

Just adding that D(T1) should also be less than a certain value (depending on how big is the grazing range of a MG).

Meaning that if distance is too far, the MG can not aim directly the target like in the triangle you envision .

It has to fire the burst at a certain angle,which means that although it is possible to have E(MG) - E(T1)]/D(T1)<.05 ,the angle of fall of the bullets when they reach the target, will still be higher than .05 by nessesity and should not produce grazing effect.

I tried to avoid this type of calculation cause i do not know if this is too much for the game engine.

On the other hand i am thinking that since the engine does decide LOS ,it has somehow to track the elevation between a MG and a potential target.

It is just that i do not have any knowledge regarding programming to be positive about that.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

That's a good start, simply constructing an exception for buildings is a bit too limiting -- you need to expand it to also include natural elevation differences created by crests and depressions.

The rule you present also artificially removes the grazing effects at times when it shouldn't -- for example, when the MG is in a building, but the building is in a depression, so most of the potential targets are actually at about the same elevation.

As a a very simple you might do something like this:

Let E(MG) = the elevation, in meters of the MG, including any effects of being mounted on an AFV, or on the 2nd upper floor of a building

Let E(T1) = elevation of MG's primary target

Let D(T1) = distance MG to primary target.

Let L = Flag attached to MG unit for your "LOF Rule". A value of L = 1 = LOF Rule ON. A value of L = 0 MG firepower potentially applies to other units along the MG's LOF.

Using the above variables, which I think the game already tracks and records, it should be possible to code some relatively simple exceptions to you "LOF Rule". For example:

LET L = 1

IF [E(MG) - E(T1)]/D(T1) > .05 THEN L= 0

Basically, this logical routine would assume that the "LOF Rule" is usually ON, but would turn it to OFF if the gradient of the line of fire was 5% or greater, representing the fact that fire with such a steep incoming angle is going to have a limited beaten zone. There would presumably still be a more limited "area of effect" for secondary targets close to the primary target, just as there is in CM now.

But I'm a hack amateur programmer who never got beyond Visual Basic. Someone with more programming and mathematics experience than myself could probably create more elegant exceptions subroutines. For example, you could probably use the difference in the gradients between the target and any potential secondary targets to also create useful exceptions rules.

Since such calculations would only have to be done for potential enemy targets along the LOF, and they don't reqire a complete calculation of the MG fire's parabolic trajectory or anything like that, the processor load shouldn't be too intense.

If would, however, take a lot of testing to make sure you got all the variables right, and that you didn't end up with wierd interactions with other other routines. That's what Beta testers are for, though. . .

Cheers,

YD

Agreed 100%.

Just adding that D(T1) should also be less than a certain value (depending on how big is the grazing range of a MG).

Meaning that if distance is too far, the MG can not aim directly the target like in the triangle you envision .

It has to fire the burst at a certain angle,which means that although it is possible to have E(MG) - E(T1)]/D(T1)<.05 ,the angle of fall of the bullets when they reach the target, will still be higher than .05 by nessesity and should not produce grazing effect.

I tried to avoid this type of calculation cause i do not know if this is too much for the game engine.

On the other hand i am thinking that since the engine does decide LOS ,it has somehow to track the elevation between a MG and a potential target.

It is just that i do not have any knowledge regarding programming to be positive about that.

[tar]

Well, if squads presented a volume as a target rather than a single point, this would be easier to deal with, since one would only need to know to what extent the LOF passed through the squad volume. This would deal with the problem of the LOF passing overhead. It would need to pass through the target volume.

The fly in the ointment is that LOS is much easier to compute than LOF, since we are dealing with guns and not lasers. The LOS is a staight line and a lot of work has been done on things like ray-tracing algorithms. That means relatively fast techniques for computing that exist. LOF on the other hand has an arc due to gravity. Of course, balancing that is the fact that you might only need to do LOF computations when you actually shoot, rather than the much more numerous LOS tests to see if you can actually see anything.

Unfortunately, one would probably need to have the computer do more LOF computations as part of the target selection routines, since picking a line of fire that crosses many targets is possibly a better choice than one that hits a single, more exposed target. This would have to be one of the considerations that goes into the TacAI when it is choosing where to shoot.

[tar]

Well, if squads presented a volume as a target rather than a single point, this would be easier to deal with, since one would only need to know to what extent the LOF passed through the squad volume. This would deal with the problem of the LOF passing overhead. It would need to pass through the target volume.

The fly in the ointment is that LOS is much easier to compute than LOF, since we are dealing with guns and not lasers. The LOS is a staight line and a lot of work has been done on things like ray-tracing algorithms. That means relatively fast techniques for computing that exist. LOF on the other hand has an arc due to gravity. Of course, balancing that is the fact that you might only need to do LOF computations when you actually shoot, rather than the much more numerous LOS tests to see if you can actually see anything.

Unfortunately, one would probably need to have the computer do more LOF computations as part of the target selection routines, since picking a line of fire that crosses many targets is possibly a better choice than one that hits a single, more exposed target. This would have to be one of the considerations that goes into the TacAI when it is choosing where to shoot.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by tar:

Well, if squads presented a volume as a target rather than a single point, this would be easier to deal with, since one would only need to know to what extent the LOF passed through the squad volume. This would deal with the problem of the LOF passing overhead. It would need to pass through the target volume.

The fly in the ointment is that LOS is much easier to compute than LOF, since we are dealing with guns and not lasers. The LOS is a staight line and a lot of work has been done on things like ray-tracing algorithms. That means relatively fast techniques for computing that exist. LOF on the other hand has an arc due to gravity. Of course, balancing that is the fact that you might only need to do LOF computations when you actually shoot, rather than the much more numerous LOS tests to see if you can actually see anything.

Unfortunately, one would probably need to have the computer do more LOF computations as part of the target selection routines, since picking a line of fire that crosses many targets is possibly a better choice than one that hits a single, more exposed target. This would have to be one of the considerations that goes into the TacAI when it is choosing where to shoot.

I am sorry tar but i did not understand some things you say in your post.

For example you say that LOF is different from LOS since we deal with guns and gravity.

This is true regarding real life but i thought that the current engine does not calculate things like arcs or gravity or trajectory in the game.

Are you sure about that?

For example when i see that on map artillery can not fire indirectly ,i doubt that the engine treats LOF differently than LOS when it calculates machine gun fire.

Mortars is another example where the engine is using again a very simple model requiring LOS from a HQ before initiating indirect fire .

I do understand your point that if we want TAcAI to exploit grazing fire , then it will be nessesary to let it check various directions of LOF.

I do not know if current AI technology can accomplish a relative fast and proper selection of targets for effective MG grazing fire or if it is nessesary to let this on the player.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by tar:

Well, if squads presented a volume as a target rather than a single point, this would be easier to deal with, since one would only need to know to what extent the LOF passed through the squad volume. This would deal with the problem of the LOF passing overhead. It would need to pass through the target volume.

The fly in the ointment is that LOS is much easier to compute than LOF, since we are dealing with guns and not lasers. The LOS is a staight line and a lot of work has been done on things like ray-tracing algorithms. That means relatively fast techniques for computing that exist. LOF on the other hand has an arc due to gravity. Of course, balancing that is the fact that you might only need to do LOF computations when you actually shoot, rather than the much more numerous LOS tests to see if you can actually see anything.

Unfortunately, one would probably need to have the computer do more LOF computations as part of the target selection routines, since picking a line of fire that crosses many targets is possibly a better choice than one that hits a single, more exposed target. This would have to be one of the considerations that goes into the TacAI when it is choosing where to shoot.

I am sorry tar but i did not understand some things you say in your post.

For example you say that LOF is different from LOS since we deal with guns and gravity.

This is true regarding real life but i thought that the current engine does not calculate things like arcs or gravity or trajectory in the game.

Are you sure about that?

For example when i see that on map artillery can not fire indirectly ,i doubt that the engine treats LOF differently than LOS when it calculates machine gun fire.

Mortars is another example where the engine is using again a very simple model requiring LOS from a HQ before initiating indirect fire .

I do understand your point that if we want TAcAI to exploit grazing fire , then it will be nessesary to let it check various directions of LOF.

I do not know if current AI technology can accomplish a relative fast and proper selection of targets for effective MG grazing fire or if it is nessesary to let this on the player.

[tar]

OK, I suppose that one could use a straight-line approximation for LOF without it being too far off for the purposes of computation of which direction to shoot.

I don't have any official figures to hand about how much typical small arms bullets drop during flight to various ranges, but I guess that we can put some bounds on it.

The upshot is that for most common game purposes and ranges one could get away with a simple straight-line approximation. In fact, making the modeling or computation used depend on the range, and having the simpler procedure used most of the time.

From simple physics, and ignoring any aerodynamic lifting effects, a bullet will drop about 5m (16ft) during a flight time of one second. So this means that the difference between hitting or missing a man-sized target involves a time range of roughly 1/3 second. With muzzle velocities somewhere in the neighborhood 850m/s (2800 ft/s) for an M-1 rifle, that works out to around 250 to 300 m (actually a bit less since this doesn't take deceleration of the bullet into account), so it isn't likely to be too much of a problem except for HMGs, since they are the only small arms weapons that are truly effective at longer ranges anyway.

By the way, taking something like this into account would also help in reducing some of the excessive power of SMG units in the game. With muzzle velocities a lot lower (MP-40 is roughly half that of the M-1 at 365m/s or 1200ft/s) you get a smaller zone in which the fire is effective.

If modeling of penetration power were also done, instead of having a single firepower statistic, then I think this would help redress some of the balance.

[tar]

OK, I suppose that one could use a straight-line approximation for LOF without it being too far off for the purposes of computation of which direction to shoot.

I don't have any official figures to hand about how much typical small arms bullets drop during flight to various ranges, but I guess that we can put some bounds on it.

The upshot is that for most common game purposes and ranges one could get away with a simple straight-line approximation. In fact, making the modeling or computation used depend on the range, and having the simpler procedure used most of the time.

From simple physics, and ignoring any aerodynamic lifting effects, a bullet will drop about 5m (16ft) during a flight time of one second. So this means that the difference between hitting or missing a man-sized target involves a time range of roughly 1/3 second. With muzzle velocities somewhere in the neighborhood 850m/s (2800 ft/s) for an M-1 rifle, that works out to around 250 to 300 m (actually a bit less since this doesn't take deceleration of the bullet into account), so it isn't likely to be too much of a problem except for HMGs, since they are the only small arms weapons that are truly effective at longer ranges anyway.

By the way, taking something like this into account would also help in reducing some of the excessive power of SMG units in the game. With muzzle velocities a lot lower (MP-40 is roughly half that of the M-1 at 365m/s or 1200ft/s) you get a smaller zone in which the fire is effective.

If modeling of penetration power were also done, instead of having a single firepower statistic, then I think this would help redress some of the balance.