Terrain--does it matter?

[bboyle]

Originally posted by Raptor 2101:

@Darkmath: you Know that most houses builded in ME, are not using steal ore stones? Most used material are loam bricks ore even a loam / mud mix if you go to the slums... and a single loam brick doesn't stopp a .50 bullet...

Actually, you will see alot of cinderblock in the Middle East. That won't do much to stop a round.

[Capt. Toleran]

Some time back on this forum (I can't find the post or video) someone posted a video that demonstrated the effects from spalling and fragmentation on folks holed up in houses from different caliber rifles. Basically, anything from an AK up is going to progressively make it very uncomfortable for anyone inside, and inflict increasing amounts of damage on them. If anything, I think folks holed up in the houses last too long, but that might be the nature of the stone buildings being modeled, as opposed to the shacks we were used to in CMBB.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Raptor 2101:

@Darkmath: you Know that most houses builded in ME, are not using steal ore stones? Most used material are loam bricks ore even a loam / mud mix if you go to the slums... and a single loam brick doesn't stopp a .50 bullet...

Ya, I've never been to Syria, but my own experience in other parts of the Middle East (Egypt and Israel, chiefly), is that contruction materials very ENORMOUSLY from bulding to building. poorer structures in slums and small villages are basically hand-made brick or adobe-type materal; I doubt they'd stop well thrust stick, let alone a military assault rifle round. As you move into more urban, affluent and/or commercial settings, you move first through typical modern cinderblock construction, with interspersed heavy, steel-and-concrete poured buildings. Only the final type of structure will really be proof against small arms fire.

Photos I have seen of Syria suggest that the architecural mix is pretty similar to Egypt.

Since I don't have CM:SF yet, I don't know what how the game divides up "Heavy" vs. "Light" buildings, but I would hope that there is some differentiation. You should see mostly lighter buildings in rural/small town settings, heavier contstruction in urban and industrial areas.

In addition to military and government structures, one type of bulding that seems to always be built to near-fortress specs in the ME: Hotels that cater to foreigners. Not really all that surprising.

Cheers,

YD

[SgtMuhammed]

Steve,

I know all that. My point is that most fire is unaimed. Even a major firefight isn't going to produce the casualty levels at the ranges that you can in the game. I'm not casting dispersions, just observations. I have experimented with all kinds of tactics from the ultra-slow approaches of some of my old CO's to the tank rush tactics of C & C and actual tactics work as I knew they would.

I understand that it is a lot harder to program 9 virtual grunts to get the f**k down than it is to simply say that the squad is doing so.

[Bertram]

I dont think it is so much the stopping power of the walls, but the fact that yuo can not be seen inside that is the thing that should save the soldiers inside.

As it is the tacai is pretty much non existent, so it is a safe bet that the soldiers all stay where they are, and spraying the house with .50 is a good thing (I often find my opponents killed squad wise on a heap after the battle). In reality it is of course often unclear if anyone is staying inside, or if they are moving over to the next house to pop up there and squeze of a couple of shot (or move out of the neighbourhood entirely)

[Northman]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Q for developer:

Does cover like trees give an % protection for the troops, automatically, when they move through it.

OR, does the individual soldier actually be *behind* a tree to benfit ftom the cover?

I too would also like to hear an answer to this question, and generally an explanation of how cover and concealment works. What is abstracted, what is not? Should I worry if a few of my soldiers are not taking appropriate cover, or is the only thing that matters my squads position relative to the "underlying grid" or "hotspot"(not sure what is the correct term). I have seen tracers going through bodies without causing damage, so I'm pretty sure there is at least some abstraction going on.

It would seem very strange if Lt.Bull's assertion, that BF's first goal is now to make "realistic" _looking_ games even if that means the game's ability to produce realistic results and reflect real life suffers, is true. That is indeed a major change in design philosophy that, at least for me, and I think for many other long time BF-supporters too, will make me not want to buy the next game from Battlefront. For me realism is the most important part of a game. Realism has always been CM's hallmark. I don't care how the game looks if my actions in that game does not produce results that are, in the highest possible degree, similar to what one would expect to see in real life, or more specifically: I don't want 1:1 representation if that means cover&concealment cannot be simulated properly.

[stic.man]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Q for developer:

Does cover like trees give an % protection for the troops, automatically, when they move through it.

OR, does the individual soldier actually be *behind* a tree to benfit ftom the cover?

bushes, foliage, hedgerows, trees, and forest do not STOP modern bullets in real life. the END.

[Northman]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Steve,

[...]

I understand that it is a lot harder to program 9 virtual grunts to get the f**k down than it is to simply say that the squad is doing so.

Exactly, and programming them to get down is only one small part of the problem. Using rocks, bushes, trees in the best possible way, changing position based on incoming fire, chosing the appropriate stance etc. etc. means this will be impossible to code in a way that will produce realistic _results_ in the same high degree as CMx1 did. Not even the big companies can do this, even for FPS-games that has only a fraction of the number of units CM has. BF are not stupid, so either they have changed their design philosophy as Lt.Bull suggests, or they have managed to code a clever abstraction system that makes things both _look_ realistic and produce the realistic results most of us expect from a CM game. I'm hoping for the latter.

[CRourke]

Interesting discussion. I also would like to know what abstractions BF employed. And while a TacAI might be smart enough that you don't need to abstract cover, I don't see how you could program in 'concealment' without major abstractions.

Also, people keep referring to the penetration of 'modern' bullets. Correct me if I'm wrong but penetration wise, 30.06 > 7.62mm > 5.56mm As a matter of fact, isn't that one of the arguments in favor of the M14 vs the M4? If those in the know say that mideast construction is light enough that most assault rifle rounds penetrate, I believe it, but I think its fair to say that grand dad's Browning M1919A4 would have also done a fine job.

Ditto on the question of light buildings vs heavy. I'm not sure how to tell the difference yet, but I hope it's modeled.

[Guest]

Originally posted by stic.man:

bushes, foliage, hedgerows, trees, and forest do not STOP modern bullets in real life. the END.

I read "Blackjack-34" by Jim Donahue (it's actually been retitled to that, previously it was called "No Greater Love") when I was a kid and I distinctly recall him mentioning the 5.56 rounds from their small arms being deflected by low-hanging branches and stout vines, let alone trees.

Have the improved penetration qualities of newer 5.56 rounds changed this?

Small arms *do* seem to be used far more accurately and lethally in CM:SF than I would expect them to be. You might kill *one* guy in the open at 400m with an LMG, but all nine of them in a single long burst?

An alternate explanation is that the TacAI is to blame for this.

[CRourke]

I just remembered another question I have: Is 'rubble' abstracted as cover? It seems to me that it must be, because it would be impossible to model the intricacy of a pile of bricks, to say nothing of the biomechanics that go into tucking a soldier safely into it.