Lethality knob or counter

[JasonC]

Rankorian - I don't think CMx1 got it perfect, but the issue is much more apparent in CMx2 because the way cover works has changed significantly. In CMx1, terrain was a uniform type across a large tile, while unit locations were finely spaced within that (whole squad abstractly "clouded" around a 2m by 2m spot). For infantry type fire, exposure was almost entirely a function of the terrain type the infantry was in, and the effective exposure was quite low for the useful forms of cover.

In CMSF, with one to one men representated and each terrain object meant to be, but also with 8m by 8m action locations, on the other hand, all forms of cover other than buildings have quite limited effect on incoming fire. (Buildings aren't all that strong close in, either, and are quite vulnerable to HE). It is perfectly normal to wipe out a squad, not reduce their morale but physically hit every man, in a minute or two.

The first system was more abstract and designed for effect style. The second is trying to show realistic vulnerability to flying metal and probably does so - but since the tac AI is not up to the task of finding every seam of cover, the effect is arguably less realistic rather than more. More realistic fire and limited cover seeking, yields higher lethality than more abstracted fire and abstracted by high levels of cover that assume any "seeking" involved has already succeeded, if the terrain type in principle allows it.

It should be tweakable and appears to be under review - I'm just explaining what the original issue was.

[DavidFields]

Thank you, JasonC, for the explanation. It would seem that abstraction, done well, can be "better" than some detailed renditions.

In an oblique way it reminds me of the difference between Ken Burns recent WW2 series and Band of Brothers. Despite the detail, and my enormous interest in WW2, I found the Burn's series...boring, after about 25 minutes. But I can still imagine popping in a Band of Brothers episode almost any day.

Indeed, I could see a potential Battlefront motto: Abstracting war, in interesting ways.

But I, too, will not be too negative. I can see the solution, with a rapid fall-off in casualties over "fire" time, adjusted for flanking. And "Borg-less" spotting. Sounds like a potential winner.

Until then, back to the Blitzkrieg CMBB operation. I am intent on learning how to use flame tanks well.

[Hev]

Could the problem also be related to the new editor and us not knowing how to use it to make realistic woods, fields etc?

Didnt steve mention that to get the same effect for cover in x2 over x1 you would have to layer multiple ground and terrain types in the same "spot"

And again, im currious what the realities of actualy seeking cover from incoming are. as far as i know not being visable wont actualy protect you, to be safe you need something that will STOP a bullet between you and the bads.

So, and heres the guesswork, given that today weapons offer SF over longer periods and possably deliver it more accurately doesnt that negate any advantages WW2 soldiers got from being unseeen yet still in LOF?

[Zemke]

I think anything that gives the player choice in how he wants to play his game is a good thing, you would not have to use it.

[Hev]

I did some testing last night, i put some infantry on differnet ground types with varying degrees of cover on it (just brush and brush with rocks) i found that the brush does offer reasonable cover to stationary men.

I had US forces being fired at by Syrian HMG's and most of the squads lasted ten minutes at about 200 meters. I was honestly suprised at this.

When i moved the US forces into the open! i found that after taking a certain level of fire that the troops pulled back to cover (a nerby trench) on thier own.

And i suppose Zemke makes a very good point, you could have a setting for realistic (or as is) then increments lower than for less lethal, and anyone who doesnt use it isnt effected. Hard to argue with the idea when put like that!

[JasonC]

Hev - I don't think it is true in reality that only something that will stop a bullet between you and the shooter is effective as cover.

The reason is that men stop firing much sooner in real life than units do in CM.

In CM, we see units expending entire ammo loads in a matter of minutes, so much so that they need to be resupplied during firefights from vehicle hauled ammo. In e.g. WW II reality, a US rifleman could use a single basic load of under 100 rounds in - a week. Without, I might add, hitting anybody.

The reasons units fire less in real life are (1) they can't see any target and (2) they are trying to keep their own heads down.

Most fire is still at poorly located enemy. We can tell because the accuracy is so low. But firing is still opportunity limited, not supply limited.

Just hosing away at unlocated enemy wastes so much ammo, so fast, and to such little effect, that men simply don't do it. As a result, cover that simply blocks LOS is quite sufficient to prevent enemy fire, most of the time. Units are also so dispersed in reality, that occasional recon fire isn't going to have a snowball's chance in heck of hitting anything.

The prime reason we don't see realistic versions of this from CM as it stands, is the game is force to put large numbers of people - 5 to 9 men say - on postage stamps of ground, 8m by 8m. You then know that whole area will be packed with hittable "meat". So much so, that even unaimed fire into that area can't miss.

In reality, you don't get clumps of 7 men at a time, and don't know where they are to that precision. You see no one, or you get glimpses of 1 or 2 people, and have no idea how many others are nearby, in which direction, behind what sort of ground cover etc.

You might fire a burst or two that way, but it will not be perfectly directed at an overstacked 8x8 grid squad. And you wouldn't fire 24 bursts in succession at maximum sustained rates of fire, expecting to accumulate hits on each member of a motionless body-pile.

Only design for end effect is going to get this right, given the number of unrealistic side effects of previous game system decisions. (Action spots, squad piles o men, no close AI cover-seeking within a unit, locations exactly known, etc, etc).

[Omenowl]

I was the one who recommended altering the lethality of the weapons. I thought it was too high, but under the same situation I was also worried that if it was tweaked too much that casualties would be so low and the battles so long that it would not be fun. 2 companies of men fight and after 2 hours maybe 20 casualties per side, while technically high is not very satisfying.

It does need to be tweaked and this is not an argument. Snipers should be more lethal and regular soldiers should be less so. Cover should have more effect along with concealment. HE should be less lethal to soldiers who are prone. Still I don't want to sacrifice fun for pure realism, which is where my worry lies.

[Yskonyn]

Originally posted by PeterLorre86:

Player adjusted leathality is not the solution, how can you talk tactics if everyone is playing a different setting?

Well in a given scenario you would have one and the same setting for both sides of course.

Something like, the host selects the setting.

[JasonC]

O-owl - it is a fair concern. But I don't think more lethal than realistic is more fun. It is less, because it makes tactics unnecessary - you just sit still and shoot, the whole game. If you mean the pendulum could swing so far the other way fights would be too indecisive, I agree it is possible, but I consider it quite unlikely. The game is going to remain more lethal than reality, even after any tweaks the designers make.

[General_solomon]

I want to play long drawn out battles that last more than 2 hours and 15 mins.

I want my men to conserve their ammo.

I want to be able to move from cover to cover without losing 80 percent of men.(I don't move men out in the open)

I want to be able to suppress and manuever.

I am not sure if its the lethality or other factors that needs to be looked at. Players should be given the option to play "long boring battles".

personally, I cannot play any other game out there. Shock force is the only game I like to play. Hopefully BF will consider looking into this issue.

thanks

[Omenowl]

I would like to see larger battlefields so you can manuever. I would also like to see longer time limits. However, this is very different from taking 4-6 hours to remove a bunker or to flush out a sniper.

My major complaint has been time limits too short so it forces you to move abnormally fast. The rush at the end for flags/objectives. Best example is mission 2 of the campaign. Far too short for what has to be done. That said if it was 2-2.5 hours I would be much happier as I could let some troops be pinned and come around the back.

I would also like to see area fire more suppress and be much less lethal. I would also like to see more surrendering.

[Hev]

I see how this is a very fine tightrope now, on the one hand you have realism and all its implications and on the other hand you have the fun of doing things that arent realistic ie massive firefights.

My head hurts now.....

[the Fighting Seabee]

It would be kinda cool if CMSF was more like the total war games. You could be in control of all of your forces and move them strategically, then when you clash with the enemy, you play the battle. Well... maybe that would make it too easy, and we wouldn't get such interesting tactical scenarios.

[Pandur]

there we would need a CMC-CMSF edition. hopefully allready in the works