Does different terrain add any protection from small arms at all?

[thewood]

How are the small undulations interrain handled. I don't think the editor is fine grained enough, plus the major pain in the arse it would be to draw them. I am talking the small rise and fall in ground maybe just enough to conceal a prone person.

[Drusus]

IMHO the biggest problem with the terrain protection is that there isn't perfect cover. What I mean is that most terrain will have spots that are _impossible_ to shoot at. Now I think that troops under fire will find these spots quickly, and after that it is impossible to hit them, no matter how much lead you throw at them.

I have a feeling that this type of cover doesn't exist in CMSF. In the game, the troops might be in really good cover behind a big rock, for example, but still if you keep shooting at them, you will hit them eventually. And the biggest problem is trenches. A trench should easily give a soldier perfect cover against small arms fire. This is not the case at the moment.

Of course, if the soldier tries to shoot back, then the cover shouldn't be perfect no more.

The problem is made much worse by the amount of lead in the air in modern warfare. The result is that even small chances of hitting will result quickly in a dead target.

Now, this results in successful tactics being too much about two things: first, you need to have a lot of firepower, and second you need to be the one that shoots first. I do know that these are important things, and in the case of heavy (high explosives) weapons, you don't need much more.

For example a normal firefight goes too often like this: 1. find out where the enemy is, 2. Bring in enough _small arms firepower_, 3. Just chew out the enemy with small arms.

What I would like to see is that you need to change the step 3 to steps 3a and 3b as follows: 3a. suppress the enemy with small arms fire and, 3b. maneuver for the kill.

As it is now, the only things limiting just shooting the enemy is the amount of ammo and LOS being cut of after the enemy has been covering a while.

Of course against badly trained troops or troops willing to be martyrs you could just wait for the enemy to do something stupid. Most likely this would be trying to run away or trying to shoot back. I do think that shooting back is a bad idea if there is 10 highly trained troops shooting back at you...

Maybe I don't know enough about modern tactics, but that doesn't change the fact that there should be at least some spots on the map that allow a squad to be in perfect cover against small arms fire if they just keep their head down.

The options the enemy should have against a "perfect position" are either to bring in heavy weapons or maneuver for the kill. The current option of just shooting until the enemy is eliminated should not be a viable one.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Drusus:

Now, this results in successful tactics being too much about two things: first, you need to have a lot of firepower, and second you need to be the one that shoots first.

Hehe, this is how I remember it from playing Enemy Territory (=laboratory conditions).

Best regards,

Thomm

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Drusus:

Maybe I don't know enough about modern tactics, but that doesn't change the fact that there should be at least some spots on the map that allow a squad to be in perfect cover against small arms fire if they just keep their head down.

The options the enemy should have against a "perfect position" are either to bring in heavy weapons or maneuver for the kill. The current option of just shooting until the enemy is eliminated should not be a viable one.

I agree.

Best regards,

Thomm

[orwell]

Originally posted by Drusus:

IMHO the biggest problem with the terrain protection is that there isn't perfect cover. What I mean is that most terrain will have spots that are _impossible_ to shoot at. Now I think that troops under fire will find these spots quickly, and after that it is impossible to hit them, no matter how much lead you throw at them.

I have a feeling that this type of cover doesn't exist in CMSF. In the game, the troops might be in really good cover behind a big rock, for example, but still if you keep shooting at them, you will hit them eventually. And the biggest problem is trenches. A trench should easily give a soldier perfect cover against small arms fire. This is not the case at the moment.

Of course, if the soldier tries to shoot back, then the cover shouldn't be perfect no more.

First off, I haven't actually managed to play more than a couple minutes due to controls, and second off I'm probably making a bunch of assumptions based off play in STALKER primarily, however; I would assume this is to model the fact that, if your enemy is only hiding behind a rock, couldn't you use a grenade to either hit, stun, or otherwise 'soften the target' to make a full assualt possible, or otherwise flush him out of hiding enough to be hit? Same thing with the trench, if it's low enough to provide prone cover only, I'd think a well placed grenade would solve the problem. If it was more like a WWI trench, where your able to move around fully standing, a grenade might be as effective, but I would still think it'd have the desired effect.

[MarkEzra]

I wonder what LOS/LOF repairs will do for terrain protection?

[DaveDash]

Originally posted by orwell:

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

IMHO the biggest problem with the terrain protection is that there isn't perfect cover. What I mean is that most terrain will have spots that are _impossible_ to shoot at. Now I think that troops under fire will find these spots quickly, and after that it is impossible to hit them, no matter how much lead you throw at them.

I have a feeling that this type of cover doesn't exist in CMSF. In the game, the troops might be in really good cover behind a big rock, for example, but still if you keep shooting at them, you will hit them eventually. And the biggest problem is trenches. A trench should easily give a soldier perfect cover against small arms fire. This is not the case at the moment.

Of course, if the soldier tries to shoot back, then the cover shouldn't be perfect no more.

First off, I haven't actually managed to play more than a couple minutes due to controls, and second off I'm probably making a bunch of assumptions based off play in STALKER primarily, however; I would assume this is to model the fact that, if your enemy is only hiding behind a rock, couldn't you use a grenade to either hit, stun, or otherwise 'soften the target' to make a full assualt possible, or otherwise flush him out of hiding enough to be hit? Same thing with the trench, if it's low enough to provide prone cover only, I'd think a well placed grenade would solve the problem. If it was more like a WWI trench, where your able to move around fully standing, a grenade might be as effective, but I would still think it'd have the desired effect. </font>

[MikeyD]

CMx1 was abstracted-abstracted-abstracted. 3 men equals a 9 man squad, one line of tracers equals a whole squad firing. 2-D trees representing abstracted forests. Under those circumstanes its pretty easy to dial up or dial down cover in different terrain. In this game you've got a 1:1 soldier with a 1:1 bulllet flying in his direction. Kind'a harder to fudge the terminal effects without things getting a bit weird.

[skelley]

I don't really try to follow each bullet to see if it is imapcting my soldiers. I sit back and watch the green go red really fast.

[skelley]

I went back and added brush and thicker trees to the same area talked about during the original post. Then I replayed it. This time I split the squad and used an assault team to go up the hill(crawling). Before they reached the top 2 were killed the other is pinned and yelling "lets get outta here. The best that I can tell is that there is not much cover outside of houses. How they were spotted so easily is the main question now for me. Back to my scenario (to see if the last guy falls)

[skelley]

I am also having trouble getting teams to get in a skirmish line. it seems that they form a line perpendicular to the enemy lines. I think if try to get the back 2 members to move up it will just push the guy in front out into the open. Does anybody have a way to get them to do this?

[MikeyD]

You've sort'a got to play the game like real life. Nothing stands out more than a group of guys standing on the crest of a hill. Might as well be wearing bulls-eyes on their backpacks. Reminds me of the old Henny Youngman joke "I went to my doctor. I raised my arm and told him 'It hurts when I do this.' the doctor told me 'Then don't do that!'"

[skelley]

They were all crawling in brush and thick trees with rocky ground

[skelley]

I don't know how to make terrain any more safe than that. I guess I could throw in a bunch of rocks, fallen trees and maybe an old chevy.

[aka_tom_w]

Can you try adding man size boulders to that area?

I am not sure the editor models fallen trees, but that's a good idea too.

[skelley]

are there man size boulders? All that I have seen are ankle high boulders.

There are tree stumps and what I thought were fallen trees but maybe fallen telephone poles.

[Drusus]

Well, it doesn't really matter if there are man sized obstacles or not. A small dent is all that is needed. And I am pretty much convinced there are such places even in the relatively flat terrain that is modeled in the game (Syria). Maybe the places aren't that common in that environment but they do still exists. The point is there should be some "perfect" cover, not what the cover is.

[Battlefront.com]

Skelly,

If you send me the file you're playing around with I'll be able to give you a better answer specific to what you're talking about.

And I can't say this enough... the terrain, as you see it, does have a certain amount of abstracted cover in it to simulate the little bumps and what not that you would expect to find in an 8x8m patch of ground. You don't see them because to do that we'd have to shrink the "tiles" down to 1x1m or less. There is no way home computers could hack that on anything but the most ridiculously small maps.

Steve

[MikeyD]

What was shooting at 'em?

If it was infantry that means you were within AK range (400m or less). A medium mg can reach-out-&-touch from greater distance but a mmg at range seems to be better at supression than killing. A hvy mg is the Syrian equivalent of the .50 cal. Lucky for us they fire over simple iron sights. Tank mounted weapons seem most lethal. Stabile platform aimed thru high power optics, maybe including IR capabilities.I really don't like my men crawling around within LOS of tanks.

[skelley]

I've already passed by that spot but I can send you the scenario and tell you where I am having the trouble. I also didn't mention that I moved some trenches and enemy infantry close to this area so I think it would be easier for them to be spotted. But I do think a team should be able to crawl in this area with a little more concealment.

My goal was to move them up there just to get a peak at what was behind the hill, so that I could move some bradleys forward.

Although the first team was eliminated in short order the rest of the squad did a little better and were able to shoot back(2 guys left from 1 team) .

I'm don't mean to sound as though I am mad about it, just trying to figure out the best way to use the terrain.

I will send it to you. Thanks, really appreciate this

[skelley]

I got to figure out a way to get the scenario file from my windows partition to my mac partition. I made the windows part. too big so I can't just copy it. I don't have my windows set up for my email. so i will get it to ya as soon as I get either email setup or can find a way to copy it

[dan/california]

Have you tried dropping random squares of terrain by one meter or the smallest amount available in the editor? That would give little dead spots if the LOS fidelity is good enough.

So Steve, just how improved is LOS in 1.05?

[skelley]

I can probably try that but I don't know off hand how many tiles I have in the area to make dips. It seems like one guy leads the pack and he will have to crest the hill to see beyond so I am not sure if this would help. I guess I could stop the other 2 guys after the first one gets popped, but the first guy never sees who is shooting at him.

Maybe I can try adding some flavor item rocks in there and see if that helps. I just don't want to make a map where I have to lay a bunch of those things and other objects in all the approach areas. It would probably look to obvious what path infantry are meant to take. The only way to make something like that not as noticeable is to add flavor objects all over the place and that can become tedious.

[skelley]

It may just be that I am not used to the movement of infantry also. In Cmx1 when you set a waypoint your three guys stopped exactly at that waypoint. Now with 1:1 they aren't in such a tight group. Maybe if I stop them crawling a litter earlier they can still see over the crest. It wouuld be nice if the team were side by side so that it would be easier to tell where they would all end up at the end of the waypoint.

[Battlefront.com]

The soldiers spread out on purpose. Unlike the olden days of muskets and pikemen, soldiers aren't supposed to be all clumped together in tight lines Sure, there are situations when this is an accidentally optimal alignment, but generally skirmish lines are uneven pretty much by design.

Remember that spotting often requires some time the attacking unit to acquire. This is one definite advantage of being the defender.

Steve