v1.05 Curious how you feel about small arms accuracy now.

[aka_tom_w]

As I said, we can look into small arms accuracy and avoidance for version 1.06, but understand there are a variety of opinions. We've adjusted things up and down over the past two years as a result Things to keep in mind:

1. Casualty rates will ALWAYS be higher in a game than in real life. That was true for all the previous CM games as well as all wargames ever made IMHO. There are tons of different reasons for this, many of which CMx2 tries to mitigate more than CMx1. But there is only so much we can do.

2. There is no such thing as "open ground" the way some of you think. Just like CMx1 there is visual abstraction, just a lot less of it. Ground clutter is simulated by affected basic defensive qualities of terrain. But this is an arid environment folks... so if the map is devoid of significant terrain features, then you're pretty much talking about the worst sort of terrain from an attacking standpoint.

3. It is not true that all shots in CM are aimed. Far from it. ROF, weapon type, Experience, Morale, and Suppression all have an impact on how accurately the weapon is fired. Other factors can also creep in, such as lighting, when relevant. We only have one animation for firing so that's all you'll ever see. Someday we might get some Rambo animations in there, but animations are extremely difficult and expensive to get in and working.

Steve

OK...

There have been a few claims that small arms accuracy is over modeled in the game if I understand the previous complaints in this old thread correctly.

Is there any noticeable difference in v1.05?

Is any one still looking at this now?

I raise this question now because I am still very open minded about how the game "feels" in this area and if you feel strongly one way or the other (its about right, or accuracy is over modeled) maybe you could post your v1.05 observations in this thread.

as per:

SgtMuhammed

Member

Member # 11541

posted December 10, 2007 11:31 AM

Small arms accuracy is completely over modeled. Look at the casualty figures for any operation of comparable size to a CMSF scenario. We regularly get casualty rates in an hour that entire divisions would get during a day of hard fighting. Look at the recent operations in Iraq where a month's urban fighting ends in a couple hundred casualties combined.

What is different in the game from real life is that every shot in the game is aimed. In actual combat 99 of 100 are of the spray and pray variety. That's why you can't do a "Blackhawk Down" scenario in CMSF, your Hummers will get eaten alive before they move 100 meters. Targeting priority is:

1. Known enemy troops: Unfortunately the enemy rarely pops up like they do on the range.

2. Known enemy locations: You saw the guy there a minute ago so you are hosing the area.

3. Suspected enemy locations: You think you saw something in that window or in those bushes.

4. Likely or possible enemy locations: That's where I would be if I was trying to defend this area so lets hose that area.

The vast majority of fire falls into the last three categories and is designed to keep the enemy's head down. Even fire in the first category is against a target that is usually visible for only a second or two and is moving and most likely 100 to 200 meters away.

and

Phillip C. says:

Very good post, SgtMuhammed.

In game, this boils down to an insurgent set to "green" shooting at something visible for only a second or two at 100-200 meters and *hitting*.

That's overly accurate fire. Even at 50 meters it should be a difficult shot under those conditions, unless I'm much mistaken. But... when my troops are on the move, that's what I see when I cross open areas covered by (what should be) tactically ineffective fire.

It's like maneuvering a regiment at 100 yards in a Napoleonics scenario and suddenly losing 40 men to muskets. Yeah, sure, it's theoretically possible, but the shooters are 40 of the *luckiest* soldiers in the world.

Maybe the "luck" factor just needs to be dialed down a bit.

Edit: good point, skelley, exposure times do seem high.

[ December 15, 2007, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Wiggum]

Thats a good question !

The thing i hate most on CMSF is the small arms accuracy and the hight cassultys

[Hev]

Ive only been playing from the US side but it seems to be fairly accurate, when was the last time you saw a pic of an American troop using iron sights on a rifle?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

It is true that small arms are very different now than CMx1. I said somewhere on this Forum recently that it is like taking some of the late war German Squads and playing with them and only them. This was considered "gamey" back then because the killing power was so out of line with other units. You know, stacked with MP44s, MG42s, and Panzerfausts. Since the late war German weapons are basically what everybody is using now, it's a pretty fair comparison to make.

I'd guess that a US Fire Team of 4-5 men has as much firepower as a WWII US Squad of 12 men. Laser aiming devices, 4x scopes, etc. also mean that the firepower is more accurately delivered too.

Steve

[Wiggum]

In CMAK i have a fire fight with a Squad (Zug) and retreat.

I loosing 2 men

In CMSF i do the same under the same conditions.

I have 15 dead...

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[c3k]

Small arms accuracy is WAY overmodelled in this game.

Regards,

Ken

[SgtMuhammed]

Haven't had time to play much this weekend but I will get back on this. Regardless, the fact that there are no threads complaining about suffering a total defeat while losing only 20 guys makes me think casualty figures are still the same. One thing to remember when talking about the optics on American small arms is that it is extremely hard to make snap shots with a scope and snap shots are what you normally have in combat. They are most useful in stationary positions when you have time to observe an enemy who remains exposed for some time or you have the luxury of knowing where he is and can wait for him to show himself.

As Heinlein once said, if you give a soldier a bunch of things he has to pay attention to then a guy with a rock is going to sneak up behind him while he is trying to focus his NVGs (paraphrasing).

It has already been acknowledged that games will always generate more casualties than reality and a major factor is that the nature of fire is different. All the fire in the game, aimed or not, is concentrated in the general area of the target, this is just no the case in reality. I'm not saying that this ruins the game, at least not for me, I am simply pointing out that this representation should not be taken as representative of reality.

[LongLeftFlank]

I personally feel that the NUMBER of shooters at any given moment, not the accuracy of their fire, is what's overmodeled, at least on the Syrian side.

I've posted on this issue before. I've pretty much exclusively played tiny/small Iraq MOUT scenarios in this game to help me understand the situation there (eagerly awaiting the Marines!). I've been annoyed with how many casualties I take as the US player even when I'm being careful and the enemy is an utter rabble (at this point I pretend that US casualties are just unavailable for orders for some reason, not hit). And the conclusion I've come to is that the enemy's volume of fire is just too great.

If you look at combat footage from 1939-present (and yes, I understand that combat recorded by film crews isn't necessarily a representation of "normal" combat), what you normally see is 1-3 guys or a single SW team doing the shooting or grenading or flamethrowing or whatever and the rest mainly watching from cover... not cowering but not active.

I call this the "union road crew" effect, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has driven past one.

The "mad minute" -- where everybody in the squad is pouring it on -- is generally limited to situations where the enemy is (a) at point blank range or charging in full view and it's kill-or-be-killed (think Episode 2 of BoB), or ( is not returning much fire (and it's safe to be a hero).

If you look at the copious YouTube footage from Iraq/Afg, US and British squaddies show high firefight participation, presumably a result of training, but also relative paucity of enemy return fire (I'm sure the presence of the cameras helps some too). But even there you frequently see the "union" effect. And it's pretty much all you ever see from the jihadis (although I wouldn't compare their fire discipline to that of regular soldiers).

In game terms, what I'd expect to see is a sharp dropoff in fire effectiveness of non-MGs depending on how much return fire it is taking, as well as its level of training.

[Snake Raper]

I am going to chime in on modern weapons, aiming and lethality. I watched a video a few years ago that showed a police officer and a suspect that basically had the two of them with pistols drawn at about 5ft from each other. Within seconds both had unloaded (8-13 rounds each) and they both missed, from 5ft. Did I mention they were 5ft apart?

We in the military preach 'aimed shots' and 'one shot one kill', but the fact is that individuals are not as effective as doctrine.

There are many factors that not only play a part on the shooter, but also on the weapon and the target. Modern weapons systems with PAQ-4 or PAQ-2 or AN/PVS-14 MNVGs on the person are Gucci but they do not replace basic shooting skills. In a modern battlefield, in a perfect world, where you know the location of all enemies, a section/squad of soldiers can be absolutely obliterating on a poorly equipped group of hostiles. But that same section/squad can be wiped out in close range by people who barely know how to put a mag on an AK-47.

In game, I too have marveled at my troops being killed by AK fire from 200+m away while they run. Hard to do, and almost impossible to do again and again and again in real life.

I am a Canadian soldier and I can say that our pre-deployment training includes movement in the open, (formations and firing on the move) because it is inevitable that in Afghanistan you will be in the open when some wanker fires on you. We accept that in that opening volley at least one of your buddies is going down (otherwise why would they shoot), but we train and train again for what happens in the next few minutes.

The volume and accuracy of fire on the enemy is as much a factor of the individual as it is of the collective training that was conducted prior. But why do we not suffer 100% casualties in an ambush scenario? Simple, adrenaline. The shooters get so wound up, they anticipate the shot, the heart rate is up, there is smoke, dust and debris in the air, there are people shouting, stoppages, mag changes, fast moving targets, dodging targets, incoming fire, there is everything happening at once. Yet in a game, virtually none of that is modded. The soldiers are fearless, they are expert marksman, the battlefield makes no matter to them, their weapon is an extension of them, how could they possibly miss?

Life is more forgiving than games, a game simply cannot crunch all of the numbers for a firefight and no two are the same. It has to come down to a percentage based on an arbitrary number, plus an advantage or two and minus the enemy's advantage.

They may sound similar, but ask anyone who has done close quarter snap shooting and stood in amazement looking at an unmarked target. It happens to the best of us, even me.

[Spindry69]

I think small arms accuracy is way too accurate at the moment. Many times iv'e had most if not all of a squad mown down seconds after dismounting. The accuracy may be fine for the US troops but I thought average Arab soldiers wern't renowned for their training and many just spray and pray.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Taki]

Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:

In game terms, what I'd expect to see is a sharp dropoff in fire effectiveness of non-MGs depending on how much return fire it is taking, as well as its level of training.

I agree with that. And with the Statements of others made that in Real LIfe you dont Concentrate your Fire as much on a Sector as you do in CMx2. The Accuracie of the Weapons modelled isnt to high i guess but the Number of Bullets a Squad can bring in a Sector of Fire is. Evene when they are under Fire they shoot back precisly and kill your Squads.

Like trying to Pin a Syrian Squad in a House and they are excited bout your Fire but they Fire one Salvo back and you get lots of Casualtiys of the Squad that attacks.

What i dont like about the COver&Weapon Model is, that People in Trenches and Houses are too save. A Tank is driving Right that way so he can see down a Trenchline but needs 2+ Minutes to clear a Squad there. Same with Buildings. The Enemy inside there just dont get casualtiys and gets back Moral to fast after they got pinned down.

When you tone down the Accuracy of Fire and the Number of Bullets carried to a Sector you also have to tone down the Moralregain of a Squad and the Defense Bonus of Buildings.

On the other Hand i want a more "Dynamic" Game. As it is right now Insugents or Regulars no matter of Syrian or US-Troops cant retreat and take Fallback Positions. They just keep in a Building and dont retreat or Fallback. Its all to static.

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Hev:

Ive only been playing from the US side but it seems to be fairly accurate, when was the last time you saw a pic of an American troop using iron sights on a rifle?

In my 8 years of US Army service (still in) I have never fired anything else besides iron sights.

[Chainsaw]

M1A1tankcommander:

Ofcourse not, your are a crewmember so you dont have anything else then ironsight (dont need anything else,you are supposed to use it only in emergency, a clumpsy optic sight is just in the way in a armoured vehicle). But look at the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and tell me if you see anyone who actually use ironsight (fighting troops, not clerks)

So Hev is right here actually.

cheers!

/Chain

[the Fighting Seabee]

1.05.... Noticed something worth saying in this discussion.... I noticed some machine gunners firing wildly into the air! I have seen it happen. When someone is going off Rambo style and swings the mg up and around you can see tracers go all over the place. So.. maybe inaccuracies are being modeled into the game.

Maybe while utilizing area fire, there should be much reduced accuracy. Also when a unit is being fired on (it's hard to shoot straight when people are trying to kill you!). Otherwise, I have found US troops are actually quite good shots. So many of our guys in Iraq have commented on how they are alive only because the Iraqis can't shoot for crap.

M1A1TankCommander: first, hooah! 6 yr vet myself.

Second, me too, only used iron sights.

[Taki]

Its also a matter of how much RPM the Weapon can Fire. There should also be modelled that Infantry should RUn in the Open, Hit the Ground. Wich makes shooting on them more Difficult excspecially on Distance above 200m

I guess there are good Marksman in the US-ARmy and Syrians aswell. But when you are under enemy Fire or you wait 5 Hours for the Enemy in an Abmush Place you get Trigger Happy or start to shoot not like you do on Training Ground.

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks Snake Raper, great comment:

Originally posted by Snake Raper:

But why do we not suffer 100% casualties in an ambush scenario? Simple, adrenaline. The shooters get so wound up, they anticipate the shot, the heart rate is up, there is smoke, dust and debris in the air, there are people shouting, stoppages, mag changes, fast moving targets, dodging targets, incoming fire, there is everything happening at once. Yet in a game, virtually none of that is modded. The soldiers are fearless, they are expert marksman, the battlefield makes no matter to them, their weapon is an extension of them, how could they possibly miss?

Life is more forgiving than games, a game simply cannot crunch all of the numbers for a firefight and no two are the same. It has to come down to a percentage based on an arbitrary number, plus an advantage or two and minus the enemy's advantage.

Yes, I think this is the biggest challenge, to make the simulation feel like it is not just a endless series of combat resolution die rolls referencing hit and damage tables and charts. (I think they are working on it ) This issue of "based on an arbitrary number" could be more randomized, (based on a random variable) to try to make each encounter or fire fight unpredictable and somehow introduce a real life combat flavour of variety with more misses, more spray and prey and more individuals simply choosing not to fire their weapon. (on both sides).

Thanks for the insight!

[ December 16, 2007, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[MikeyD]

I mostly play MOUT which means the men are usually laying down HUGE volumes of fire from one streetcorner to the next. A recent (rare) open country scenario I played appeared to have soldiers exchanging pot shots from near their max range. Significantly different volume of fire, and significantly lower lethality.

BFC was pulled from both sides on the accuracy issue. They had complaints from professionals that the M4 carbine's range should be greater than the game showed, so they made corrections. Alternately, they had complaints that small arms accuracy was too high so made corrections to that. What do those two combinations produce? Firing out to longer ranges but not hitting much of anything, I suppose.

[Wiggum]

If 10 Soldiers shot with small arms on 10 Enemys who are 300m away and in a trench, there should be no dead !

[aka_tom_w]

What do those two combinations produce? Firing out to longer ranges but not hitting much of anything, I suppose. "

BUT, that is more realistic in modeling real world ballistics is it not?

I have no problem with modeling the now slightly longer M4 range, AND the fact they don't really hit anything very often at max range. That works in the game as it should in reality now I think.

But the first volley target acquisition, aim, shoot and, hit drill is too mechanical still IMHO. Foot units running in the open should not be completely mowed down with the opening volley. Its the first round accuracy for small arms against moving targets I would like to specifically take issue with in the simulation as it stands now. I think there is some room for improvement there.

[Webwing]

From a gameplay point of view:

You change something like this and you have the danger of unbalancing the whole game.

If they (small arms) became less lethal that means you need more time to kill the same amount of enemy troops and a lot more bullets!!!!

You can run out of ammo quite fast the way it is now. Imagine if that gets changed!

An 100% realistic simulation would be extremely boring to play IMO.

--

[SgtMuhammed]

As I have said repeatedly. The #1 effect of fire is to make the enemy decide not to stay in the area, killing them is gravy but makes a better game.

[c3k]

Range 170 meters, US soldier behind a 2 meter berm, Syrian Reserve in a building unknown to moving US soldier. US soldier AT MOST only has head visible (and through camera positioning is actually UNDER the crestline, hence hidden). First shot by Syrian: kill.

WAY, WAY, WAY overmodelled.

Regards,

Ken