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

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[jomni]

Hmmm... Terrain modifier or add more battlefield clutter (furniture inside houses? ) would be the solution. But I bet that's impossible to represent with this game engine and design. It's just a game anyway.

Adam1's description of close quarters combat seems like it came out of an FPS. A decent squad level "strategy" game that looks like an FPS is Full Spectrum Warrior. I don't think CMSF tries to become something like that.

[Yskonyn]

Originally posted by Omenowl:

Steve,

Could you put an option somewhere to tweak up the accuracy or down the accuracy depending on how lethal we want the battlefield? Maybe depending on the level we like to play (elite, veteran, etc).

Currently, while I think the accuracy is high for all sides I am also worried that if we make the accuracy much more realistic we won't be able to kill anything without javelins or vehicles at medium ranges.

Good point (as Steve already acknowlegded)! I am all for that, it also adds the option for everyone to 'tweak' their game to whatever setting they want it to be.

Use a slider (if possible) with the standard (accuracy as it is now) in the middle and people can then scale it upwards or downwards whatever they think reflects reality best.

Saves the endless discussions on the forums as well.

One thing that is interresting though is how you would go about in MP? Especially PBEM? Battle starter (host) sets the accuracy?

[Yskonyn]

Originally posted by Adam1:

Steve,

(...) You'll notice stuff like just how easy it is for a combatant to peak out, fire, and then retreat into full cover, or how buildings can be like bunkers with single squads manning multiple angles. You'll get to see how firefights don't just start and end when one side gets partial LOS on the other, or that area fire with small arms can't solve everything. Most of the discrepency between the combat mission shock force game and reality is that there is just so much more *detail* in real life.(...)

Eventhough Steve is addressed here, I just want to chime in; have you ever seen a strategy game modelling this (ducking away, looking over edges and the like, real human behaviour from soldiers in and RTS)? I haven't.

It's a game, and for it to work you have to crunch code into the computer so it makes it into zeros en ones so it can show on screen what you want it to do. But it's nothing more than that: zeros and ones. And while we can make a model of real life behaviour the machine always lacks the 'insight' unless we program it. And programming all those vaiables to make soldiers human-like in making decisions in RTS games which calculate as much data as CMSF is mission impossible if you ask me!

A first person shooter (as pointed out) often models leaning around edges, taking cover behind objects, but those games are heavily scripted. The actions follow a film-script, so to speak, so the game developers know exactly what they want and the soldiers in-game only have a limited AI which tells them to use objects and the like other than that they just follow the story to the end.

CMSF is very different in its battles. Many more variables.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

I wouldn't expect anyone to make decisions based upon a single data point.

So in that sense, dismissing something as Hubris certainly isn't productive, as you're just throwing data out because it doesn't line up with your own data. Gather as much of it as you can and from as many sources as you can. The real story is most certainly somewhere in the middle.

With as many variables as there are in this game, I would never expect a single data point to be perfectly accurate, and you would never know which data point that is.

I would certainly disagree that perceptions are somehow skewing my data to any significant degree in any specific direction. Tracking RPG hits vs misses isn't exactly rocket science, and I've been fairly astute in keeping track of that data since it's an important influence on the enjoyability of this game. Tracking crew losses has been pretty easy, because, well, in the 50 hours or so that I've put into the game, I've seen a total of three RPG hit survivors. Not a lot of math to do there!

have you seriously played v1.05 for 50hrs? :eek:

the crew survivability is up in v1.05, I would humbly suggest you test it some more. Trust me, its better now

[Spindry69]

Originally posted by Yskonyn:

A first person shooter (as pointed out) often models leaning around edges, taking cover behind objects, but those games are heavily scripted. The actions follow a film-script, so to speak, so the game developers know exactly what they want and the soldiers in-game only have a limited AI which tells them to use objects and the like other than that they just follow the story to the end.

CMSF is very different in its battles. Many more variables. [/QB]

Armed Assult 2 will have AI that will make use of cover, in dynamic, unscripted maps.

[Yskonyn]

Originally posted by Spindry69:

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

A first person shooter (as pointed out) often models leaning around edges, taking cover behind objects, but those games are heavily scripted. The actions follow a film-script, so to speak, so the game developers know exactly what they want and the soldiers in-game only have a limited AI which tells them to use objects and the like other than that they just follow the story to the end.

CMSF is very different in its battles. Many more variables.

Armed Assult 2 will have AI that will make use of cover, in dynamic, unscripted maps. [/QB]</font>

[Drusus]

Having played v1.05 a little now, I think the accuracy and lethality is much better. There are some situations which could be handled better, but overall I think it is pretty good.

[c3k]

In-game accuracy tweaking knobs or sliders? NO WAY!

Ugh. How about variable armor stats as well?

Just my .02.

Regards,

Ken

[civdiv]

Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:

Sorry, clarification: people firing while on the move, not people firing at moving targets. There was an example where a fire team on the move hosed a group of reds at 300m, IIRC.

I don't think that invalidates any of your points, just more food for thought I think.

I am not sure but part of this may be a simplification of the movement to cut down on cpu cycles. There may be some 'bounding' going on that is not animated. By bounding I mean a guy runs a few steps, stops, takes a couple of shots, and then starts running again.

The reality is that even the best trained rifleman is not going to hit a man-sized target at more than maybe 50 meters. I mean even in some of the more 'high speed' shooting courses I have gone through I cannot ever remember shooting on the move at more than maybe 25 meters (It may have been 50, can't be sure.). I will tell you that when you practice it a bit you can get to the point where you can hit a man-sized target around 90% of the time when moving at 25, with a probably drop off to maybe 50% at 50 meters. But that is an upright target simulating a man kneeling. And that isn't full-out running, that is sort of a heel-toe shuffle.

But hitting a man-sized target 300 meters in the open while moving? A whole squad firing a whole magazine might hit one guy. That's around 300 rounds. Against a dug-in target? You be mistaken to even open up on them and not only attract their attention, but to let them know they were spotted.

[Guest]

Ahhh. I hadn't considered that it might be an abstraction of "bounding".

Thanks for the info on your training, I wonder how that jives with the experiences of other people who have learned to shoot on the move?

As for the 300m thing, yeah, I (who has never shot anything while on the move) could definitely see that there might be an issue there.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

have you seriously played v1.05 for 50hrs? :eek:

the crew survivability is up in v1.05, I would humbly suggest you test it some more. Trust me, its better now

Good to hear! No, the 50 hour number is a total for the game.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Adam1:

You're right, but those are the challenges the game faces now that it has moved to this system of modeling ballistics and human targets, i.e, 1:1. Maybe with lots of tweaking it will work - I hope so. Let's not just be satisfied with something that isn't there yet.

On a happy note - cresting and fire through hills seems to be a lot better now. More testing to come... and I will report if I see problems. But looks good so far.

I think JasonC addressed this type of stuff really well, explaining why this was a physical impossibility, even with an infinite amount of resources for tweaking and simulation.

His solution is absolutely the correct one in that the only way we would ever see a reflection of reality (in terms of small arms lethality) is to design for effect - design for the final result, not the minutiae that gets you there.

In other words, it doesn't matter if you model the exact ballistics of a 5.56mm bullet when the end simulation doesn't begin to approach what happens on a real battlefield.

Totally agree about the cresting hill/LOS stuff! Major improvement there.

[ December 21, 2007, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

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

have you seriously played v1.05 for 50hrs? :eek:

the crew survivability is up in v1.05, I would humbly suggest you test it some more. Trust me, its better now

Good to hear! No, the 50 hour number is a total for the game. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Adam1,

I know you are particularly sensitive to criticism unless it is worded carefully and I'm trying to be tactful.

Right, because abusive criticism is not useful. So if you want to be critical, and listened to, you have to be constructive. Tactful is another word for it. It's even better when critics actually contemplate that their positions may, or may not be, entirely correct. I like debates about subjects where there is a lot of room for discussion, but in order to have one the other side must be willing to engage. Opinions that are presented as incontrovertible fact aren't of much use, regardless of their degree of tact. So with that in mind...

Based on my understanding of warfare (and yes, I've read a book or two on the subject ) and discussions with people that have actually carried it out in real life, some of which have also played CM:SF, I do not find your very extreme position to be accurate.

As I've said many times already, I have no doubt that there might be things in need of tweaking, and I've also said we're looking into them in detail now. Fortunately, the system is extremely flexible and tweaks are very easy to make when we have a good sense of what to change. For example, Charles just reduced the volume of fire at medium to long ranges to better simulate the extra time it takes to acquire a target at greater ranges. This should address some issues raised in this very thread. Total time to institute this change... a couple of minutes.

The problem, therefore, isn't "can the engine do this or that" or even how practical it is for us to change. It's quite simple, actually. The issue is agreeing on what reality should be. You hold a very extreme and strongly held belief that the entire system is crap. You're entitled to that position, but enough guys who actually do this stuff for a living have said that you're off the mark.

If I have to pick between listening to someone who has been in combat and someone who has read something from a combat vet... well, it's really not a difficult choice to make. So I would encourage you to not take such a hardline because you undermine your own credibility. Instead, I would suggest you focus on specific things that you think are not correctly simulated, identify the possible remedies, and then go on from there.

As for the necessity of coding in trash cans, piles of debris, sofas, and literal kitchen sinks to get realistic results is concerned... that's completely unnecessary. It's also impossible for computers to handle that degree of detail, so it's a good thing it isn't needed All that is needed is to change various variables associated with a given behavior or physical attribute. Charles could make it so anybody prone in the middle of a road could never be hit by any sort of fire. We don't need to have broken down cars and rubble barricades graphically represented to make that happen. Just a variable tweak and that's all that is needed. The question, therefore, comes right back to where it always comes back to...

What is a realistic result.

Unfortunately, it is subjective and it always will be. There are still arguments going on some 7 years after CMBO was made about if this or that is realistic. There will never be a "right" answer. All we can do is arrive at something that is mostly correct most of the time. For that there needs to be a consensus and an understanding that any one person's opinion is not incontestable.

Steve

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I might suggest you play v1.05 before you comment about crew survivability any further because it was listed as something had been adjusted for more survivability in the latest patch.

I've played quite a bit of 1.05, and was relating that my experiences thus far had been the same as in other releases - and considering that on a number of occasions certain fixes didn't cover all cases, or the same bug cropped up despite what the changelog said, it seemed possible that more work needed to be done in that area. It's good to hear that other people have seen fixes in this area.

[Yskonyn]

molotov_billy if you have seen bugs that should not be there according to the changelog and you have seen them on several occasions, maybe you do well by uninstalling and patching a fresh install. Maybe something went wrong with patching... who knows?

[Battlefront.com]

C3K,

In-game accuracy tweaking knobs or sliders? NO WAY!

Ugh. How about variable armor stats as well?

No worries about that If we do something it will be set before a game starts and can not be changed during the game. Not that I'm all that sure we'll add it. I thought it was a good idea for the simple reason that battlefield lethality these days is extremely high, which makes mistakes punished pretty harshly sometimes. That might be fine and realistic, but for some it might not make the game fun. Philosophically I don't have a problem with a reasonable amount of latitude if done right (i.e. labeled as such and not tweakable once a game has started).

Steve

[Omenowl]

In-game accuracy tweaking knobs or sliders? NO WAY!

Ugh. How about variable armor stats as well?

Well the argument is the game is too lethal. The opposite problem is if you try to make it overly realistic we might be looking at casualties in single digits for both sides. We might also be faced with only getting kills by artillery, javelins and vehicles unless you walk right up on a guy.

Maybe there needs to be a higher penalty for range, environmental variables (dust storms, haze, temperature, etc), troop quality, equipment quality and fatigue. The question for us all is how much?

Do I really need 7000+rpgs fired to take down a few vehicles? Do I need irregular forces to outnumber my guys 10+ to 1 to get good results and 14 hours? And this is if I want to represent Somalia 1993. I am all for realism as long as it is playable.

[General_solomon]

steve,

My only suggestion is to give us a slider or knob before the start of battle. this way players can choose to play a quick battle(high lethaliy) or a long(low lethality) drawn out one.

thanks

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by c3k:

In-game accuracy tweaking knobs or sliders? NO WAY!

It certainly works for Steel Panthers. It's never a bad idea to throw in options that make the game more enjoyable for a lot of people.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

C3K,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In-game accuracy tweaking knobs or sliders? NO WAY!

Ugh. How about variable armor stats as well?

No worries about that If we do something it will be set before a game starts and can not be changed during the game. Not that I'm all that sure we'll add it. I thought it was a good idea for the simple reason that battlefield lethality these days is extremely high, which makes mistakes punished pretty harshly sometimes. That might be fine and realistic, but for some it might not make the game fun. Philosophically I don't have a problem with a reasonable amount of latitude if done right (i.e. labeled as such and not tweakable once a game has started).

Steve </font>

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Adam1:

Steve,

I'm saying that based on all the sources I can get my hands on, the game is absolutely nothing like reality. The most recent book I read was "House to House", and it is not my opinion, it's Staff Sgt. Bellavia's personal experiences. Urban infantry warfare in particular is nothing like CMSF. Go and read the book, seriously, I think you'd enjoy it even if you don't agree that the game is that far out in left field at the moment. You'll notice stuff like just how easy it is for a combatant to peak out, fire, and then retreat into full cover, or how buildings can be like bunkers with single squads manning multiple angles. You'll get to see how firefights don't just start and end when one side gets partial LOS on the other, or that area fire with small arms can't solve everything. Most of the discrepency between the combat mission shock force game and reality is that there is just so much more *detail* in real life. There is a great deal to be said about human intelligence, knowing how to minimize exposure or drop it altogether. Furthermore, units don't simply pin and crawl around barren environments under fire. You'll read about insurgent infantry firing and skulking back into a building, quite safely... or breaking contact all together. You will also notice that it is not simply a matter of firing enough bullets 250m downrange when you spot an enemy squad. [snip]

I tend to agree with this, I have read many accounts of small actions in Iraq and Afghanistan (US and Soviet) where the attacking occupying force arrives at the target only to find the enemy gone. Even ragtag amateurs seem pretty good at evading capture and observation, especially when they are operating on their own turf.

What tends to happen in the end when they do get pinned and destroyed is that heavier weapons are brought to bear (TOW, Javelin). Or the plan allows them to be blocked or surrounded.

On the flipside of course, if the US infantry really has to go in and ferret them out minus HW support, there is a pretty good chance that a spray of AK fire will cut down a few guys.

It should be kept in mind that CMSF is supposed to represent a somewhat conventional conflict, so not ever lesson from Iraq will apply.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request