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

[Hev]

I ran the same tests as brooks at a longer range (200 meters) and i found that generaly squads lasted ten minutes or so before taking more than one casualty.

I ran my tests with different ground types using brush and rocks on the areas that i "painted" (the areas were about 20 meters square)

I had the infantry occupy the area before opening fire on them with MG's (from a trench) at 200 meters.

Generally the ground types themselves made no difference ( i expected troops in the rocky ground to last longer but alas it was not to be )

The cover did however make a diffence, any troops placed in the open got cut down within minutes but those with the brush and rocks would last ten minutes before taking multiple casualties.

[JasonC]

An interesting result Hev. Have you tried it with a vehicle MG e.g. a Stryker's 50 cal?

[Wiggum]

Has anyone tested the accuracy of Syrian and US Units at greater ranges (300m-600m).

The US Units should have a much better accuracy at this ranges because of opticals.

At the Bundeswehr we do combat-shooting (Squad with G36, MG3 and Panzerfaust) and there is no problem to shot targets at 400m...ok, that was just training but with G3 (no opticals) we have less hits at these ranges.

[aka_tom_w]

I would suggest it may not be unreasonable to expect some samll and realistic improvements in this area in v1.06 (I think)

[Wiggum]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I would suggest it may not be unreasonable to expect some samll and realistic improvements in this area in v1.06 (I think)

Do you know something we dont know ?

[Duke d'Aquitaine]

Overall I feel weapon lethality is ok. Maneuvering infantry on the battlefield is difficult to learn, but once you get the hang of it, you survive even hard fought battles with low casualty rates. I'll admit that when I first started playing CMSF my squads generally got mowed down seconds after debarking from the AFV's

[Wiggum]

Originally posted by Duke d'Aquitaine:

Overall I feel weapon lethality is ok. Maneuvering infantry on the battlefield is difficult to learn, but once you get the hang of it, you survive even hard fought battles with low casualty rates. I'll admit that when I first started playing CMSF my squads generally got mowed down seconds after debarking from the AFV's

Not for me.

I played CMSF since it comes out and had ever the feeling that there should be more "Cover" in some places and less "Lethality".

Like someone say in another thread:

The game doesn't seem to replicate a human's ability to make himself small and get out of the way of fire.

[Duke d'Aquitaine]

Yeah, I see some of the tests you did indicate BFC need to tweak some values. Now when I think of it, I do recall some incidents in what was supposed to be deep woods where troops got killed in seconds from a single source. Kinda mystified me...

[Wiggum]

Originally posted by Duke d'Aquitaine:

Yeah, I see some of the tests you did indicate BFC need to tweak some values. Now when I think of it, I do recall some incidents in what was supposed to be deep woods where troops got killed in seconds from a single source. Kinda mystified me...

Thats it, you think "they are prone in a wood, they must be have good cover" but in CMSF they arent in good cover.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Wiggum]

I really would like to read something from Battlefront to that...

Will they fix:

- Small Arms Accuracy

- Lethality of small arms

- Cover that the terrain give.

[vincere]

I followed this thread with great interest; thanks to all who contributed.

I can't recall if this has been mentioned, but if accuracy or cover is redically altered then are squads might need more ammo and time to shoot it.

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

The shots are actually fired without knowing if they are going to hit anything. That part of accuracy of the shot after it has been fired is, therefore, not fudged at all. The variability comes in when determining the vector of the shot. The inherent capabilities of the weapon (accuracy and ballistics behaviors) are influenced (or fudged, as we all like to say ) by a myriad of factors such as Experience, Suppression, Morale, exposure of the target, LOF interference, etc. Whether the round actually hits the intended target depends on these things being favorable or the shooter getting lucky. Luck always has a part to play

More generally...

Remember also that LOS, Spotting, and LOF are different elements. One can have LOS to something without LOF, one can Spot without having current LOS or LOF. Etc. There are reasons for each of these circumstances and we've had discussions about them in the past, but I could touch on them again if someone needs to have a specific question answered.

Spotting certainly isn't automatic. Urban terrain is especially difficult to spot what's shooting at you, not to mention having nearby units pick up on that info as well. I found this out last night when retesting a scenario I'm working on! Damn near wiped out because I went charging in (to test something, not because I that that was a good idea ) and didn't know where the Hell the enemy was shooting me up from. Obviously the more open the terrain is, the better your troops are, the worse the enemy is, etc. the easier it is to spot the enemy.

As for specific terrain issues in CM:SF... we are still open to looking into specific combos that appear to not be giving enough cover or concealment. However, I must keep reminding people that they must take into consideration that almost all natural terrain in CM:SF is inherently bad at one, the other, or often times both. Arid environments tend to be worst case scenarios for infantry battles, so it should be expected that the variety of results from the different terrain isn't all that wide when compared to some place like Europe.

Version 1.06 does have some tweaks in it that should reduce the overall number of casualties sustained AS LONG AS the player is not doing something inadvisable. In other words, bad tactics will still yield bad results We do not change data and game mechanics to compensate for player problems, only game problems.

Steve

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Arid environments tend to be worst case scenarios for infantry battles, so it should be expected that the variety of results from the different terrain isn't all that wide when compared to some place like Europe.

Steve

I agree with this. If i see large amount of bushes in game i immediatly think that this is the worst kind bush-hell i've seen. But when starting to think things more carefully i come to conclusion that there are just 3 (small) bushes per 8x8 meter square. That is almost like open plain.

Only thing i don't get is grain field's small impact on LOS ... Well anyways, it ain't that big thing in wide scale.

[Battlefront.com]

I'm sure a LOT of you have seen the famous Monty Python sketch about "How Not To Be Seen". If not,

and then come back here to read the rest of my post

The problem with arid environments is that often, definitely not always!!, the natural terrain cover doesn't provide for a dense amount of cover/concealment in any given area. So yes, there is a nice couple of bushes to hide behind. But since everybody within 1km saw you duck behind them, they aren't likely to do you much good!

Again, this is not always the case all the time in every place. Some places look a lot closer to places like Spain and Italy rather than the deserts of Saudi Arabia, for example. And you should be able to simulate them in CM:SF to a reasonable degree. For example, dense tree placement with tall grass and scattered bushes and slightly uneven terrain, should provide a pretty gritty combat area if you make it big enough with enough varied terrain around it. Making an oasis in the middle of an otherwise empty landscape isn't going to produce the same effects.

Steve