kill radius

[kosta]

Just want to know your opinion.

I often wonder if the kill radius of grenades is realistic. Sometimes I despair looking at a Stryker firing its Mk19-granade-launcher into an enemy group and they don't die unless the granade hits the ground half a meter aside an enemy. They lie on the ground, but I would except that everyone in a 5-meter-circle would take casualties at least from the grenades.

Another point is artillery. If a round explodes in the air and I have chosen anti-personal rounds when calling and a group of enemies lies on the ground under the explosion, just 40% or so get injured. Is it realistic? I think an artillery round (it was 120mm) is lethal for everyone under the explosion. Sometimes its frustrating.

What do you think?

[JonS]

Just want to know your opinion.

I often wonder if the kill radius of grenades is realistic. Sometimes I despair looking at a Stryker firing its Mk19-granade-launcher into an enemy group and they don't die unless the granade hits the ground half a meter aside an enemy. They lie on the ground, but I would except that everyone in a 5-meter-circle would take casualties at least from the grenades.

I heard a story, several years ago, about a grenade production line in Australia. Apparently one day there was an accident, and the production line worker had a grenade go off in her hand. She lost the hand, but was otherwise largely ok. At the subsequent inquiry, the first question asked was "why is this woman still alive?", which prompted a redesign for the grenades.

Another point is artillery. If a round explodes in the air and I have chosen anti-personal rounds when calling and a group of enemies lies on the ground under the explosion, just 40% or so get injured. Is it realistic? I think an artillery round (it was 120mm) is lethal for everyone under the explosion. Sometimes its frustrating.

40% is pretty horrific cas for any unit.

I think your expectations are utterly unrealistic.

[SlapHappy]

For explosive devices, like grenades and artillery, the effects in the median range for these weapons are compressed. Meaning lethality is tuned down to simulate that soldiers in squads are typically much more dispersed in a squad than they actually are in CMSF. Note that the short-range and long-range effects of these weapons are not compressed.

It's an abstraction BFC uses in CMSF to simulate a more realistic casualty rate (or attempt to).

[Apocal]

What do you think?

I think the effectiveness of weapons is overrated in every game, including this one, although it is exceptionally closer to reality than most.

[Dietrich]

Just want to know your opinion.

My opinion? Alrighty.

I think the lethality of launched grenades and of mortar/howitzer shells is sufficiently accurate in CM:SF. While it is frustrating to pour 40mm HEDP at a trenchline or a structure and not wipe out (or even rout) the enemy forces therein, I suppose I'm taking for granted the accuracy and balance of the simulation.

I like getting a squad to within handgrenade range (getting them there before the enemy realizes they're there, that is), since oftentimes half a dozen handgrenades lobbed in quick succession into a room or a trench seem more effective than half a minute of three-round 5.56mm bursts.

That said, am I the only one who thinks the TacAI sometimes gets overzealous in terms of handgrenade-throwing? In playing the third mission of the USMC campaign, I sent a Marine squad hurrying along one of the ravines, and no sooner had they hustled a few meters past a single cowering Syrian (the last survivor of his squad), all ten or so Marines stopped, turned around, and tossed a grenade (or two, in the case of several soldiers) at the Syrian. Also, the TacAI makes soldiers hurl multiple grenades at unmanned (and even unarmed) vehicles, even if it isn't really possible to score a knock-out with such grenade-hurling. Since resupplying grenades is a non-option, it would be nice if the TacAI effected better conserving of grenades, especially in instances where grenades ought not be the weapons of choice.

[MikeyD]

I'm not sure, but BFC may have tweaked kill radius slightly to compensate for everyone having to stick to the same action spot. So its not really that they've reduced the munition's kill radius, its more that they're artificially simulating a unit being a bit more spread out more than the AI can physically handle... I think.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, any form of HE is dumbed down a bit to compensate for density. We did this for CMx1 as well, though to a far greater extent because in that game 12 guys were all on one pixel

I'm sure there are a lot of fans of Myth Busters here. Right? I thought so! They did one on grenades that was really fascinating. They were trying to disprove the notion that a guy could put himself on a hand grenade to save his buddies. Now, us military history buffs have seen enough documented cases in the last 90 years of warfare to know that it's not a myth without doing the tests. But these guys like to blow stuff up so they did the tests anyway The conclusion... it isn't a myth. Their experiments showed, scientifically, the difference small factors can make in terms of a hand grenade's lethality.

I just checked YouTube and, not surprisingly, there is a recap of the episode!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsiWWPupEuk

At the very end they put a grenade in a refrigerator to show that isn't a good idea, despite what Hollywood tells us. The evidence is there for all to see But anybody knowing about the sad incident on the USS Oriskany already knows that containing an explosion is a bad idea.

Steve

[SlapHappy]

Perhaps we resurrect the mile-long thread about how HE devices are too effective?

Perhaps not........

[Battlefront.com]

That would be like point the people saying "BFC is biased against the Allies" to the threads which said "BFC is biased against the Germans"

Seriously though, it does seem counter-intuitive that lethality from things that go BOOM is fairly low in real life. Same thing with the number of rounds that can be exchanged without causing casualties. So we'll constantly have some people thinking things are too much one way or too little the other way. Similar to the discussion going on about bogging in another thread. All we can strive for is having things "about right" based on careful study of whatever facts we can get a hold relating to that particular issue.

Steve

[Homo ferricus]

In a largely irrelevant, and one could also say trivial motion, i would like to ask a question about in game grenades;

How come the 40mm rifle grenades sound so wimpy when they detonate? It sounds like someone is just dropping a sledgehammer into the sand every time one of those 40mms impacts, is that what it really sounds like?

Sorry if no one else seems to think that... but it's been bugging me since V1.0

[DaveDash]

I find the lethality of most weapons, grenades included, to be relatively high, not low. Especially those HEDP grenades the Marines have. An area fire on a building from a squad of Marines will mow down most of the poor Syrians inside more effectively than HE from a Bradley.

It seems as the patches have gone up so has the lethality of weapons, or am I just imagining this? I seem to recall it was very difficult to rout dug in defenders in earlier versions (which was a good thing, since it actually required you to use proper tactics to win).

The reason this sticks in my mind is I remember when first playing CM:SF I was pleasantly surprised at the lethality of the weapons, given most other military "sims" (even OFP / ArmA etc) the lethality is way too high resulting in 5 second fights devoid of all tactics.

Just observations of mine and no way scientific.

[Kozure]

Only partially related to the topic, and in no way intended as a comment one way or another on kill radii of weapons, but I was playing Scenario 1 of the Semper Fi Syria campaign on Saturday night and mistimed an assault during a WEGO turn. I thought my 155mm artillery barrage was almost finished when I ordered one squad to cross a street to be in position to rush whatever remained of the defenders.

A 155mm round landed about 50-60m (?) away - not exactly sure on distance... but far enough that I thought the squad wouldn't be in danger (but certainly they would've been shaken up).

Nope... apparently a fragment took out of of my team. I replayed it a number of times and they were not under small arms fire and the casualty was taken at the same instant as the explosion.

[Battlefront.com]

The sounds of the grenades has the stamp of approval of our testers who have used the weapon. As far as I know, this is the first time anybody has thought them sounding incorrect. After all this time I take that as a good sign that we got it about right

Lethality has, over time, been tweaked downward in general. I can't say what and when because for me it's a blur going back 3 years. It's a very difficult thing to get right because even with all the statistics and information that is out there it's not as detailed as we need it to be. In real life chance has a huge part to play, especially with things that fragment.

As for a 155mm shell, the stats I generally come upon say effective up to 150m, danger up to about 300m. Remember, it's not the blast that is designed to kill, it's the fragments. Actual lethality depends on many variables as well as pure luck. 50m is close enough that you're pretty much screwed.

Steve

[Vark]

In the novel, Blackhawk Down and a subsequent TV documentary there was an account of a Ranger who had a grenade explode next to his head, when he was prone. He was wearing the standard Kevlar helmet but all his mates though he'd be dead, after the smoke and dust cleared he was shocked, deafened but very much alive!

Look at this clip, to show the limitations of the hand grenade as a weapon

Boris Yeltsin had fingers blown off when he tried to dismantle a stolen grenade and the paras, in the Falklands conflict, regarded the effectiveness of the L2A2 grenade as pitiful, "worse than useless" when clearing bunkers. In confined areas they can be highly effective but otherwise they are designed to shock and stun, the L2A2 casing was designed to fragment into approx 1,200 pieces weighing between 0.1-0.5g which will wound, rarely kill, unless the target is unlucky or in bodily contact with the device. Also, are the grenades modelled offensive or fragmentation grenades? I believe the offensive grenades have a greater blast effect and less fragmentation but since my only experience with these devices is that the guy I should have interviewed for part of my dissertation was killed by a WWII grenade I could be mistaken.

Talking of the paras in the Falklands can you use WP grenades in CMSF to clear field defences? I often find wargame simulations of WP are much undermodelled, especially effects of targets under cover and morale effects, the operating instructions with the US M15 WP grenade says.

"WARNING: All friendly personnel within the 56 foot (17 m) bursting radius should be in a covered position to avoid being struck by burning particles. The WP filler burns for about 60 seconds at a temperature of 5,000° Fahrenheit."

On a lighter note they are very effective at destroying the opfor's washing machines!

[Alan8325]

In a largely irrelevant, and one could also say trivial motion, i would like to ask a question about in game grenades;

How come the 40mm rifle grenades sound so wimpy when they detonate? It sounds like someone is just dropping a sledgehammer into the sand every time one of those 40mms impacts, is that what it really sounds like?

Sorry if no one else seems to think that... but it's been bugging me since V1.0

I use a sound mod called "AKD Sound Mod," found in the repository on this website. Almost all sounds in the game are replaced, which makes many weapons sound more powerful. Realistic or not, I find the sounds much more immersive, especially the ak-74's, PK machine guns, 40mm grenades and syrian hand grenades.

[akd]

I use a sound mod called "AKD Sound Mod," found in the repository on this website. Almost all sounds in the game are replaced, which makes many weapons sound more powerful. Realistic or not, I find the sounds much more immersive, especially the ak-74's, PK machine guns, 40mm grenades and syrian hand grenades.

Well, I was going to mention...but thanks!

Just a note: 25mm cannon, 30mm cannon/grenades, 40mm grenades and Syrian handgrenades are all hard-coded to use the same explosion sound, and that can't be changed on our end.

[Apocal]

The reason this sticks in my mind is I remember when first playing CM:SF I was pleasantly surprised at the lethality of the weapons, given most other military "sims" (even OFP / ArmA etc) the lethality is way too high resulting in 5 second fights devoid of all tactics.

Part of it is that even ArmA's terrain is undermodelled. In real life, there is all kinds of microterrain you can exploit, unless you're in a desert or Kansas. Going prone means even a 12" variance can cover most of my body. The other part is that your avatar is capable of maintaining a perfect stance and sight picture at all times. Plus the usual gaming issues with no fear of death, hold the line or complete the mission at any cost, etc. Even so, I've had 10-15 minute running firefights where maybe a handful of players were hit and only two or three were killed/incapacitated.

Which actually leads into one of my (few) beefs with CM:SF. Squads don't break for it until they've been thoroughly spanked. Real life, there is a sweet spot in a firefight when one side has established fire superiority and the other side decides discretion is the better part of valor and slinks away, intact and frequently without taking any losses at all.

Maybe I need to play with the motivation setting a bit more, but if this happens in CM:SF (slinking away under heavy fire), I haven't seen much of it.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, if FPS games allowed you to die one time and one time only, then it would erase your harddrive (of EVERYTHING), I think you'd see a major reduction in lethality

As for TacAI figuring out it's time to bugger out... correct. We definitely have under modeled that on purpose. If we modeled things correctly you'd have even small firefights lasting 2-3 hours and one side calling it quits before anything decisive happens. That might be realistic, for the most part, but it's definitely not viable for us. Therefore, we basically are obligated to simulate the more unusual "balls out" type of fight where both sides want to stick it out to the end. We let the player decide when there should be tactical exceptions instead of having it be SOP.

Not to say we couldn't tweak this some more as we go along, because that's easy enough to do. The problem is that it's VERY difficult to code the TacAI to logically get itself back into the fight in some way. We simply fear the players feeling they have to micro-manage every single unit to keep them in the fight.

Steve

[Homo ferricus]

In the novel, Blackhawk Down and a subsequent TV documentary there was an account of a Ranger who had a grenade explode next to his head, when he was prone. He was wearing the standard Kevlar helmet but all his mates though he'd be dead, after the smoke and dust cleared he was shocked, deafened but very much alive!

Are we thinking of the same event? I thought it was a Delta who was running across the street and a stray enemy round hit and detonated a flashbang that was hanging off his load-bearing vest.

And btw, thanks Alan8325, AKD.

[Alan8325]

Yeah, if FPS games allowed you to die one time and one time only, then it would erase your harddrive (of EVERYTHING), I think you'd see a major reduction in lethality

Most (arcadey) FPS games have weapon lethality and accuracy severely reduced from realistic levels to make the firefights take place at 10-15m distance and allow jumping around to avoid being hit for more of an arcade experience.

I remember multiple instances while playing Battlefield 2 where I easily sneak up behind someone for an ambush and manage to get several rounds into his back, only to have him jump up, spin around in mid-air and strafe side-to-side, gunning me down in no time. Those kids and their reflexes!

[Dietrich]

Most (arcadey) FPS games have weapon lethality and accuracy severely reduced from realistic levels to make the firefights take place at 10-15m distance and allow jumping around to avoid being hit for more of an arcade experience.

Arcade.... Phooey.

Speaking of lethality being severely reduced from realistic levels, would taking a 5.56mm round to the ballistic plate (i.e., a round that didn't penetrate) be likely to knock me down? Taking a non-lethal/non-wounding hit and being knocked down certainly isn't something I've seen in any FPS I've played. In all the FPS and tactical shooter games I've played, getting hit is a matter of either seeing the view jerk violently and flashing red-tinged or of getting knocked down dead.

I remember multiple instances while playing Battlefield 2 where I easily sneak up behind someone for an ambush and manage to get several rounds into his back, only to have him jump up, spin around in mid-air and strafe side-to-side, gunning me down in no time. Those kids and their reflexes!

My fairly recent playing of CoD4 online multiplayer has seen "me" get killed many more times than I have dished it out. Playing America's Army 2 was, in some ways, even more frustrating, since "enemy" players were consistently able to both spot me and shoot/snipe me within half a minute of the game starting (and no respawns in that game hehe).

I think that in an FPS or tactical shooter which aims to live up to its claims of realism, jumping ought to be disallowed. In the countless combat clips viewable on YouTube, for instance, how often do you see a Marine or a soldier jumping? With all the weight they're carrying (clothing, ammo, armor, etc.), isn't it enough that they still have the strength to heave themselves over low walls?

That said, I still look forward to checking out Operation Flashpoint 2 and ArmA 2 for myself.

[Vark]

Don't forget online FPS games are plagued with hacks and cheats, so the super-human reflexes of "those kids" you experience might just be zero skills based. Talking of realism, FPS gamers who talk about realism are a contradiction in terms, the very fact they can operate successfully, in the battlefield environment, with no military training, is unrealistic. Don't get me wrong, I play FPS's and love to indulge in stress-reducing slaughter but it is as realistic as CMBB was in showing the true nature of Eastern front combat. I play CMBB for amusement, I doubt the actual participants would have used that adjective.

Steve, I like your wipe the hard drive 'death' penalty idea for FPS's reminds me of a John Hill interview in "Fire and Movement". He was asked "are your wargames realistic?" His answer was, and I'm paraphrasing. The most realistic game game he'd designed would rate a two or three out of ten. If both players were under the strict understanding that the loser would be taken out and shot he'd bump the rating up to a 6 or 7!! I think he was talking about "The Battle for Hue" board game.

[Lethaface]

how often do you see a Marine or a soldier jumping? With all the weight they're carrying (clothing, ammo, armor, etc.), isn't it enough that they still have the strength to heave themselves over low walls?

Rainbow6 Ravenshield was perhaps the best online FPS in my view. Vegas looks nice too, but only a few players and I somehow liked ravenshield better.

OP Flashpoint will hopefully live up to its predecessor.

[zwobot]

Play Operation Flashpoint with WGL mod or Armed Assault with ACE if you want to have a more realistic yet entertaining "Shooter" experience...

[DaveDash]

ArmA is the successor to OFP is it not? OFP2 is something else entirely... (and apparently not that good? I havn't followed the series in a while).

You can't jump and shoot accurately in CS:Source. However, due to the headshot system it's very easy to die. Players that master the recoil on rifles to always know where to headshot, will cause you endless amounts of frustration.

It's similar to AA, AA you can't really jump and shoot from memory (unless it's changed?). Your accuracy goes through the floor.

In any FPS those who know the maps much better than you will seem like they are cheating/have faster reflexes/whatever. It's nothing to do with that, they just KNOW the likely avenues of approach, likely spots you are hiding, and have their crosshairs on you already. I used to play quake1/2/3 professionally (hangs head in shame) and on most maps I was so good I could listen to what powerups you picked up, deduce exactly where you were, and made sure a rocket landed right on you when you walked around a corner. Many people accused me of cheating, etc, until they learnt who I was.

Believe me though, many frustrated times in AA I have thought "if the game actually wiped your hard-drive when you died, you wouldn't have done that!" after seeing guys rambo around with no tactics what so ever, seemingly impervious to fire.