Super Duty Pickups???

[Dietrich]

Dietrich,

Am surprised about the mount traverse limits you gave [etc.]

I wrote: "To correlate your observations to CMSF." In real life, as you noted, a technical's weapon is typically on a 360-degree mount. In CMSF, however, when a technical spots a target to its flank or rear, it will rotate on its axis to bring its weapon to bear.

I believe this might be for no other reason than the absence of animations for a technical's gunner and/or loader moving to the front of the truck bed and facing rearward, to correspond to the approximately 180-degree rotation of the technical's weapon to face the rear quarter.

A windshield will do essentially nothing to reduce the passenger/driver survivability against 5.56. [etc.]

I wrote: "The windshield would tend to protect the driver [etc.]." Obviously, the shorter the range, the greater any given 5.56mm round's penetration capability. At relatively close range (such as 100m, like you mentioned), 5.56mm NATO is more apt to punch through most parts of a truck, with minimal chance of deflection. But since engagement even with M4s sometimes happens at extreme range (for the ammunition involved), it isn't a given that the rounds would simply penetrate whatever part of a truck they happened to hit.

In any case, my point wasn't to go all Mythbusters, but to simply point out some common features of engagements between Blue small arms (including M240s) and technicals in CMSF.

[Alan8325]

I've also seen the AI use way too much 5.56, 7.62, and .50 cal to completely destroy unoccupied technicals in CM:SF, while a single 40mm HEDP round knocks it out. I haven't seen anything unrealistic about how fast the crew members get killed by small-arms rounds as they seem to die after just a few bursts, but then the unoccupied vehicle attracts a frustratingly high amount of ammo from the AI.

I think the best fix would be just a TAC-AI adjustment that makes them consider (observably) unoccupied vehicles as the same as knocked out ones.

[YankeeDog]

I think Alan is on to something. It may be that the problem is not so much the amount of damage that small arms cause to unarmored vehicles, but rather the fact that the AI seems to like to fire on immobilized, unoccupied vehicles until they are *totally* destroyed.

It probably does take a lot of plain old FMJ rounds to turn a Toyota Hi-Lux into a total write-off. But in 99% of tactical situations, I think tires shot out and occupants killed would be more than sufficient, and the AI should stop firing at the vehicle at this point, unless the player specifically orders otherwise.

[Lanzfeld]

Alan is on to something but we cannot have the AI ignore abandoned vehicles as there is still an interest in killing abandoned ones.

[Ryujin]

You could just have it so they only fire on abandoned vehicles if ordered...

[Lanzfeld]

What about when you are playing against the AI? They need to be able to kill abandoned vehicles.

[YankeeDog]

It seems to me the default AI behavior should be as follows:

- Abandoned but otherwise OK (i.e., could move and/or fire if re-crewed) = AI will target

- Vehicle has any operable weapon = AI will target, even if vehicle is immobilized and/or abandoned

Abandoned AND Immobilized AND has no operable weapon (weapon destroyed, or never existed) = AI will NOT target.

Of course, a unit might not see that a target is abandoned/immobilized/destroyed right away, so it is reasonable for it to fire for at least a few bursts after a "stop condition" is reached. Just not for minutes on end.

This seems to be the right behavior to me. I suppose the only issue remaining is if the vehicle is worth victory points... it seems to me that if you've killed or driven off the crew of a vehicle, immobilized it, and destroyed any weapons systems the vehicle has, then you (or the computer player, if you are playing against the computer) should get the points for it, even if the vehicle isn't technically "destroyed" in-game. (is it actually possible for a vehicle to take this much damage and not be "destroyed" for the purposes of the VP count?? I've never checked...)

Would this present any issues?

[Ryujin]

It seems to me the default AI behavior should be as follows:

- Abandoned but otherwise OK (i.e., could move and/or fire if re-crewed) = AI will target

- Vehicle has any operable weapon = AI will target, even if vehicle is immobilized and/or abandoned

Abandoned AND Immobilized AND has no operable weapon (weapon destroyed, or never existed) = AI will NOT target.

Of course, a unit might not see that a target is abandoned/immobilized/destroyed right away, so it is reasonable for it to fire for at least a few bursts after a "stop condition" is reached. Just not for minutes on end.

This seems to be the right behavior to me. I suppose the only issue remaining is if the vehicle is worth victory points... it seems to me that if you've killed or driven off the crew of a vehicle, immobilized it, and destroyed any weapons systems the vehicle has, then you (or the computer player, if you are playing against the computer) should get the points for it, even if the vehicle isn't technically "destroyed" in-game. (is it actually possible for a vehicle to take this much damage and not be "destroyed" for the purposes of the VP count?? I've never checked...)

Would this present any issues?

Yes, since you outlined pretty much what they do right now. By the way, I think if it's immobilized with no weapons it's considered knocked out anyway. But where the problem lies is it takes a LOT of small arms fire to get a pickup truck to meet those conditions and unless it's on fire the AI can't seem to tell most of the time anyway. Knocking out the SPG in the back would be more luck than anything with small arms, especially since the AI won't aim for it.

Personally I'd usually rather have my ammo and not give away my position. If I really want it that dead I can give the order. 99% of the time when the vehicle is abandoned it has no more value and won't be re-crewed.

I can see AI firing on vehicles they don't know are abandoned, but generally speaking telling if a technical is empty is easy enough (yes I know in some conditions/distances it might be hard to tell, but generally speaking).

[cabal23]

A windshield will do essentially nothing to reduce the passenger/driver survivability against 5.56. Especially SS109, but even commercial .223 will slide through it - there might be some deflection equal to a couple of inches... but we aren't talking about precision headshots.

The engine itself might stop ball 7.62 for a time (cover degrades), but the "front body" might as well not be there. Sheet metal is not armour, whether it's the front fender or the firewall.

Just about any hit to the engine, from the front, will quickly or immediately m-kill the vehicle. Belts, water pumps, computers, linkages, water jackets, plug wires, radiator, oil pan, transmission (if 4x4 or fwd), you name it. There aren't any "spare" parts or areas up there in modern vehicles.

If you have access to a friend with a .223 rifle and a piece of .25" sheet steel, set it up at 100 yards (no closer) and then retrieve it with nice round holes cleanly punched out. Eye-opening.

So then I guess you can see the absurdity of two platoons sitting in the second and third story of a building looking north with a two lane road rolling south right into the building. The two platoons are in overwatch and a lone truck rolls down the street with bad guys on board. The driver, driving straight at the building , gets lit up by two full platoons of men with bullets and grenades from launchers. Lets say on one man per window, it was still six windows on the third floor, six on the second(12 men at the least) all firing at a truck coming at them head on. First off that driver has a personal deflection shield or something. All of those shots are to its front which leaves the engine and the windshield with soft flesh material behind the steering wheel. Let's not forget those quality rubber tires made in Syria. Not only did he survive this assault for one full PBEM turn he reversed and drove out of sight. Share all the anecdotal thoughts you want. People in cars getting shot at by crack British troops don't last a full minute with that much ammo raining down on them. Oh did I mention they were rated crack with excellent weapons? Not sure how much that has to do with the equation but that is one Bruce Willis Jihadi to survive all that.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Yippi Ki Yo

[lomir]

Ahem...

[acrashb]

People in cars getting shot at by crack British troops don't last a full minute with that much ammo raining down on them.

Agreed. I've just replayed 'ambush tutorial' and watched technicals hang in there for up to a minute against deployed mg fire (ranges 200-350 meters). Nuts.

Here's a vid. Notice the first few seconds of fire destroyed the car it was aimed at (by a professional - started low and walked up). A second burst moments later destroyed the car the video was taken from (and killed the driver, which is why the windshield wipers started up).

So let's re-hear the excuses as to why pickup trucks are less vulnerable. In all fairness, it might be modelled that way for game balance, but it can't be realistic. I don't doubt that a truck can rarely get lucky when shot at by one rifle, but not mg's and squads.

[acrashb]

Ahem...

Didn't get too far...

[c3k]

Well, yes, BUT that wasn't a pickup. Any fool knows that the cab-style vehicle modelled in CMSF would portray this quite accurately. The pickup, well, that's totally different.

Ken

[acrashb]

Yeah, I forgot about Toyota's factory-installed "jihad package", complete with titanium skid plates, Kevlar bed liner, armoured brake lines and Dual Zone Climate Control.

[cabal23]

Ahem...

Yep and that was probably one or two guys. Imagine 12 with really nice guns and a great aim.

[lomir]

Yes, definitely. And the bursts that start a little bit later are coming from the coax MG3 of the Leopard 2 tank.

[Mord]

I was testing effectiveness of sniper fire on various red vehicles and I have to say the pickup is damned tough...I witnessed about 10 of 12 (.50 Cal) hits directly penetrate the engine area, head on, and do nothing...not even drop to a small green +.

Here are two saves. The Pass Word for both sides is "b"...without the quotations.

http://www.mediafire.com/?1elm2ij8rdqgius

http://www.mediafire.com/?wvelyxyjkdkdruh

Playing this out a few times, eventually the truck immobilized because of blown tires.

Later I manged to kill the BRD M-2 ATGM with a frontal side shot that knocked out optics, engine, and radio...I think the pickup is a bit too tough in the engine area. It's not even armored!

Mord.

[Ryujin]

I don't know, the toyota pickups are really tough.

Those guys on the show "top gear" couldn't kill one by drowning it in the english channel, lighting it on fire, hitting it with a wrecking ball, and putting it on top of a building that was then imploded with explosives... and they got it running again after all that with a couple basic tools.

So... relatively speaking, several .50 to the engine may be a minor nuisance .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg4bBPlWzT8 pt 1 of 3, neat show, crazy what they do it it

[Mord]

LOL yeah, I saw the conversations in the thread and watched the vid...pretty amazing. But out of what I watched in your link I didn't see any kind of penetration of the actual engine block...They cleaned all the water and sand out of the engine and the smacking around of the truck took place mostly on the body, with the wrecking ball being dragged across the hood once. Even when they set it on fire, I don't believe they let it burn for long judging by how it looked. I am not arguing it's a tough vehicle...it sure is. But if anybody plays the two saves I posted they will see a huge amount of those hits would have gone right through the engine most likely the engine and the radiator...there's no way a vehicle is gonna operate when the engine block is cracked in half or the radiator turned into swiss cheese.

If it boils down to abstraction I can live with that but it's a helluva a lot of abstraction if you watch where the bullets landed...especially considering what the .50 did to an actual armored vehicle, the BRD M-2.

Mord.

[Alan8325]

It seems to me that all small arms fire vs unarmored vehicles may be slightly undermodeled. I can sometimes empty 100 rounds of 7.62 from an MMG into a pickup and seemingly do no damage, unless I get a direct hit to one of the occupants. A single 40mm HEDP round though, and it's done.

[Lanzfeld]

Funny that so many people have questioned this (really isnt a question as a 10 round burst or less of 7.62 would kill any pickup 90% of the time) and BFC wont fix it. I cant figure out why.

[stoex]

In a similar vein, I had an experience in a mission (can't remember which one), where a USMC sniper was firing at a taxi using the .50 cal. Shooting at the front of the vehicle from an elevated position, aiming at the driver, he nailed about 8 or 10 bullets EXACTLY in the spot where you would expect to hit the driver - meaning through the lower part of the windshield or slightly below the windshield, on the driver's side. The man did not die or exit the vehicle, but instead slowly reversed out of LOS, which took several minutes. Couldn't believe it. He had to have been dead or at least the vehicle broken.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Funny that so many people have questioned this (really isnt a question as a 10 round burst or less of 7.62 would kill any pickup 90% of the time) and BFC wont fix it. I cant figure out why.

I'm not sure it should be fixed.

In most situations decently deployed troops can stop and take out pickups well enough anyway. If the pickups suddenly pick up realistic damage on a 1:1 basis they will become pretty much unusable altogether.

The spread of infantry fire in particular is way too tight anyway, so pick-ups get hit by more small arms fire then they should be. If a generous damage model allows it to operate a bit longer, I don't think that is too far out from being realistic.

[Lanzfeld]

I'm not sure it should be fixed.

In most situations decently deployed troops can stop and take out pickups well enough anyway. If the pickups suddenly pick up realistic damage on a 1:1 basis they will become pretty much unusable altogether.

The spread of infantry fire in particular is way too tight anyway, so pick-ups get hit by more small arms fire then they should be. If a generous damage model allows it to operate a bit longer, I don't think that is too far out from being realistic.

Sorry ......this makes no sense to me. Tight infantry fire has nothing to do with it. Any redneck with a M-14 could knockout a pickup with 3 rounds.

Making pickups tougher for "game balance" doesnt sound like the right way either. The Uncons use these and they are what they are. Should we make Shermans tougher because they were on the "right" side?

Like I said, sorry Elmar, got to disagree here.