Artillery Test vs. Rooftop troops, v1.31

[Rayak47]

Well that explains why I'm having a heck of a time trying to knock out ATGMs and RPG's in the Factory Complex German scenario.

Seems like survivability is pretty high when a 2000 pounder takes down the part of your buidling right next to you too!

[Alan8325]

It looks like what needs to be done is make rooftops more like open ground in terms of protection from artillery or HE, but keep a higher amount of protection from small arms. Also reduce the overall protection of buildings vs. large HE munitions.

[YankeeDog]

Well, roofs shouldn't provide good cover against all small arms fire, just fire coming from roughly the same or a lower altitude. To be more precise, the cover granted by rooftops should be dependent on the vector of the incoming projectile, regardless of whether it's a shell fragment or bullet.

The roof parapet should provide some cover/concealment from a bullet fired from ground level. Same goes for a shell fragment coming from a shell that detonates at ground level.

But a roof should provide little to no cover from an airburst above the roof, or small arms fire from a higher level (as in coming from nearby taller building).

[Lanzfeld]

It looks like what needs to be done is make rooftops more like open ground in terms of protection from artillery or HE, but keep a higher amount of protection from small arms. Also reduce the overall protection of buildings vs. large HE munitions.

For the most part....YES YES YES YES YES YES!

BUT...it must be a VERY tricky balance act for BFC.

Overall...it does seem like the buildings offer a bit too much protection.

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, any chance of chiming in, even to tell us what complete **%^$#E#^@s we are?

We're looking into it for v1.32. I'll let you know the results of internal testing as soon as I have 'em. Thanks!

Steve

[dan/california]

Thank you for the reply, you guys are great!

[dan/california]

By the way, I want to be a beta tester, c3k DESERVES to be a beta tester.

[dan/california]

Imagine what you wouldn't have to put up with if he was under NDA.

[c3k]

Now you have me blushing. Let's not forget akd's contribution in this thread, as well as all those who've posted about this, off and on. Beta tester? C'mon, you know all I really want is for you to release v1.32 but call it.... v1.c3k!!!

[c3k]

This thread is touching on two issues: the relative immunity of troops on rooftops to airburst artillery and the relative immunity of troops on the top floor of buildings.

I believe BF.C is now looking at the rooftop modeling. Thank you.

I'd like to muse out loud, as it were, for a bit on troops INSIDE buildings. BF.C has done a phenomenal job on ballistics modeling with tanks as targets ever since CMBO. (No more Tiger's with boxed 11's and 8's for those familiar with ASL.) The ballistic modeling was given a QA check by the incomparable Rexford. (MHRIP). The vehicular armor and penetration model has only improved since then. It really SEEMS quite good. I say "seems" because I have no way of knowing what goes on behind the scenes. However much smoke and however many mirrors BF.C has employed in the coding, the game's ballistics seem like a simulation of reality.

That modeling falls apart for troops IN buildings. I will, if needed or wanted, run some more tests, but the test that dan/california requested revealed a lot.

Targeting artillery against a target in building is done by selecting the roof right above the target and specifying GENERAL (some say ARMOR does the same, but uses tighter sheafs), rather than personnel. So the target type is POINT. When aiming at a BUNKER, the target type will only show VEHICLE. Troops in bunkers die fast and hard from artillery impacting above them, troops in buildings do not.

I assume that BF.C's ballistic modeling of shells impacting vehicles has continued to improve. If so, the game MAY model artillery against bunkers in a "better" manner by treating the bunker like a vehicle. Fuzing, penetration, behind armor effects, etc., are probably more refined. Whereas, my musing continues, the modeling of artillery versus units in a building is much more abstract.

Obviously, as BF.C has stated many times before, buildings abstract the many internal divisions and obstructions inside the structure. Are not bunkers built with blast protection or fragment limitation in mind? The greater volume of a building may dissipate the overpressure, but shouldn't the shells still be penetrating THROUGH the roof?

If the modeling of artillery versus targets beneath roofs were to the same fidelity as the modeling of artillery hitting a vehicle, I would think we would get radically different results.

Am I way off?

Again, this is merely my musing (preparatory to testing) and on the secondary issue touched on earlier. Right now the primary issue remains rooftops. I'll peel them aside later...

Thanks,

Ken

[dan/california]

Steve takes a bit of dragging at times. But when he says he is looking into something he is essentially 100 percent for at least coming back with a coherent explanation. And since he just said.....

We're looking into it for v1.32. I'll let you know the results of internal testing as soon as I have 'em. Thanks!

Steve

[JonS]

That modeling falls apart for troops IN buildings

FWIW, I'm of the opinion that troops in buildings should get quite good protection against artillery, and in that sense your results - to me - for troops in buildings appear quite acceptable.

That said, troops in bunkers should get better protection (which it seems they don't), and protection from a ound bursting oin the roof vs one landing on the ground beside a building should be similar. Those inconsistencies should be investigated. But I think the correct solution would be to improve the aspects that appear under-protective, rather than decreasing the one that seems over-protective.

FWIW

Jon

[dan/california]

The relative levels are far easier to agree on than the absolute levels. Troops on rooftops should be much less protected than troops inside the same buildings. Troops in purpose built bunkers should be more protected than troops in standard civilian buildings. That is necessary for rational game play.

The exact number of a given caliber of artillery shells it reliably takes to reliably suppress or obliterate each type of position is a discussion we could fill a few hard drives with if the 5.56 vs 7.62 debate is any guide. I do feel that collapsing masonry buildings should throughly take the starch out of anybody inside them when they came down. I am however open to significant first hand experience to the contrary

[Lanzfeld]

When you watch the youtube video posted in post #22 (page 3) of that 155mm you have to know that something is not right with the modeling of troops in a building. Imagine it penetrating the roof and exploding INSIDE the top floor when you watch that video. DEVISTATING! It would blow the bejesus outa anyone there. Not in a good way either!

[JonS]

except that it wouldn't penetrate the roof since it's fuzed to air-burst. Oddly, though, it looks like it's bursting too low.

[Lanzfeld]

except that it wouldn't penetrate the roof since it's fuzed to air-burst. Oddly, though, it looks like it's bursting too low.

Yeah......ummmm......

If you set the fuse to impact or slight delay it would. You really needed me to say that????

[JonS]

No, not at all.

Do I, in turn, really need to say that getting a round to go off at the optimum - or even adequate - altitude and attitude after it has penetrated a concrete roof/ceiling is a non-trivial task?

The thing that I keep coming back to through all this is how it's been shown again and again and again that artillery fire is surprisingly ineffective at causing casualties, compared to naive expectations raised by watching YouTube advertising videos. A surprisingly small amount of cover is needed to vastly imrove your chances of survival - like; being on the otherside of a road's crown, or in a gutter. Being in a foxhole or trench or bunker is better, but anything is a whole lot better than nothing. Buildings tend to be quite full of things, and soldiers tend to be quite highly motivated to finding the best things. A fridge, a stove, a steel desk, a thickly padded couch, a couple of internal walls, a robust bath, a water cylinder, a bookcase - all those can make the difference between having a laugh or losing your limbs.

But you didn't really need me to say that, did you????

[Lanzfeld]

Nope.

Take a top floor of the type of structure that is depicted in the game and put 9 men in it and burst a 155mm arty round in it (not hard to do BTW with modern arty....well.....a little hard). Now do it twice or three times. Nobody is leaving. Shrapnel...probably. Blast effect/ overpressure...yup. I am talking about the round exploding in the floor.

Nobody is leaving.

[dan/california]

JonS, I am rapidly getting the impression that you HAVE seen some ordinance effects up close. What is your opinion of the minimum sized bang to more or less ensure that you can cross a standard sized house off of the list.

[JonS]

JonS, I am rapidly getting the impression that you HAVE seen some ordinance effects up close.

Reasonably close, although it wasn't hostile.

What is your opinion of the minimum sized bang to more or less ensure that you can cross a standard sized house off of the list.

I'm not trying to be cute but - it depends what you mean by 'crossed off the list.' Somewhere on YouTube (or was it LiveLeaks?) there is a video of a 3 or 4 story building in Iraq getting the treatment. it starts with some Bradleys arcing up withcannon and TOW. Then a Abrams has a go for a while. Then there's a pause and some artillery arrives - probably 155 based on the plumes and that it's US forces. Then there's another pause and an bomb, I think 2000#, arrives.

Very spectacular. Big cheer for the good guys. Boo. Yah.

The thing is, though, that the building is still basically standing at the end of it all. I wouldn't want to live in it, or work there, and I wouldn't have wanted to be in it when it was getting pummeled. But still, as a fighting position ... it wasn't really all that different at the end than it was at the start. Also, since the violence kept getting escalated, it seems reasonable to suspect they weren't getting the desired effect, and resistance continued.

The same effect can be seen in Beirut, and Grozny, and any other city. Shedloads of HE gets flung about, but the buildings are still basically fine as fighting positions.

People are tough. And ingenious, especially when it comes to survival.

[dan/california]

That was pretty good sized commercial building wasn't it, although I definitely take your point. It takes a lot of artillery, most of the time.

[gibsonm]

cf Monte Casino too.

It was a better fighting position after the bombing than beforehand.

There's also the issue of time (though not strictly relevant here). I think from memory the most Arty casualties are inflicted in the first 10 sec or so when people are caught in the open and haven't reacted.

The longer the barrage lasts the less casualties inflicted for each additional timeframe (so to pluck some numbers first 10 sec 5%, next 10 sec 1%, etc. - the 10 sec figure maybe incorrect [it might be as low as 5 sec or up to 30 sec, I just don't recall off hand] but the general rule still applies).

[akd]

This thread is touching on two issues: the relative immunity of troops on rooftops to airburst artillery and the relative immunity of troops on the top floor of buildings.

I believe BF.C is now looking at the rooftop modeling. Thank you.

I'd like to muse out loud, as it were, for a bit on troops INSIDE buildings. BF.C has done a phenomenal job on ballistics modeling with tanks as targets ever since CMBO. (No more Tiger's with boxed 11's and 8's for those familiar with ASL.) The ballistic modeling was given a QA check by the incomparable Rexford. (MHRIP). The vehicular armor and penetration model has only improved since then. It really SEEMS quite good. I say "seems" because I have no way of knowing what goes on behind the scenes. However much smoke and however many mirrors BF.C has employed in the coding, the game's ballistics seem like a simulation of reality.

That modeling falls apart for troops IN buildings. I will, if needed or wanted, run some more tests, but the test that dan/california requested revealed a lot.

Targeting artillery against a target in building is done by selecting the roof right above the target and specifying GENERAL (some say ARMOR does the same, but uses tighter sheafs), rather than personnel. So the target type is POINT. When aiming at a BUNKER, the target type will only show VEHICLE. Troops in bunkers die fast and hard from artillery impacting above them, troops in buildings do not.

I assume that BF.C's ballistic modeling of shells impacting vehicles has continued to improve. If so, the game MAY model artillery against bunkers in a "better" manner by treating the bunker like a vehicle. Fuzing, penetration, behind armor effects, etc., are probably more refined. Whereas, my musing continues, the modeling of artillery versus units in a building is much more abstract.

Obviously, as BF.C has stated many times before, buildings abstract the many internal divisions and obstructions inside the structure. Are not bunkers built with blast protection or fragment limitation in mind? The greater volume of a building may dissipate the overpressure, but shouldn't the shells still be penetrating THROUGH the roof?

If the modeling of artillery versus targets beneath roofs were to the same fidelity as the modeling of artillery hitting a vehicle, I would think we would get radically different results.

Am I way off?

Again, this is merely my musing (preparatory to testing) and on the secondary issue touched on earlier. Right now the primary issue remains rooftops. I'll peel them aside later...

Thanks,

Ken

That said, troops in bunkers should get better protection (which it seems they don't), and protection from a ound bursting oin the roof vs one landing on the ground beside a building should be similar. Those inconsistencies should be investigated. But I think the correct solution would be to improve the aspects that appear under-protective, rather than decreasing the one that seems over-protective.

FWIW

Jon

I don't believe this is the case, but there is a heavy element of dice rolling involved that clouds this issue. I went into detail in the other thread on the apparent random nature of roof/floor penetration by artillery. The same seems to apply to bunkers, so there is always a given chance that in comparing 10 rounds versus a building and 10 versus a bunker, one test might have the building occupants safe and the bunker occupants all dead, the next might have the opposite. I set up a quick test comparing 105mm arty versus a bunker with 1 squad inside and versus a small building with 3 closed walls and one door in the back with one squad inside (the 3D openings in the bunker front do not expose the occupants). One general conclusion: looking at a single penetration in isolation, the occupants of a bunker all die every time while the occupants of a building may suffer various numbers of casualties (up to and including all dead), but you can't draw general protection conclusions from that because we don't know if chance of penetration is the same for both structures. I did have one instance of partial casualties in the bunker, but I think this may have been a hit just next to the rear door. But leaving that aside we can draw some conclusions:

Personnel (air burst) fire missions: bunkers offer better protection. While they appear to offer the same protection while both structures are intact, the building will eventually degrade and come apart, injuring occupants and leaving them exposed to further airbursts. Bunkers appear to offer indefinite protection against air bursts.

General/Armor fire missions: bunkers offer better protection. While both suffer a chance of roof-penetrating rounds, occupants of the building can suffer wounds from non-penetrating (adjacent and possibly roof) rounds, and the building will eventually degrade and come apart, wounding occupants and leaving them vulnerable to subsequent fire.

I think the main problems have been thoroughly stated here and in the previous thread:

1. Air bursts versus roof-top troops wackiness.

2. Inability to consistently deliver penetrating rounds on buildings. Sometimes seems we are working with WWI arty and shrapnel shells. IMO, "armor" missions should always result in delayed fusing that penetrates normal building roofs (but the depth and effects can be variable).

3. Non-penetrating hits to a roof/intermediate floor (or shrapnel from air bursts impacting a roof/floor) may have zero chance of delivering effects other than suppression to occupants of underlying spaces. Some shrapnel, debris spall should probably be causing casualties.

[c3k]

cf Monte Casino too.

It was a better fighting position after the bombing than beforehand.

There's also the issue of time (though not strictly relevant here). I think from memory the most Arty casualties are inflicted in the first 10 sec or so when people are caught in the open and haven't reacted.

The longer the barrage lasts the less casualties inflicted for each additional timeframe (so to pluck some numbers first 10 sec 5%, next 10 sec 1%, etc. - the 10 sec figure maybe incorrect [it might be as low as 5 sec or up to 30 sec, I just don't recall off hand] but the general rule still applies).

Agreed with all the above. Of course, we're not stating that the Abbey of Monte Cassino is indicative of typical Syrian structures, although it may SEEM like it in the game when artillery is considered.

As to the enhanced defensive benefits of rubble, I humbly would point out the results I posted in the first post of this thread: walled rooftops provide 4 times the survivability of rubble to airburst 105 rounds.

[c3k]

No, not at all.

Do I, in turn, really need to say that getting a round to go off at the optimum - or even adequate - altitude and attitude after it has penetrated a concrete roof/ceiling is a non-trivial task?

The thing that I keep coming back to through all this is how it's been shown again and again and again that artillery fire is surprisingly ineffective at causing casualties, compared to naive expectations raised by watching YouTube advertising videos. A surprisingly small amount of cover is needed to vastly imrove your chances of survival - like; being on the otherside of a road's crown, or in a gutter. Being in a foxhole or trench or bunker is better, but anything is a whole lot better than nothing. Buildings tend to be quite full of things, and soldiers tend to be quite highly motivated to finding the best things. A fridge, a stove, a steel desk, a thickly padded couch, a couple of internal walls, a robust bath, a water cylinder, a bookcase - all those can make the difference between having a laugh or losing your limbs.

But you didn't really need me to say that, did you????

Fuzing: today's world of high-tech microchips makes fuzing a lot easier than before. I think we can all agree that's true. The old calibrated powder-filled straw sticking out of a mortar shell is a thing of the past. But even those old-timers were able, with enough time and shells, to get shells to burst where they wanted. Sometimes.

Fuzing to penetrate a single rooftop is far easier than I believe you're alluding. I am NOT an artilleryman. My military background is USAF. All I know about artillery fuzing is from staying at a Holiday Inn Express. However...

Most shells are heard as they fall. They are subsonic. The speed of sound is very roughly 1,000 feet per second. A 1 millisecond delay on a superquick fuze equates to bursting 1 foot after fuze activation (ignoring deceleration due to resistance from whatever activated the fuze). Figure a 10 foot value per floor (including roof/subfloor, etc.), that means you're looking for a 10 millisecond delay after hitting the roof to explode near the floor level of the top floor. Make it 5 milliseconds if you want to explode at chest height. Add 10 milliseconds for each subsequent floor you wish to penetrate.

The above is posted with no practical knowledge. I'm sure artillery units KNOW the velocity the shells come down, depending on trajectory. I'm sure they have fuzing tables to penetrate common objects.

WWII era shells had fairly complex, accurate, fuzable shells. The old fuze key springs to mind. Does anyone know what the calibration markings were timed to? (They were in milliseconds.)

I do not believe modern artillery should face significant issues in penetrating rooftops, no in fuzing the shells to detonate after the penetration.

Am I way off?

Ken