Chad Harrison Posted July 7, 2011 Author Share Posted July 7, 2011 Yes, soldiers firing at actual targets will probably fire more quickly, again depending on way too many factors to list, than soldiers not firing at anything in particular. Phil thanks for the number of responses. Nice to get some feedback from one of the guys who lives inside the code! As my first posts point out very clearly, this was not a cry to change the way the game plays. Having fired the Garand and Carbine all my life, the firing in game felt very slow to me upclose. But then again, I have never been shooting at something that was shooting back Will have to watch closer to actual combat engagements to see if I can find some good examples of increased ROF over the 2.5 second shots. Thanks again Phil Chad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I'm reminded of the old report that said that a surprisingly large percentage of WWII US soldiers were reluctant to fire their weapon in combat. To this day the Army trains specifically to overcome that inhibition. There's any number of factors involved. Calling unwonted attention to yourself during a firefight is one thing, fear of depleting your ammo and being helpless is another, plus the fact that LOF goes both ways. If you're in a position to fire on him he's in a position to fire on you. If you watch combat footage of some brave G.I. up on one knee blazing away Bang-Bang-Bang chances are you'll also notice others in the background not firing at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Phil thanks for the number of responses. Nice to get some feedback from one of the guys who lives inside the code! Sure thing. As my first posts point out very clearly, this was not a cry to change the way the game plays. Having fired the Garand and Carbine all my life, the firing in game felt very slow to me upclose. But then again, I have never been shooting at something that was shooting back Yep. I was just concerned that there might be a bug so I looked into it. It turns out there are quite a lot of variables involved. It doesn't appear that there's a bug. Both the Garand and Carbine seem to have been designed with relatively rapid fire in mind. How fast can you fire the Garand while retaining sight picture? The weight should keep the muzzle down pretty well, yes? Will have to watch closer to actual combat engagements to see if I can find some good examples of increased ROF over the 2.5 second shots. Good idea - the problem with testing this from the outside is that precisely when troops are firing faster is probably when they're also going to be a) killing their targets or being killed themselves. Panicked fire by green troops would definitely show a faster rate of fire - but then those green troops will likely be cowering more than firing. Without the code it's very difficult to tell what troops are planning on doing versus what actually happens. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I'm reminded of the old report that said that a surprisingly large percentage of WWII US soldiers were reluctant to fire their weapon in combat. To this day the Army trains specifically to overcome that inhibition. There's any number of factors involved. Calling unwonted attention to yourself during a firefight is one thing, fear of depleting your ammo and being helpless is another, plus the fact that LOF goes both ways. If you're in a position to fire on him he's in a position to fire on you. If you watch combat footage of some brave G.I. up on one knee blazing away Bang-Bang-Bang chances are you'll also notice others in the background not firing at all. Grossman's "On Killing" suggests a far deeper reason than fear of return fire, the inability of most humans to take a life. Modern military methods of training seek to subdue this primal brain inhibitor and have largely succeeded, but, as Grossman points out, at a cost. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 How fast can you fire the Garand while retaining sight picture? The weight should keep the muzzle down pretty well, yes? Thanks for looking into it - good to hear that they have potential to fire faster. I have been watching in my recent games, and its still the 2 to 3 seconds per shot. Will keep watching closely. At under 50 yards, with no training whatsoever and just being someone who is comfortable with handling firearms, you could very, very easily get a accurate shot off with the Garand *after* your first shot in around one second, probably less. Consider a trained soldier, who has combat experience (Regular experience and above ingame) who has an enemy squad running away in the open only 15 yards away and the shooter is not taking any fire - yeah, that lead is going to come out fast. I have seen that exact circumstance ingame many times, and at the most, its 2 to 3 second shots. That video posted earlier with those faster, 1 second shots, has yet to occur in my games - and I have been watching closely. And the Carbine? Its like switching to a .22 after shooting an 30-06. Almost no kick at all. Under the same circumstance above, that 15 round mag would be gone in well under 10 seconds. I am almost half tempted to go out to the range, set a watermellon on a table at 15 yards, and after aiming, put 8 rounds out in 8 seconds and make a video of the results. Having done just that in the past, I can tell you what the results are: fast, accurate, sustainable fire at that range. Thanks Chad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I have no finished my game where my veteran officer was shooting across 61 metres to a squad issuing from a doorway . I think the potential 32 rounds from an MP40 did not do the damage expected but will go back and check how the five casualties credited to him were gained. His end was ignominous in that being aware of enemy troops on the corner of the building three of them run right in front of the very large window of which he was looking out. Not only did he not fire he apparently did not see them at all to recognise they would enter the house and shoot him in the back as he continued to stare out the window. Hopefully having both passwords I will be able to run these episodes a few times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I just had a little firefight where my airborne glider squad was engaging enemies at ranges of 2-10 meters through a hedgerow and not only did the machinegunner fire more or less continous fire, but the M1 carbine and Garand troops fired with about 1 second intervalls (it varied a bit of course) so, under the right cirkumstances the troops will fire at a higher rate of fire (sorry for any spelling mistakes, ive got a fever) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted July 8, 2011 Author Share Posted July 8, 2011 I just had a little firefight where my airborne glider squad was engaging enemies at ranges of 2-10 meters through a hedgerow and not only did the machinegunner fire more or less continous fire, but the M1 carbine and Garand troops fired with about 1 second intervalls (it varied a bit of course) so, under the right cirkumstances the troops will fire at a higher rate of fire (sorry for any spelling mistakes, ive got a fever) I have started a new thread that proves this, and others points, but I still argue that its too slow. The thread is here with the new test data: New Thread for Live Fire Testing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.