What is the market? What is the community?

[Michael Dorosh]

I think I speak for quite a few here when I predict that we'll go from just bashing BFC to more constructive work sometime in the near future.

Yes. It's easier to be "constructive" re: Normandy topics since there is more actual data on that history - the Shock Force stuff is based in many cases on speculation, particularly stuff like armor penetration, etc. which is classified.

 

[Redwolf]

****ing mess.

I think that about sums it up.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I must admit that I have a hard time seeing that either though. Considering that CMSF with its somewhat lackluster theater and very asymmetrical strengths between the sides involved it must have been seen as a pretty high risk project (ie far from a certain hit for the casual gamer) over at BFC, so success might be that it paid for the CM2x engine development.

High risk definitely, from many respects. They did have the advantage of name-brand recognition and a lot of good will going into it. Not going to get back into the finger pointing of what they did with it, it's irrelevant, but I think it helped them a lot through the rough release period and I wonder what their fortunes would have been like had CM:SF been merely "Shock Force" and sold by a company that didn't already have the award winning CMX1 to their credit. Neither here, nor there, I suppose. They did take a big risk with the new features and locale, etc., and that's to their credit also. But oi, that mousepad.

Which I think it did, considering that it seems like much of the old community bought it and that they managed to "sell" the engine to the CM:A team. They must have considered the possibility that it could have bombed though so I doubt that we will see any major (planned) course change before the CM:N results are in, if anything the crazy plan for the eastern front suggests to me that the current modules sold too well if anything.

That's an interesting conclusion. I'd be interested in knowing how much of the old community bought into the add-ons (Marines, British), or how many of the sales were bargain bin sales for which BFC did not make any money (it hit the bins rapidly, and BFC expressed some alarm about that). We'll never know if it sold too well, not well enough, or just right. I don't discount any of those possibilities though.

It's either that or that the new Russian partner could produce the modules very cheaply.

Yes, that's a good point. I think it more likely that the "parallel developers" would be brought in to do more modern stuff to keep Shock Force alive, or at least, it would be smart of them to do so while they concentrate on their bread and butter.

But since I've already admitted that I'm pretty clueless to their overall strategy I might be completely of base here.

We're all pretty much waiting and seeing. I expect we will all be surprised by what transpires.

Have they disclosed what kind of abstractions they have made in that area? Or how they show up in the game?

Some of Steve's longest posts have been on the Action Spots and ballistics.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Although, while we are on the topic of 1:1 ballistics rep, this was interesting.

We currently have ROF tied to Experience and, IIRC, Morale. Poorer Experienced and shaken up units tend to let fly. The thing is that situation is rarely seen on the Blue side. I'll pass along the suggestion that Charles make it a bit more random, though tending to stick to the general principles that a better trained, higher Morale gunner is more likely to follow doctrine than just spray and pray.

From a discussion on rate of fire.

Some dude who identified himself as a US infantry officer complained that machine gunners fire bursts that are too short. That was the response.

Does anyone else find the official developer response...problematic? Maybe it is just me.

 

[dalem]

Although, while we are on the topic of 1:1 ballistics rep, this was interesting.



From a discussion on rate of fire.

Some dude who identified himself as a US infantry officer complained that machine gunners fire bursts that are too short. That was the response.

Does anyone else find the official developer response...problematic? Maybe it is just me.

Only if it's a wargame. If it's a shooter/game then who cares what experienced folks think? And admittedly, they did have input from vets and mil guys in the development, so why give too much air time to a "new guy"?

-dale

 

[thewood]

What is kind of interesting is that some of the guys mentioning the bursts being too short are also mil guys. I wonder if it s difference in how much real world firing they did.

Also, I noted Steve said the long bursts are less of a problem in Blue. He has been harping the whole nationalistic traits thing. Is that a contradiction?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Only if it's a wargame. If it's a shooter/game then who cares what experienced folks think? And admittedly, they did have input from vets and mil guys in the development, so why give too much air time to a "new guy"?

-dale

Yes, I thought that was interesting myself. Also the unfamiliarity with the game's workings, and the apparent willingness to flip-flop on infantry behaviour this late in production. I think a willingness to "tweak" settings is a great thing, don't get me wrong, but the conversation seemed to indicate something else, IF that is the result, at least to me. Again, dalem, maybe your implication is correct and maybe the target audience is shifting.

Also, I noted Steve said the long bursts are less of a problem in Blue. He has been harping the whole nationalistic traits thing. Is that a contradiction?

A bit of one, but I like the idea of national characteristics, too, so I'm not complaining. Again, I hope we see more of it in CM:N.

 

[Sgt Joch]

"Capt Mike" is a serving Stryker officer and longtime contributor to the BFC forum. When he talks, we listen. Problem is, we are getting contradictory info, two vets on the Beta team tell us that the U.S. Army/USMC MG gunners are trained to fire short, controlled bursts only, in all situations.

However we are looking at situations where, based on the tactical situation, unit experience and/or morale state, it would make sense to fire longer, sustained bursts.




p.s.- first time post here, but I have been dropping in on and off. Lots of interesting discussions going on. :thumup:

 

[Michael Dorosh]

"Capt Mike" is a serving Stryker officer and longtime contributor to the BFC forum. When he talks, we listen. Problem is, we are getting contradictory info, two vets on the Beta team tell us that the U.S. Army/USMC MG gunners are trained to fire short, controlled bursts only, in all situations.

I suspect there is sometimes a big difference between what a 19 year old is trained to do, and what he actually does when he is getting shot at while under mortar fire.

Which is what Steve was saying with his comments about tying weapons use to morale and experience - quoted, above. In short, you need to temper what is in the manuals with, in some cases, the dreaded 'anecdotal evidence'. Which is exceedingly hard to find, and when you do find it, difficult to measure. It might be the wrong kind of evidence - i.e. you might get ammunition consumption figures per day which would not tell you what kind of bursts people were firing. JasonC might be able to do the math on that but I wouldn't touch it. :laugh:

Then there is question of how reliable are your sources; for example YouTube videos of machine gunners in Iraq are cool to look at, but you always have to ask - aren't long bursts more photogenic than short ones, why was the guy on camera to begin with, etc.

Lots to consider.

Welcome, by the way.

 

[Sgt Joch]

Welcome, by the way.

Thanks, I am sure we will have some very "interesting" discussions in the future.

 

[[hirr]Leto]

Thanks, I am sure we will have some very "interesting" discussions in the future.

Nice to see you here. You will definately have good debates, if anything.

Cheers!

Leto

 

[dalem]

"Capt Mike" is a serving Stryker officer and longtime contributor to the BFC forum. When he talks, we listen. Problem is, we are getting contradictory info, two vets on the Beta team tell us that the U.S. Army/USMC MG gunners are trained to fire short, controlled bursts only, in all situations.

However we are looking at situations where, based on the tactical situation, unit experience and/or morale state, it would make sense to fire longer, sustained bursts.

p.s.- first time post here, but I have been dropping in on and off. Lots of interesting discussions going on. :thumup:

Maybe this is a case where they just code in differences according to experience. Newbies would act 100% according to their doctrine as a group (but maybe wildly unpredictable as individuals?) and as the experience of the unit grows it tends to do what is "right" instead of "proper". Look at U.S. infantry in WWII. Trained as marksmen, they had to be re-trained in the field to use suppression fire, etc. I'm sure similar examples exist throughout history.

-dale



nationalistic characteristics

 

[Redwolf]

Maybe this is a case where they just code in differences according to experience. Newbies would act 100% according to their doctrine as a group (but maybe wildly unpredictable as individuals?) and as the experience of the unit grows it tends to do what is "right" instead of "proper". Look at U.S. infantry in WWII. Trained as marksmen, they had to be re-trained in the field to use suppression fire, etc. I'm sure similar examples exist throughout history.

Well, what they adapt doing differently from training after some combat experience, and what looks like it works better, might still not be the best overall solution from a strategic standpoint.

Namely, higher ammunition consumption rates will solve all the small and medium problems in a more effective manner. But there might a layer of large-scale problems that turns that behavior into a problem.

Or in other words: if you had to shoot up 10 bad guys 10 times in a row you will probably adjust ammo consumption to be left with just a reserve after 10 bad guys are gone, at the 10th re-run. That will place you in a bad position when the 11th fight had 10 bad guys at first but then 30 more show up.

Just because you win the fight in a more effective manner doesn't mean it was efficient. And with all the efficiency/effectiveness tradeoffs, trying to be more efficient guards you better against unforeseen developments.

 

[wengart]

Also, I noted Steve said the long bursts are less of a problem in Blue. He has been harping the whole nationalistic traits thing. Is that a contradiction?

I think Steve was referring to the general experience level of blue troops. Most are at least veteran level, hence making the ROF issue less of an issue for them.

Anyway, this is of course my first post over here, and I stopped in here after the inter-forum argument/discussion. I would just like to say you guys have some interesting points and yea...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think Steve was referring to the general experience level of blue troops. Most are at least veteran level, hence making the ROF issue less of an issue for them.

Anyway, this is of course my first post over here, and I stopped in here after the inter-forum argument/discussion. I would just like to say you guys have some interesting points and yea...

Scenario design problems are often "blamed" on game designers, and vice versa.

And welcome to you too.

Hopefully, these issues will not be so prevalent in Normandy - i.e. forces will be closer in experience. Though the return of the "MG42s are overmodelled" discussions will be interesting. And the "Shermans are undermodelled" and "Gyrostabilizers weren't like that" and &tc. Good times ahead.

 

[Geordie]

"Capt Mike" is a serving Stryker officer and longtime contributor to the BFC forum. When he talks, we listen. Problem is, we are getting contradictory info, two vets on the Beta team tell us that the U.S. Army/USMC MG gunners are trained to fire short, controlled bursts only, in all situations.

However we are looking at situations where, based on the tactical situation, unit experience and/or morale state, it would make sense to fire longer, sustained bursts.




p.s.- first time post here, but I have been dropping in on and off. Lots of interesting discussions going on. :thumup:

Way back in my youth I used to be a GPMG gunner, the worst thing about that was carrying the ammo for it. We were always taught to use controlled bursts, however, occasionally we would let rip. It all depends on the situation and in most situations rapid 3-4 round bursts were the norm. Much more rapid than the CMSF gunners do it though.

Capt Mike's boys may be giving it their all, but I bet they arent hitting much else than the sky.

 

[Sgt Joch]

That is always the problem with addressing this type of issue in a simulation.

An army is supposed to "fight like it trains", which would mean just using short, controlled bursts. However, there is anecdotal evidence that soldiers will sometimes use longer, sustained fire.

So, do you just stick to the textbook and only allow short, controlled bursts?

If you decide to allow longer, sustained fire, under what conditions should it occur? should it be random or player-controlled? How do you keep it "realistic" and not exploited in a "gamey" fashion?

There are no easy answers. Any change which may be made is bound to be a compromise solution which, of course, will not please everyone.

 

[[hirr]Leto]

That is always the problem with addressing this type of issue in a simulation.

An army is supposed to "fight like it trains", which would mean just using short, controlled bursts. However, there is anecdotal evidence that soldiers will sometimes use longer, sustained fire.

So, do you just stick to the textbook and only allow short, controlled bursts?

If you decide to allow longer, sustained fire, under what conditions should it occur? should it be random or player-controlled? How do you keep it "realistic" and not exploited in a "gamey" fashion?

There are no easy answers. Any change which may be made is bound to be a compromise solution which, of course, will not please everyone.

In ASL they modeled this through the concept of "hammering" on the MG... or in other words, you had twice the probability of breaking down/running out of ammo by gaining an effective one time fire effect of double. Now I am assuming that full bursts instead of short intermitant bursts would be more destructive; but Geordies states that it may not be the case.

All interesting discussion in terms of realism, but I almost prefer the functionable aspects of "gaming" that whether truly represented or not in battle, provide a dependable game engine for which to work with.

Cheers!

Leto

 

[Geordie]

Now I am assuming that full bursts instead of short intermitant bursts would be more destructive; but Geordies states that it may not be the case.

Short burst of 3-4 rounds are made very quickly, every 1-2 seconds or less and so you can keep up a pretty steady accurate fire. The longer you hold the trigger, especially on a 7.62 weapon, the less accuracy you get as the barrel wants to go higher all the time.

Now thats not to say that on occasion you wouldn't fire a twenty round burst as this is not a bad thing to register the MGs presence, especially if it is a Minimi. But normally you can keep a good rhythm going.

 

[Redwolf]

Bump.

I think this thread was awesome.