SMG not firing?

[ghibli]

Hi all,

it seems to me that sub-machine guns never fire a round. I made several checks with the german MP-40 (same Estab values as for the american's, but fires a different ammo from rifle and MGs) and the figure for ammo never gets reduced, unless randomly when some losses occur. I think it has something to do with the extremely short range of the weapons (<150m) and the low precision. However this happens in any terrain, even where SMGs were the most effective weapons (say urban, industrial...Stalingrad). Engagement ranges are almost always within 100-150m (measured front to front of opposing units) whereas in such dense environments I would say that should be a few tens of meters.

 

[Bie]

I've kept my eye on this in my current playthrough of Maleme. I've had a glider company assault two different AA batteries and it turns out it has used about 100~150 rounds. Casualties are minimal, so I doubt its because of that.

I've let them assault during night, with low aggression (I think this might keep them from firing to early), with high rate of fire and ammo.

I'll keep my eye on it a bit further, but I think it is working as planned.

 

[ghibli]

It is probably working during night because of the extremely short visibility.
Could you please make some checks on daytime trying different terrain types?

Something that could affect close range combat is also the extension of a unit footprint, which in turn depends on the number of personnel. Fire is resolved taking into account the spreading of units, represented by footprint so that the most extended it is the closer two units are (for firing purpose) even if the counters are at the same distance. That could have an effect at close range only of course.

 

[Bie]

In daytime it is indeed really rare to have you troops fire off their SMG's. Most of the time units start fleeing before you get in SMG range.

On the other hand a couple of days ago I had another night-time assault on a AA emplacement. My unit used about 600 rounds of 9mm in that night alone. So, they are being used.

 

[ghibli]

I have two problems with close range weapons:
1) Units get spotted from a too long distance in dense terrain, however this cannot be changed in editors and there are reasons for keeping a free visibility zone around each unit.
2) I think weapons are fired only when the center of an enemy unit is inside the (at least) max range coloured circles, which is an important fact for RPGs and SMGs; given their short range often the forward part of a unit would have those weapons in range with an enemy (or a portion of an enemy unit), however my unit wouldn't fire them because the center of the unit is too distant from that enemy.

I have increased slightly the range and accuracy for these weapons editing the Estab, and it increases a lot the fun, in particular RPGs which get a chance to fire at least (always talking about daytime). During night they are just fine.

 

[jimcarravallah]

I have two problems with close range weapons:
1) Units get spotted from a too long distance in dense terrain, however this cannot be changed in editors and there are reasons for keeping a free visibility zone around each unit.
2) I think weapons are fired only when the center of an enemy unit is inside the (at least) max range coloured circles, which is an important fact for RPGs and SMGs; given their short range often the forward part of a unit would have those weapons in range with an enemy (or a portion of an enemy unit), however my unit wouldn't fire them because the center of the unit is too distant from that enemy.

I have increased slightly the range and accuracy for these weapons editing the Estab, and it increases a lot the fun, in particular RPGs which get a chance to fire at least (always talking about daytime). During night they are just fine.

1) There is a patch in the works to address the spotting issue you mention by taking into account a combination of both atmospheric conditions and time of day in determining effective spotting ranges. That said, there are many instances where a threat can be seen yet not attacked with a viable weapon in war at that time.

As far as the issue with centers of units, keep in mind that the combat modeling and casualty calculations in an operational scale game are performed on a unit by unit basis rather than an individual or single combat vehicle basis -- you can't order a sniper to take out a key commander for example.

When Command Ops 1 was going through its development, there was significant discussion of how direct fire casualties are dispersed into units based on their formation type, fields of fire and ranges. They basically took into account the expanse of the formation's footprint, its disposition and facing, and its cover status to assign casualties for any encounter based on both the ability to "see" enough of a unit to order a firing unit to attack, and the capability of weapons assigned to the firing unit to attack the bulk of what is "seen."

If I understood the discussion correctly, the assumption in performing those calculations is that the ultimate fire impact revolves around a center of gravity for the firing unit formation type / facing, and the effects are calculated against a center of gravity for the target formation type / facing to address both the ability to spot the bulk of a target unit and put fire on that bulk.

It amounts to a compromise for putting a simulation such as CO2 onto a PC platform and obtaining reasonably accurate results in the combat modeling without slowing down the performance to an unbearable crawl.

I worked in support of developing military training simulations until 2009, and the calculating power and electricity to bring a combat simulation just to the vehicle on vehicle level for a battalion-sized training simulation that accounted for individual vehicle casualties during combat required the equivalent of 10 home PC's per vehicle and enough power to run a small city -- a little bit above the minimum requirements to purchase Command Ops 2.

 

[ghibli]

1) There is a patch in the works to address the spotting issue you mention by taking into account a combination of both atmospheric conditions and time of day in determining effective spotting ranges. That said, there are many instances where a threat can be seen yet not attacked with a viable weapon in war at that time.

I think that would affect only night spotting distance?

I worked in support of developing military training simulations until 2009, and the calculating power and electricity to bring a combat simulation just to the vehicle on vehicle level for a battalion-sized training simulation that accounted for individual vehicle casualties during combat required the equivalent of 10 home PC's per vehicle and enough power to run a small city -- a little bit above the minimum requirements to purchase Command Ops 2.

ah ah, I see. I agree completely that things should be kept simple. Tactical modelling is not the purpose of this game. Maybe since weapons are not fired at individual targets but fire is resolved in bulk, ranges in Estab could be adjusted so that weapons do what did historically. Aside from close range combat (personally speaking) the mechanics of fire and casualties works pretty well.

 

[jimcarravallah]

I think that would affect only night spotting distance?

No. It takes into account variations in lighting conditions ranging from dawn to full sunlight to dusk to nighttime, and also accounts for (if I recall the classifications correctly), fog, mist, rain / snow, and blizzard weather conditions during those lighting events.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Actually, when a unit fires at an enemy unit it breaks the unit's weapon systems up into three groups - those at the front, in the centre and at the rear. It then fires front to front, centre to centre and rear to rear. So for a standard inf coy deployed in a 300 x 150 occupied area the only time SMGs are going to get a crack is when some part of the enemy occupied area is within their pitifully short range.

 

[ghibli]

One last thing..sometimes during assaults some companies become extremely overextended either in frontage or depth. This has the effect of increasing enormously the range of all the weapons (the range rings about double in radius), and that's the only time when for instance flame-throwers are used (again, daytime). It seems to occur only to a few companies when handled by the AI, but is indeed very useful especially for pioneers or other assault specialists.

Is it something particular that triggers this behaviour? E.g. in the third pictures (footprint 6) all the three companies forming the central echelons of a successive line attack have an extended footprint.

Would it be better to have a high frontage instead of a high depth in attacks or it's the same? (the radius of the rings being equal in both cases, but maybe the distribution of the unit on the ground matters, as I would infer from the post above?) In the fourth picture (footprint 7) the close range ring (red in this case, but the behaviour changes as well for AP ring) would "normally" be 150m but here is at least 400m, and weapons are fired accordingly.

 

[Bie]

Sorry for sidetracking a bit ghibli, but what scenario are you playing there?

 

[ghibli]

That's a downloaded user made scenario "Sledgehammer", Stalingrad 1942 by don't remember who. But this behaviour I had observed also in "classical" scenarios.

 

[ghibli]

I will buy at least a scenario pack soon I promise
I am very fond of Eastern front and there is nothing to buy (yet).

 

[Bie]

I will buy at least a scenario pack soon I promise
I am very fond of Eastern front and there is nothing to buy (yet).

You should

Thanks for the heads up though. I found the scenario and installed it already.

 

[jimcarravallah]

One last thing..sometimes during assaults some companies become extremely overextended either in frontage or depth. This has the effect of increasing enormously the range of all the weapons (the range rings about double in radius), and that's the only time when for instance flame-throwers are used (again, daytime). It seems to occur only to a few companies when handled by the AI, but is indeed very useful especially for pioneers or other assault specialists.

Is it something particular that triggers this behaviour? E.g. in the third pictures (footprint 6) all the three companies forming the central echelons of a successive line attack have an extended footprint.

Would it be better to have a high frontage instead of a high depth in attacks or it's the same? (the radius of the rings being equal in both cases, but maybe the distribution of the unit on the ground matters, as I would infer from the post above?) In the fourth picture (footprint 7) the close range ring (red in this case, but the behaviour changes as well for AP ring) would "normally" be 150m but here is at least 400m, and weapons are fired accordingly.

If it's an attack you are controlling, the frontage assigned to subordinate forces may be a byproduct of the frontage and formation type you assigned to the attacking force.

For example, if you assign a regiment to attack in echelon on a small front, the subordinate companies can't help but overlap to stay within the assigned frontage.

If it's a general attack, with no assignment of frontage, the AI maneuvers subordinate companies to move on the objective and provide covering fire based on criteria hard coded into the game engine, which I believe takes into account known opposing forces, attacking force capabilities (both combat and health), and the ability to consolidate the forces on the attack objective in the given terrain to accomplish the order in a timely manner.

There also is an ability replicate doctrine for a given force in the Scenario by designing in relative levels of aggression, command, and unit health, some of which may impact the AI's selection of attack types, frontages and depths -- the more aggressive the design for the force (e.g. the assault specialists you mention) the more aggressive the formation it assumes in an attack.

It's been awhile since I designed a force, but I recall that SceneMaker.exe will shed some light on whether it's a high level of aggression that could be driving the the attacking forces you depict.

I did a user scenario that featured a Japanese Banzai charge. Had to tinker with aggression and leadership to get the AI charge to proceed as I wanted. It was basically everyone in the charge and either take the objective or die trying.