Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Weapons Effective Range

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Weapons Effective Range Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 12:24:26 PM   
MikeAP

 

Posts: 266
Joined: 3/7/2008
Status: offline
Looking through the data file, I see weapons with some very short 'effective' ranges.

Some of the weapons that immediately stick out

M16 Rifle - 132 meters (300m real life)
M4 Carbine - 66 meters (300m real life)
M256 120mm - 1980 meters (3500m real life)
M60 MG - 198 meters (900m tracer burnout / 1100m real life)
M2 50cal - 660 meters (900m tracer burnout / 1800m real life)

Are the weapons ranges listed in the data worksheet in yards or feet, maybe? Or maybe someone can define what 'effective' means in FCRS?
Post #: 1
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 12:35:35 PM   
Hexagon


Posts: 1133
Joined: 6/14/2009
Status: offline
Maybe in game we have combat effective range... but yes, i think they can add 3 values in game taking in consideration the units training/quality, i think they can use a minimal combat range and a max combat range of course with a middle range.

(in reply to MikeAP)
Post #: 2
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 1:21:28 PM   
MikeAP

 

Posts: 266
Joined: 3/7/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hexagon

Maybe in game we have combat effective range... but yes, i think they can add 3 values in game taking in consideration the units training/quality, i think they can use a minimal combat range and a max combat range of course with a middle range.


I hope that's not the case. An inexperienced/untrained unit shouldnt suffer from equipment flaws - ie - 'I'm new so my M1A1 only shoots 1800m'.

A M1A1 shoots 3500m no matter who is behind the trigger.

< Message edited by MikeAP -- 11/3/2013 1:22:07 PM >

(in reply to Hexagon)
Post #: 3
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 1:32:45 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MikeAP

A M1A1 shoots 3500m no matter who is behind the trigger.


The difference being if they can actually hit something with it.

Good Hunting.

MR


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to MikeAP)
Post #: 4
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 1:35:58 PM   
MikeAP

 

Posts: 266
Joined: 3/7/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

The difference being if they can actually hit something with it.

Good Hunting.

MR



Certainly.

What's the deal with 'effective range' then?


< Message edited by MikeAP -- 11/3/2013 1:36:20 PM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 5
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 1:38:06 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
Don't know. CD is in charge of all things data. I'm sure he'll be along in a bit to answer your question.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to MikeAP)
Post #: 6
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 3:21:56 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
When you start putting into a game the max range a weapon can fire as the thing to look at during combat you start to get very unrealistic combat results..thats why effective range is far better to use in a game, esp if the game has abstract terrain.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 7
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 3:46:11 PM   
MikeAP

 

Posts: 266
Joined: 3/7/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

When you start putting into a game the max range a weapon can fire as the thing to look at during combat you start to get very unrealistic combat results..thats why effective range is far better to use in a game, esp if the game has abstract terrain.


The real life ranges I wrote in my original post ARE the effective ranges.

The M2 50cal has a real life max range of 6764m but an effective range of 1800m

< Message edited by MikeAP -- 11/3/2013 3:48:49 PM >

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 8
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 4:20:35 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
During NATO wargames in Germany they realised the average max combat range was around 1800m due to the terrain, very little fighting took place at ranges further than that. Thinking baout it this isn't really replicated in game as I see lots of combat at ranges far further than this (4hexes).

< Message edited by wodin -- 11/3/2013 4:22:45 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to MikeAP)
Post #: 9
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 4:59:39 PM   
pzgndr

 

Posts: 3170
Joined: 3/18/2004
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

The real life ranges I wrote in my original post ARE the effective ranges.


Those are generally for probability to hit, 50% being "effective." Probability to kill effectiveness is more complicated depending on target; e.g., BTR vs BMP vs T-72, etc. For a game like this it would be interesting to know and understand what the game model assumes.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 10
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 5:22:45 PM   
kipanderson

 

Posts: 394
Joined: 8/27/2001
From: U.K.
Status: offline
Hi,

The “effective...” ranges are presumably the “effective...” ranges under the conditions of high-intensity warfare. Where people are under constant near unbearable, and often actually unbearable... stress and pressure. In a war where the enemy stand a very good chance of killing you..... not a one-sided affair such as the Gulf Wars and that must be scary enough.

Nothing to do with hit probability on the range. Hopefully....

All the best,
Kip.

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 11
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 5:23:37 PM   
TheWombat_matrixforum

 

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline
Most of the long range stuff I see seems to be ATGMs (or occasionally SAMs), with a bit of long-range tank fire thrown in usually from NATO tanks. But the most killing gets done at short ranges. When it's 10000m visibility, everybody gets seen and the arty whallops them.

(in reply to pzgndr)
Post #: 12
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 6:01:59 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
I had placed some form of answer to this somewhere else, but the effective range for use is a function of the max range and its relation to a 40% inflection point for ballistic weapons to hit. Now it is more complicated than that since the effects of fire control, stability, movement, and crew impacts change the "effective range curves" in the combat engine calculations. I'm sure those numbers would be more inline with some of the numbers being stated above. The trick here is the use of the word effective. It means something different to us within the game engine and to others using outside data. As I stated earlier too, as soon as the 2.02 is out and I finish the Mod Guides (on the back burner for debugging in the code right now), I will work on discussing a bit more of the internal mechanics and how things are calculated. For now, check out the Under the Hood thread here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3336894

Thanks.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to TheWombat_matrixforum)
Post #: 13
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 10:36:36 PM   
GloriousRuse

 

Posts: 906
Joined: 10/26/2013
Status: offline
I'd have to say that I'd be very impressed with the M16 armed rifleman who could hit the enemy with any regularity at 300m when that enemy is an actual moving, shooting, terrain hugging, trying-not-to-die human as opposed to an E-type on a range.

Similarly, the A1 Abrams really stops "shooting itself" beyond 2000m or so, with average training bringing that up to 2500ish. With only 10x power optics in the A1s, targets beyond that require fine motor control and experience with the system. Newer gunners often miss their lase at those ranges and their ability to set the lead declines rapidly as well. Both can result in a bad firing solution, and an inexperienced TC may not even realize that the range is bad.

So, generally speaking...planning ranges are fairly short.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 14
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 10:42:34 PM   
MikeAP

 

Posts: 266
Joined: 3/7/2008
Status: offline
You can argue variables and what-if's all day, but the technical specs will always remain the same. I just want to make sure that is emulated in the game.

quote:

I'd have to say that I'd be very impressed with the M16 armed rifleman who could hit the enemy with any regularity at 300m when that enemy is an actual moving, shooting, terrain hugging, trying-not-to-die human as opposed to an E-type on a range.


Standard rifle qualifications go out to 300m. I agree that the average rifleman probably couldnt 'regularly' hit an enemy at 300m but he shouldn't be limited by his weaponry. The M16 is accurate to 500m, and although the individual soldier might not have the skill or experience to do so, he still is still capable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse
So, generally speaking...planning ranges are fairly short.


I disagree with you there. In the real world we use a hybrid of technical specs to ammo capability...weather and terrain are used but shouldnt be relied on, and training level is never used.

How would your Soldiers feel if you briefed something like..."We all know an AK47 is accurate to 300m, but I dont think those commies on the hill did much shooting during their train up, so I'm going to set Phase Line Charlie at 150m" I dont think it would sit well.

< Message edited by MikeAP -- 11/3/2013 10:51:21 PM >

(in reply to GloriousRuse)
Post #: 15
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/3/2013 11:25:12 PM   
GloriousRuse

 

Posts: 906
Joined: 10/26/2013
Status: offline
The difference is that the game's definition of Effective Range is more akin to the Army's definition of Planning Range - the point where the weapon system can consistently and reliably produce battlefield effects. For instance, the Abrams series Planning Range is 2500m because that's where we can reasonably expect it to perform under battlefield conditions.

Yes, the system is expected to be effective beyond that. Yes, there are a plethora of recorded effective engagements well beyond 2500m. But where the eggheads say you should be hitting 90%+ of your shots with lethal effects is the 2500m mark.

The M4/16 Planning Range is 200m. I strongly suspect that is not the 90% first round hit, 95% Pk mark al the Abrams, but just about where you would expect a rifleman to really start contributing to the battle as more than fairly inaccurate volume of fire.

Similarly, the .50's "effective range" of 1800 meter implies plunging fire against an area target, observed by a spotter or optics, and adjusted by a T&E or stabilized system. Free gunners, or even stab'd/T&E'd gunners, tend to rapidly decline in accuracy after 700m, and once the tracers burn out...it's a chore to get it on target. You certainly would not rely on a .50 to produce any sort of consistent effect against the enemy much further.

So, while you might not brief "the commies suck with their AKs", you might very well brief "we should be able to set the SBF 250m away from the OBJ and not take losses so long as we stay low and keep up the rate of fire"

(in reply to MikeAP)
Post #: 16
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 12:40:09 AM   
TheWombat_matrixforum

 

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline
In my experience with this game, my Abrams and Bradleys routinely hit and kill the enemy at 3500-4000m. This is almost always in bad visibility (for the Pact), where the NATO imaging stuff comes into play. I have not played much with attack helos on my side, so I can't really say there. But when the lights go out the NATO systems tend to excel.

Which is pretty good, given that the guys doing the firing are usually not at 100%, are getting shot at, and are under arty fire.

(in reply to GloriousRuse)
Post #: 17
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 12:47:24 AM   
wodin


Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Well thats an issue right there..3500 to 4000m just isn't a range that would be viable in the terrain the battle would be fought on. As I said the max range on average by NATO wargames in Germany during the eighties was 1800m, very little over that before LOS was blocked by terrain features..

_____________________________


(in reply to TheWombat_matrixforum)
Post #: 18
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 12:33:52 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
There is a tremendous difference in the effective range of a weapon and the actual range that weapon can be deployed effectively at.

Effective range is a subjective number. On a clear day in the Ukraine you get one value for an AK-47, in the jungles of Vietnam in the monsoon you get another.

Did the weapons ability to perform change? Yes, the bullet will fly a lot further in the open air of the Ukraine that it will through jungle foliage. As has also been discussed, effective range to one shooter is not necessarily the effective range for another shooter.

How do you bring all that together in a game though? As Mike points out, you have to start with a base line. Something that all the units with the same training under the same set of circumstances would be able to reasonably achieve. That's where we started and we adjusted from there.

Some interesting facts about armored combat in NWE. In WWII, the US Army average engagement range was 400 meters. Since that's the average there were many engagements at longer and shorter ranges. There is no reason to believe that the combat ranges wouldn't be longer in WWIII, with the great leap in technology after WWII. Sights and range finders, etc. all make it easier to hit vehicles at longer ranges. Still, much of NWE is built up with lots of villages, forest, etc. to reduce the longer ranged firing. It depends on where in the country you are. In the south, the mountainous area, the ranges would be very short, while as you go north the country progressively opens up until you get the North German Plain and would have the ability to shoot long distances.

Just depends on the situation. The maps and scenarios in the game were created to highlight the differences of the nations military's and the terrain they would be expected to fight in. The one common denominator is the Soviet forces. They have to fight through all the different types of terrain. We hoped to show how the terrain is a factor in how and where battles are fought. Battles take place in an area for a reason.

Hopefully the scenarios will give you the opportunity to explore some of the differences and how weather and terrain can make a huge difference in the effectiveness of the weapons of the war.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 11/4/2013 12:34:54 PM >


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 19
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 2:32:10 PM   
trebcourie

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 2/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

In my experience with this game, my Abrams and Bradleys routinely hit and kill the enemy at 3500-4000m. This is almost always in bad visibility (for the Pact), where the NATO imaging stuff comes into play. I have not played much with attack helos on my side, so I can't really say there.


I haven't seen that. I've seen lots of shots from my M1s at long-range, but not that many hits/kills. If I can knock out a couple in a 10-tank company at long-range, that helps -- because once my M1s can fire at closer range (<2000 m) their fire is devastating and can get 2-3 hits easily in one salvo. Of course, if a relatively-intact Soviet company closes to less than 2000 meters, my M1s are in trouble because of the sheer volume of return fire.

(in reply to TheWombat_matrixforum)
Post #: 20
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 3:12:30 PM   
TheWombat_matrixforum

 

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Well thats an issue right there..3500 to 4000m just isn't a range that would be viable in the terrain the battle would be fought on. As I said the max range on average by NATO wargames in Germany during the eighties was 1800m, very little over that before LOS was blocked by terrain features..


Well, there are cases where the terrain lends itself to long lines of fire. From hills across gently sloping fields, down to rivers, for instance, and from ridge to ridge. The key are the NATO imaging systems that extend vision well beyond the unaided or even optically aided eye in conditions of bad visibility. If you get the "perfect storm" of long unobstructed ranges and darkness or limited optical visibility, you can have cases where NATO can actually hit stuff at 4000m reliably. It's not that common, but it does happen when you get lucky. It also points out how crucial terrain is. Even the Pact can rip you up if you insist on traversing open ridge lines in front of them.

I remember driving through the corridor to Helmstedt from Berlin in the late 1980s, as well as taking the duty train to Frankfurt. There were a fair number of areas where you could have had great, long lines of fire assuming all else was equal. It was a mixture of open, wooded, built up, and mixed terrain, that was pretty variable depending on where you were. So the average was relatively low, but there were spots where it was wide open.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 21
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 3:14:32 PM   
trebcourie

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 2/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Well thats an issue right there..3500 to 4000m just isn't a range that would be viable in the terrain the battle would be fought on. As I said the max range on average by NATO wargames in Germany during the eighties was 1800m, very little over that before LOS was blocked by terrain features..


Well, there are cases where the terrain lends itself to long lines of fire. From hills across gently sloping fields, down to rivers, for instance, and from ridge to ridge. The key are the NATO imaging systems that extend vision well beyond the unaided or even optically aided eye in conditions of bad visibility. If you get the "perfect storm" of long unobstructed ranges and darkness or limited optical visibility, you can have cases where NATO can actually hit stuff at 4000m reliably. It's not that common, but it does happen when you get lucky. It also points out how crucial terrain is. Even the Pact can rip you up if you insist on traversing open ridge lines in front of them.

I remember driving through the corridor to Helmstedt from Berlin in the late 1980s, as well as taking the duty train to Frankfurt. There were a fair number of areas where you could have had great, long lines of fire assuming all else was equal. It was a mixture of open, wooded, built up, and mixed terrain, that was pretty variable depending on where you were. So the average was relatively low, but there were spots where it was wide open.


And that's one of the challenges of the game -- properly identifying and defending areas (as NATO) such as this with open terrain and nice kill zones.

(in reply to TheWombat_matrixforum)
Post #: 22
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 3:16:36 PM   
TheWombat_matrixforum

 

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BROJD


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Well thats an issue right there..3500 to 4000m just isn't a range that would be viable in the terrain the battle would be fought on. As I said the max range on average by NATO wargames in Germany during the eighties was 1800m, very little over that before LOS was blocked by terrain features..


Well, there are cases where the terrain lends itself to long lines of fire. From hills across gently sloping fields, down to rivers, for instance, and from ridge to ridge. The key are the NATO imaging systems that extend vision well beyond the unaided or even optically aided eye in conditions of bad visibility. If you get the "perfect storm" of long unobstructed ranges and darkness or limited optical visibility, you can have cases where NATO can actually hit stuff at 4000m reliably. It's not that common, but it does happen when you get lucky. It also points out how crucial terrain is. Even the Pact can rip you up if you insist on traversing open ridge lines in front of them.

I remember driving through the corridor to Helmstedt from Berlin in the late 1980s, as well as taking the duty train to Frankfurt. There were a fair number of areas where you could have had great, long lines of fire assuming all else was equal. It was a mixture of open, wooded, built up, and mixed terrain, that was pretty variable depending on where you were. So the average was relatively low, but there were spots where it was wide open.


And that's one of the challenges of the game -- properly identifying and defending areas (as NATO) such as this with open terrain and nice kill zones.


Indeed. I've had a single platoon--or less--of Abrams tear up a Motor Rifle battalion when it had the right position, and a company of US tanks wiped out when it was in the wrong place, and the T-80s rolled up at point-blank range.

(in reply to trebcourie)
Post #: 23
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 3:48:58 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I get that..but as I said during wargames NATO realized very little fighting took place further than 1800m no matter what optics used due to terrain features (woods, buildings, elevation rises from dips to hills, walls, hedges etc etc) ..so any fighting further than 2000m should be the exception rather than the rule..which it isn't at the moment. This is a problem many game shave when they have detailed weapon mechanics but abstract terrain..it can clash. Due to the abstract nature of the terrain you then have to abstract the weapons esp when it comes to range \LOS, making sure they actually make contact with enemy forces at the approx ranges is would be possible. I came across this sort of problem with Tigers Unleashed which has a very detailed weapon and ballistics model..but it can and does clash with the abstract nature of hex terrain.

You need to keep the game within average possible results using that weaponry on that part of the world. There is no room in the game to say well there will be times that combat would take place at 3000m+ in the real battle so we shall have it in because it means you'll have loads of fighting at that distance rather than a few..as clear terrain is clear terrain. The only way to keep it within realistic results is to find out what the average max combat rage was or would be and use that as your max range in game if shooting across terrain on the same elevation. Maybe increase it further if on higher elevation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Well thats an issue right there..3500 to 4000m just isn't a range that would be viable in the terrain the battle would be fought on. As I said the max range on average by NATO wargames in Germany during the eighties was 1800m, very little over that before LOS was blocked by terrain features..


Well, there are cases where the terrain lends itself to long lines of fire. From hills across gently sloping fields, down to rivers, for instance, and from ridge to ridge. The key are the NATO imaging systems that extend vision well beyond the unaided or even optically aided eye in conditions of bad visibility. If you get the "perfect storm" of long unobstructed ranges and darkness or limited optical visibility, you can have cases where NATO can actually hit stuff at 4000m reliably. It's not that common, but it does happen when you get lucky. It also points out how crucial terrain is. Even the Pact can rip you up if you insist on traversing open ridge lines in front of them.

I remember driving through the corridor to Helmstedt from Berlin in the late 1980s, as well as taking the duty train to Frankfurt. There were a fair number of areas where you could have had great, long lines of fire assuming all else was equal. It was a mixture of open, wooded, built up, and mixed terrain, that was pretty variable depending on where you were. So the average was relatively low, but there were spots where it was wide open.



< Message edited by wodin -- 11/4/2013 4:50:52 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to TheWombat_matrixforum)
Post #: 24
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 4:00:15 PM   
TheWombat_matrixforum

 

Posts: 469
Joined: 8/2/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I get that..but as I said during wargames NATO realized very little fighting took place further than 1800m no matter what optics used due to terrain features (woods, buildings, elevation rises from dips to hills, walls, hedges etc etc) ..so any fighting further than 2000m should be the exception rather than the rule..which it isn't at the moment. This is a problem many game shave when they have detailed weapon mechanics but abstract terrain..it can clash. Due to the abstract nature of the terrain you then have to abstract the weapons esp when it comes to range \LOS, making sure they actually make contact with enemy forces at the approx ranges is would be possible. I came across this sort of problem with Tigers Unleashed which has a very detailed weapon and ballistics model..but it can and does clash with the abstract nature of hex terrain.

You need to keep the game within average possible results using that weaponry on that part of the world. There is no room in the game to say well there will be times that combat would take place at 3000m+ in the real battle so we shall have it in because it means you'll have loads of fighting at that distance rather than a few..as clear terrain is clear terrain. The only way to keep it within realistic results is to find out what the average max combat rage was or would be and use that as your max range in game if shooting across terrain on the same elevation. Maybe increase it further if on higher elevation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheWombat


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Well thats an issue right there..3500 to 4000m just isn't a range that would be viable in the terrain the battle would be fought on. As I said the max range on average by NATO wargames in Germany during the eighties was 1800m, very little over that before LOS was blocked by terrain features..


Well, there are cases where the terrain lends itself to long lines of fire. From hills across gently sloping fields, down to rivers, for instance, and from ridge to ridge. The key are the NATO imaging systems that extend vision well beyond the unaided or even optically aided eye in conditions of bad visibility. If you get the "perfect storm" of long unobstructed ranges and darkness or limited optical visibility, you can have cases where NATO can actually hit stuff at 4000m reliably. It's not that common, but it does happen when you get lucky. It also points out how crucial terrain is. Even the Pact can rip you up if you insist on traversing open ridge lines in front of them.

I remember driving through the corridor to Helmstedt from Berlin in the late 1980s, as well as taking the duty train to Frankfurt. There were a fair number of areas where you could have had great, long lines of fire assuming all else was equal. It was a mixture of open, wooded, built up, and mixed terrain, that was pretty variable depending on where you were. So the average was relatively low, but there were spots where it was wide open.




You make a solid point, but it's not one that can be resolved to anyone's satisfaction, particularly when we don't have historical data because the war never happened. We simply don't know how the chaos of battle would have played out.

If the game abstracts weapon data to conform to the abstract terrain, and to produce results the combat model says should be produced (a solution I'm not really opposed to, frankly), you will have the inevitable problems of "but it COULD have happened" and "the data says XXX, but you only do YYY." If you use more physically possible or probably weapon data, but still have an abstracted terrain model, yeah, you get more instances of "ideal" circumstances than you would probably get in reality. And if you manage to have accurate data and accurate terrain...oh, wait, no one has accurate terrain at this scale, largely because it's probably freakin' impossible.

I guess it depends on how you want your poison. I'm happy with the long range engagements we do get, as they were technically possible and don't happen all the time, even if they do happen more often than perhaps they should. I'd be ok too with abstracting the data towards an average that would either make accuracy at range less or put a hard cap at, say, 3km. As long as the game is balanced for whichever approach, I can live with the abstractions. But right now it seems ok.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 25
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 7:37:20 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
I'll just say this, NATO wouldn't have been creating weapons systems with ranges of 4-5-6-7-8km if they didn't think they could use them at that range. Did they think they could always use them at that range? Of course not.

I don't know what study you found that says NATO didn't intend on engaging at long ranges. That was the plan. The Soviet plan was to keep that from happening. Sometimes either side would have imposed it's will and got what they wanted.

NATO wants to engage at 4km.

Soviets want to engage at 1km.

Average Engagement range is 2.5km.

That works out.

I've been over most of the ground that the 3rd AD fights over in this game. There are lots of places where you can see 5 or 6km with no problems. In southern Germany, well that's different. Very short ranges down there. North German Plain, very different again. You can see forever up there.

One of the ways the Soviets intended on restricting NATO LOS was with smoke. Again, they wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to develop and deploy all that smoke if they thought the terrain alone would have restricted the engagement ranges.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 11/4/2013 8:40:27 PM >


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to TheWombat_matrixforum)
Post #: 26
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 8:45:49 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
MR it was nothing to do with them deciding not to engage at longe range in Germany. I didn't say that was the reason it was NATO's findings after analysis during wargames that the max range Tank Combat was happening was around 1800m due to the terrain. Obviously in flat desert like terrain you want long range..but this is to do with fact that the TERRAIN restricted range. It was rare that you could see out further than 1800m. They where trying to engage at the longest range possible I presume and in Germany on the ground they where or would be fighting over it would have been around 1800m..or so their after battle analysis told them.

Sorry if I haven't explained this properly.

Edit: Tracking down where I got this info..I told this by one of two people I know but can't remember which..both sources are very trust worthy though.

< Message edited by wodin -- 11/4/2013 9:58:07 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 27
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 9:27:36 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
The difference here is in the term of average and max. If you could see that NATO report I think you would find the word used would be average engagement range of 1800m not max.

I never saw or heard of anything like that. I was involved in a lot of wargaming in the Army and never heard that low a number.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 28
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 9:54:44 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Will find out where I got it from..but it wasn't average I'm sure..as we were at the time discussing a similar issue as here. It really doesn't surprise me though. Even in the UK which is similar terrain it's rare you'll get an unobstructed view further than 2miles out esp on flat terrain. Most land is farm land..and Farm land is divided up usually with hedges or walls..these will block LOS. The you'll have wooded areas..followed by villages, towns and cities. Only if your on terrain that overlooks your view will you have long distance LOS. Things like the Russian steppes and Dessert warfare long range engagements will come into their own..but to me 2000m or less engagement sounds right for NWE.

< Message edited by wodin -- 11/4/2013 10:58:06 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 29
RE: Weapons Effective Range - 11/4/2013 10:58:55 PM   
wodin


Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
Here you go...

Got this info from Scot over at HPS who also served in the Army in the eighties. He also said this "Generally 1500-2000 meters was the expected max DF engagement range in Europe and Korea due to terrain . IIRC, that's even one reason why they initially went with the 105mm gun in the M1; they figured it was good out to about 1500-2000 meters with decent lethality against Soviet armor of the time, so it was "good enough" for what they intended to tank to do (kill advacing Soviet tanks in Central Europe). As the Soviets updated they went with the 120mm to maintain lethality out to that range (and to standardize with the Germans). "

The whole article in the first Link is worth reading..but a fair bit is mentioned about terrain on page 35 they call it Intervisiblity (page 35 of the manuscript not the pdf reader)

LINK TO US ARMY RESEARCH THESIS makes for good reading, obviously it's from 1979 BUT it mainly talks abou he terrain being an issue rather than weather etc

This time just a discussion about ranges and how again due to terrrain the rnage for tnak combat would in 89 be similar to WW2 ranges

The trouble is if you tried to model this ino the game players will wonder why their Tanks aren't firing across five or more clear hexes. This is the problem with abstract terrain as I mentioned and hi def wargames\simulations.

< Message edited by wodin -- 11/5/2013 12:28:22 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Weapons Effective Range Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.500