An observation about the colateral damages of the machine guns. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

xafemo -> An observation about the colateral damages of the machine guns. (9/17/2001 12:09:00 AM)

Hello to all,
I have not checked it systematically, but if I can say that it has been a fact in my last battles: when in the same hexagon they are a squad of infantry friend and another enemy squad together and it is shot with some machine gun class, the colateral damages prevail about the losses caused to the objective, and I don't find this realistic.
Has somebody observed the same thing that me?
Thank you in advance.



Drex -> (9/17/2001 12:32:00 AM)

I too have observed heavy casualties when firng into a hex shared by both sides. I'm not sure that it is unrealistic though. I just figure that I must suffer losses to indescriminately spray a hex with MG or other fire.



Supervisor -> (9/17/2001 12:54:00 AM)

I think it's true to a point depending on the experience of the shooters they are trying to take into effect damaged from a possible cross-fire, in small space this is very possible. Just a thought.



Daniel Oskar -> (9/17/2001 1:43:00 AM)

When firing a machine gun the area impacted by the rounds is called the beaten zone. It is a pretty accurate term in describing what it looks like. Machine guns by their nature are area weapons, so if you are firing them at an enemy in fairly close proximity (same hex) to friendlies there would in all likelyhood be some blue on blue casualties.



voyrep -> (9/17/2001 5:55:00 PM)

Hello
I have to agree with xafemo, more losses are inflicted on the good guys than on the bad guys
at least in my experience voyrep



Tommy -> (9/17/2001 8:00:00 PM)

This seems to be another view of the problem we thought was a bug several weeks ago. The basic issue is: 2 units in a hex - squad A & squad B (the nationality of the squads is not important). I fire at squad A with a MG or other anti-personnel weapon. Squad B (the un-targetted squad) takes most of the casualties, squad A takes very few casualties. Squad B finnaly routs/bolts the hex or is dispersed. Now Squad A takes casualties. A really bizarre use of this bug is to target squad A, and have squad C ( a previously unknown and unseen occupant of the hex) take all the hits and rout. This allows you to effectively hit an unseen/unspotted squad C. The cure? Don't pile several squads into one hex. Don't bunch up. Keep your interval. Remember any of that from basic training? Gee, the game is just like real life! Imagine that!! Tommy [ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: Tommy ]



Larry Holt -> (9/17/2001 8:08:00 PM)

This has been commented on before. At that time it seemed that the collateral damage issue occured at close in ranges (I can't remember what the exact range was) but not at longer ranges. Paul Vebber stated that this was unanticipted so in that regard it is a bug but as others have stated when you crowd troops you need to expect higher casuality rates.



murx -> (9/17/2001 11:27:00 PM)

I remember times (4.5 or 5.1 ?) when it was most effective to target a 'hard target' in a hex to get rid of the softies as fast as possible. They took much more damage then targeting them directly , maybe cover is not calculated properly ? or any other damage variable ?
So it is probably a bug ...
murx



Paul Vebber -> (9/18/2001 12:38:00 AM)

The gmae uses three different routines to calculate casualties, and there is 'feedback' between them so that in some conditions, seemingly strange things happen. When i tested this with MGs the target unit took 2/3 of casualties at range and other units in the hex took 1/3, as teh range decreased they proportion equailized until about 4-5 hex range at which point the casualties where about even. INside 4-5 hexes the non-taget units in teh hex start taking more damage. That was in clear terrain. The terrain the hex plays in this as well, together with who is pinned and who is moving and experience and some other cats and dogs. The whole thing grew to too many variables to analyze in the time I could alot to it, so we just said so be it. ITs not that big a deal. The bottom line is that a different set of mechnisms to determine when casualties occur needs to be constructed, and that won't happen in SP:WaW. The code is just too "distributed" to repair, and "gut and paste" is out of the question - that cure is worse than the disease bug wise...



skukko -> (9/18/2001 2:27:00 PM)

I like this bug. It brings real-life effect to game. Gather your troops and go to melee with enemy. Enemy gets supression, your troops get pants wet, third part cries and shoot blindly to same area.Sure there is damage to everybody. Ok, just patience is needed: Don't shoot at the hex where your squad is in close combat with enemy. Yell to your mens to rally them and do some hand and shovel fighting in next turn. If that fails; bomb the hex with big arty. Or try to do overrun with tank... As I said, I like this one. mosh



Mikimoto -> (9/18/2001 6:39:00 PM)

Hello.
I like this bug, too. But it was in Sp3 (the original code)and I think IMHO this it was actually intentional. It simulates area target fire so fine...



Fabs -> (9/19/2001 11:42:00 PM)

I recall from my distant days of basic Infantry training in the Swiss Army that when we practiced battalion exercises with HMG covering us one of the main issues was to advance without getting in their line of fire. We had to pay attention to that as our unit always trained with live ammo. I guess from that point of view there is a modicum of realism, since if a mg is firing through a hex occupied by friendly troops only no attack is deemed to have occurred in the game. A 50m hex is large enough to make that believable if the distance between the advancing unit and the Hmgs target is sufficient. Once you close with the enemy it is harder to stay away from the line of fire of your support weapons. At that distance, we had to rely on the squad's weapons and grenades. The Hmgs would have been moving on by then. If another Squad would have fired on our objective or a support weapon would have intervened, there would have been more casualties among ourselves because the enemy would be in cover while we would have been advancing. Makes sense to me, anyway. [ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Fabs ] [ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: Fabs ]



xafemo -> (9/22/2001 7:30:00 AM)

Greetings to all:
I say that it is a bug. A recent example:
It is the my turn. There is in front of my sniper a forest hexagon; there is an intact squad of enemy motorcyclists here, but they are very suppressed; A hexagon further on is a clever enemy flammenwagen/16 to act. I advance my sniper next to the enemy motorcyclists, assault the unit throws flames enemy, failure, the it throws llamas makes fire against my sniper; all the motorcyclist enemies, destroyed; the sniper, suppressed, but still active with rally.
The performance of the flammenwagen/16 was excessive keeping in mind the bug that, automatically, it worked saving me the work of destroying the motorcyclists. It is a bug.



Truckeye -> (10/2/2001 8:52:00 PM)

i think this makes sence to a point. if you presume that your troops and the enemy are in any form of cover, and generally your MG fire comes from the side/rear of your squad, then your squads cover is useless vs the MG area fire. your troops backs are exposed to some extent, while the same cover that the enemy is using from your squad is likely effective to some extent vs the MG fire.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75