bring down the lethality

general_solomon · 09-22-2007, 01:34 AM,

what really pisses me off about this game is lethality. the firefights are very unrealistic.

I tried to get assistance in the BF forum without any luck. so I decided to play around with the options in the editor.

I created two exact maps. the map contained an entrenched enemy 50 meters from two houses 15 meters apart.

the first map setting for the troops were veteran and typical weapons. I ran the game and ordered my men from one house to the other. seventy five percent of the squad was hit.

I ran the other map with conscripts and poor weapons options. only one soldier was hit.

so what does this do for the game? this means a player has the opportunity to use tactics of finding, suppressing and flanking.

I hope scenerio builders can create maps with my settings along with a regular one. This way it can be tested on real scenerio.

thanks for your time.

Runyan99 · 09-22-2007, 01:49 AM,

What makes you think that squads can cross open ground only 50m away from the enemy? The last time I qualified with an M4 (law enforcement, not military) it was at a simulated distance of 75m (small targets at a shorter real distance). The range is very reasonable for accurate shooting. Soldiers with modern weapons would probably have no trouble shooting 75% of the enemy under the conditions you outline.

I think your expectations about the lethality of modern weapons are unfounded. You need to adjust your tactics, not call the game unrealistic. What are you basing your argument on?

Sgt Barker · 09-22-2007, 03:36 AM,

The problem is that modern weapons systems and tactics make for a crappy game. “If you’re seen, you’re dead” doesn’t translate into a fun time at the old PC. Lowering the quality makes for a better game, because that truism doesn’t apply anymore.

~~The Coil~~ · 09-22-2007, 04:43 AM,

Sgt Barker Wrote:The problem is that modern weapons systems and tactics make for a crappy game. “If you’re seen, you’re dead” doesn’t translate into a fun time at the old PC. Lowering the quality makes for a better game, because that truism doesn’t apply anymore.

Yeah, I think BF needs to re-examine the "more realistic = better game" concept. Long ago I tried to argue this point with them, and got predicatably nowhere.

There's something about "stand off and hose down everything in sight that might contain an enemy" that doesn't make for a fun game. Or if you're playing red forces, "huddle in cover and hope you don't get obliterated long enough that someone can get a potshot off at the enemy". I think realistic modern warfare just isn't that fun as a game, and realistic asymetric warfare is even less fun. But that's just an opinion, I guess.

If you dumb the weapons down to about, say, a WW2 standard of lethality, I think you end up with a pretty good game. Hmmm...

general_solomon · (This post was last modified: 09-22-2007, 01:16 PM by general_solomon.)

Look folks I am not trying to say that the game sucks. I love this game. what bothers me with this game is the lethality. I dont care if its true to life. I want to have an enjoyable game.

By changing two settings i was able to successfully play the game as it should be played. I hate the fact that every fire shot hits its target. I dont believe this to be true in a urban enviroment.

I re-tested my lethality scenerios again. This time I place the red team 150 meters in a trench. The red team consisted of 3 squad of unconventional units place directly across from the two houses.

I put a large wall infront of the one story building to the red would fire into the houses. The two houses are placed 20 meters apart.

I had four squads US Army. at the start of the game I ordered on squad to the room to provide cover fire.

Once they were in place, I ordered the remaining 3 squads to cross to the other house. The first squad would go to the roof and the rest would be ordered to the first floor.

The first test with veteran and normal weapons option.

within the first minute 25 percent of the first squad on roof was gone.

none of the squad made it to the other side. all were mowed down and some cowered on the ground until killed.

The second test was with conscript / poor weapons / movtivation(extreme):

the first squad provied cover fire while the other squad moved across to the other house. Out of 27 men I lost 4 while crossing and 2 on the roofs.

I just wanted to share my findings with those of you who still want to play the game. You either like this game or hate it.

I think by tweaking the above mentioned settings, the game is more enjoyable. I have gone back to previous player created scenerio's with the new settings. The games were actually fun to play now.

I am not stupid to order squads to run across open terrain without cover fire and smoke. I have learned alot from other cm players.

thanks for you time.

Sgt Barker · 09-22-2007, 02:24 PM,

general_solomon Wrote:By changing two settings i was able to successfully play the game as it should be played. I hate the fact that every fire shot hits its target. I dont believe this to be true in a urban enviroment.

Every shot doesn't hit. There's just a lot more shots going out, so more hit.

The volume of fire put out by modern weapons – M16s & AK47s – is a quantum leap over the what was put out in WWII. When you know what you’re doing it simply IS more lethal now a days.

That’s the caveat – you have to know how to exploit them. A veteran doesn’t ‘spray and pray’ when targets present themselves at 50 meters. Controlled, aimed fire is the order of the day, usually in semi-auto or 3 round burts. With a standard 30 round magazine that’s a LOT of aimed shots going down range. Even without adding a SAW into the mix you’re just not going to get even 20 yards in the open against people who know what they’re doing.

The WWII battle field was nothing like that. Most automatic weapons fired pistol cartridges; 50 meters is a long way to be accurate with those. Even more so in full auto fire. At any rate most of the fighting’s being done with rifles, many times bolt rifles. The squad/platoon level automatic weapons were devestating, but that’s key. They were allocated, special. Most of the people shooting weren’t using them.

At any rate by making the forces in the game be unskilled with their weapons, and maybe even making the weapons be worse (whatever the ‘poor weapons’ means), the game simply puts people in the situation of decades ago.

By changing the settings you create a situation akin to a less modern environment. Which begs a question…

~~The Coil~~ · 09-22-2007, 03:00 PM,

general_solomon Wrote:the firefights are very unrealistic.

general_solomon Wrote:I dont care if its true to life.

See, this thread is just going to be confused until we decide the issue under discussion.

Is it true to life? Probably.

Does that make it fun? Depends on your idea of fun.

Is it more fun if you dumb down the lethality? Depends on if you want to play a modern warfare simulation or a sort-of-based on modern warfare game, except everyone is a nincompoop who just got a gun in their hands for the first time.

My opinion is a game like this based on modern warfare isn't much fun for just this reason. You're either forced to play realistically, where exposed people die instantly. Or you're forced to play unrealistically, which might be fun, but feels sort of gamey and "wrong".

Much better to play WW2, where realistic combat turns out to be a "fun" level of lethality.