Author Topic: Combat realism model  (Read 50260 times)

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2007, 10:30:27 PM »
The old bess has been used since the early 1700's though, when it was a doglock (first type of flintlock musket)
I agree the Enfield is a magnificent beastie, It has a nicer feel that the Zouave (with the thicker stock and wrist) and I just aint too fond of the springfield, it seems less balanced in the grip and in the recoil it seems to twist more, which admittedly doesn't matter in a single shot it just irritates me having my rifle swinging around everywhere once i have fired. ROn do you own any black powder weapons?
/Offtopic

I hadn't heard about muskets blowing up in the Spanish expedition, but I wouldn't put anything past that shoddy Don workmanship  :P

The earlier weapons (1400's, especially heavier weapons like early bombards) had a bad habit of cracking when fired.  By the Spanish expeditions, the rate of such failures had dropped off to reasonable.  (On par with swords breaking, bows cracking or bowstrings breaking, or any other critical equipment failure.)

------------------

I currently teach in China ... firearms are greatly regulated.  (More for safety reasons than anything else - there are just too many people and too much concrete.)  I do have some nice hand-made swords.

Growing up in Oklahoma, we always had some black powder pieces among the hunting rifles.  For deer primitive firearms season, my dad carries a .54cal rifled percussion cap that he built himself.  He shoots a 110 grain load of mixed FF and FFF powder.  I saw him blow a can out of a river with that thing at over 300 yards one time. 

I spent a lot of years around the black powders.  They're a lot of fun to play with.

Never actually fired a matchlock, though.

Offline guspav

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 218
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2007, 12:04:36 AM »
just to make another point about arquebus accuracy, here's a fragment form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus

"In terms of accuracy, the arquebus was extremely inferior to archery. However, the arquebus had a faster rate of fire than the most powerful of crossbows, had a shorter learning curve than a longbow, and was more powerful than either. An arquebusier could carry more ammunition and powder than a crossbowman or longbowman could with bolts or arrows. The weapon also had the added advantage of scaring enemies with the noise it (and most other firearms) makes."

so in mod terms what would you propose?
- 99 acc is still too much I am thinking maybe lower it to 90?
- Since it's a low velocity firearm it could cause blunt damage instead to not be as effective against armor as if it were piercing (I'm not sure you would usually knock people out if you shot them with an arquebus, but oh well the m&b engine has limits)
- a slow firerate but not as slow as the one of an arbalest or sniper crossbow
- damage comparable or maybe greater than that of an arbalest
- lots of ammo (already there) you adjusted it at 60 per ammo pack, right?
- the scaring factor.. I'm not sure I can include it somehow with a trigger.. could try, though

another thing, halberds (just like any polearm that can be swinged) shouldn't be used horseback, that is absurd, the halberd is a footman weapon
« Last Edit: February 11, 2007, 12:28:11 AM by guspav »

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2007, 12:48:58 AM »
just to make another point about arquebus accuracy, here's a fragment form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus

"In terms of accuracy, the arquebus was extremely inferior to archery. However, the arquebus had a faster rate of fire than the most powerful of crossbows, had a shorter learning curve than a longbow, and was more powerful than either. An arquebusier could carry more ammunition and powder than a crossbowman or longbowman could with bolts or arrows. The weapon also had the added advantage of scaring enemies with the noise it (and most other firearms) makes."

I question the validity of these sources.

According to the NATO study on combat injuries (1960's) and studies done by wildlife conservation departments in a number of places, plus my own personal observations, I will most certainly say that arrows have better penetration and killing power than black-powder round-ball ... and better than many modern rifle bullets.  Their ability to kill or disable quickly far exceeds the performance of full-metal-jacket military ammunition - which is why wildlife departments tend to allow arrows for big-game hunting, but require rifles to use expanding-type ammunition.  Arrow performance in stopping bear and wild pig has far exceeded even the heaviest of hunting rifles for years, and a lot of hunters have seen and noted this.

The problem with arrows IS accuracy (and even more so with thrown weapons).  This from someone who has killed a number of little furry things with arrows (including one whitetail deer) - power is NOT their problem.  They deliver power like a train wreck.  Arrows will go through MODERN body armors that will stop a rifle - I've seen it tested.  However, putting them on a moving target with any kind of regularity takes years of practice.  Even then, you sometimes just plain miss.  Long travel time on the arrow makes leading a moving target into a real pain.  Hitting anything at more than 50 paces is either amazing skill or an act of God.  That's why the ancient world frequently just fired into the air and let the arrows fall at random into enemy formations - if the bow gives you power without accuracy, use it.

I will agree with the ammunition issue - you will note I upped the ammo bag to 60 rounds, compared to about 24 for arrows/bolts.

Reload speed on the "most powerful crossbows" is a dumb statement - the arbalest was reloaded by windlass, and in reality it took about two minutes to reload.  A more reasonable crossbow reloads in a more reasonable time.  About this time, China produced a lever-reload light crossbow (about 45 to 55 pound draw weight) with a 10-round box magazine - it could go through 10 rounds a minute.  (Those things were still in use until the beginning of the 20th century.)

And I promise that even the primitive "handguns" of the 1400's (a pipe-gun by modern definition) had equal or better accuracy to bows, after a similar period of time spent in practice.  In spite of its primitive firing mechanism, the matchlocks were pretty modern-looking weapons - most even had decent sights.  (The Spanish arquebus in the J.M. Davis Gun Museum in Claremore Oklahoma, which dates to Cortez or somewhere very near then, has pretty modern-looking sights.)

The ONLY reason bows had an accuracy advantage over very early guns was because a lot of boys grew up putting food on their table with bows, and they were good with them.  In contrast, guns were new military technology.  Like saying rifles are more accurate than guided missiles, because a lot of people can shoot pretty straight, but very few can effectively target a missile.  In terms of the game, they were comparing archery skill 200 to firearms skill zero.  By the time of the Spanish explorations in the Americas, enough guns were in circulation to greatly reduce this difference.

I don't know who wrote that article, but I suspect he was neither an archer nor a black-powder shooter.  Nor a hunter.  Nor a soldier.  Because all of these people will question some of those conclusions.

Offline LCJr

  • Journeyman
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #33 on: February 13, 2007, 10:26:52 AM »
Ron can you provide a source for handheld obsidian weapons piercing Spanish armor?

It's something I read long ago ... I can't seem to find the source now.

I did find good references on flint and obsidian-tip arrows and atlatl dart, both from the time and in more modern tests.  (Apparently Cortez had some old breastplates shot with arrows, to find out why they were getting slaughtered - the results were pretty scary.)  Anyway, I know that obsidian is capable of piercing at least some steel some of the time - which translates pretty badly for most body armor.  Might be pretty hard on the stone as well, but that isn't really modeled in-game.  Impact speed on arrows or the end of a long club are not that different - if one goes through, so does the other.

I've seen what a stone axe can do - there's no question that those would be murder on armor.  (The one in question was flint, actually a reproduction of a Cherokee hatchet, but close enough.)  They do pretty much the same as their steel counterparts, despite being much heavier and slower, and becoming dull much faster.  The issue is with the thinner and better balanced blades of the macuahuitl and tepoztopilli.  I'm not sure which way they will go.


---------------------------------------

Also, everyone note that this combat model is now up and running on Onin-no-Ran.  Everyone should check it out, to see the kind of changes involved, and how the rescale changes the game.

I think it has been an enormous success so far.  Of course, I might be extremely prejudiced by the fact I created it ... out of annoyance at how the weapons didn't really work in vanilla.  But a lot of other people think it's a good thing too.



I won't deny the atl-atl piercing a steel breastplate.  I wouldn't even be too surprised if it still could with just a fire hardened tip.  If you'll excuse my vague memories I saw a PBS program on prehistoric hunting, Nova IIRC, that had an impressive atl-atl demonstration.  The scientists set up an impact gauge(ft/lbs) and had one of their college javelin throwers come out.  He took a running start and made a throw at probably around 25 yards.  Impact was in the 50-60 ft/lb range.  Next one of the scientists casually stands there and launches an atl atl.  The dart went through a 3/4" or 1" piece of plywood and broke the gauge.  Once it was repaired and reinforced they tried again.  Impact was in the 200-300 ft/lb range.

I just have a hard time picturing obsidian melee weapons piercing steel.  But then again I'd say the question is pretty much academic since the Spaniards seem to have ditched their breastplates for  native armor.

Regarding the accuracy of primitive firearms scroll down this page to see the author shooting a handgonne/polegun at 25 paces.
http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/handgonne.html

Just keep in mind his ammo is probably very close to the bore size of the weapon.  In practice the lead balls would be smaller than bore to speed reloading especially as the gun became fouled.  Before the bore starts clogging up with powder residue the ball is literally going to be bouncing down the barrel.

I'll add this one even though it's from the 1790's.  I've seen these same tests posted in several places without the authors realizing the size of the targets involved.  http://www.miniaturewargames.com/musketry.htm  scroll down to Accuracy section.
Take note the first test uses a target 6 ft high by 50 yards wide for infantry.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2007, 10:40:54 AM by LCJr »

Offline guspav

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 218
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #34 on: February 13, 2007, 12:09:29 PM »
Hey LCJr! I have noticed that you've always been closely following meso's developement, would you like to be part of the team or at least help us test Ron's the combat model?


Now to my comments about the combat model(after several hours testing) :

- I have been reading about old firearms and they aren't supposed to be accurate at more than 50 paces (they didn't have sights, they relied on volley fire, the flash and smoke produced by the matchlock system made it harder, bullets were of varying sizes which made them bounce inside the gun's barrel and not be shot very straightly), still they are sniping weapons in the current combat model, I still believe the acc should be lowered a bit

- arquebus damage is too low or maybe helmets and armor values is too high in comparison, I shot several spaniards on their heads and got 0s many times, shooting breastplates always yielded low numbers (14-30 or something) so the best tactic was to shoot their legs

- swords produced very low damage values vs breastplates (often even  0s) against lightly armored oponents they were killers (which I like a lot)

- horses turning abilities (aka manuever) is too high, I know horses can be very nimble, but just the way it is right now, they seem like they were immune to all kinds of inertia

- I see you made all swords' damage the same, making them just cosmetically different.. I guess in damage terms they would work like that, so I agree

- some items still have to be removed, forgot to deactivate them :P
they include: foil= they just didn't exist yet
                   black greaves = failed experiment of transforming a texture
                   khergit arrows = they shouldn't be there
                  less axes = didn't know which ones were used and which ones weren't so I left almost all of them there

so far this is what I have figured out.. I'll keep you posted

« Last Edit: February 13, 2007, 03:17:15 PM by guspav »

Apollon-04

  • Guest
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #35 on: February 13, 2007, 06:46:35 PM »
I'll happily testm If I can, pm me and I'll pm you my e-mail adress.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2007, 07:47:03 PM »

If you check the ranges in M&B, you will find that there is almost never a shot at more than 50 paces.  Do some tests.  Have your little guy walk across an expanse in town, and count the paces.  Or measure in lengths of a horse.  It comes out that shots you thought were 50 paces are actually 10.  It's a graphics bug caused by the fact computer screens are not as big as reality.

(On the Holy War mod, trying to get arrows to shoot right, I guessed a shot at a merchant sign to be 25 paces.  When I checked it against the size of a horse, it was *8*.)

Also, mis-sized shot is not a valid complaint.  With black powder, you wrap the ball in wadding when you load it.  With two extra patches, you can fire .45 cal ball from a .54 rifle and still get pretty good accuracy at short range.  (It increases your pattern size by maybe a foot at 100 paces - I've tried it.)  That's the worst shot mismatch I can think of, like trying to load .38 special into a .44 mag - and even then it shoots pretty good.  Only modern bullets, which lack soft wadding, have to be precision made.  The old-timers had this figured out too.

Even 99% accuracy on this game won't keep all your shot on a body at 50 paces, even with high skill.  Most guys I know who play with black powder shoot better than that, even with primitive weapons like smoothbore flintlocks.  (They have all the same problems of the matchlock, except that you don't have to keep your fuse lit.)  And the Spanish arquebus I have seen from this period were relatively long-barrel weapons with fair-to-decent sights - based on having fired a lot of ammo through muzzle-load black powder weapons, I figured they would shoot pretty good.  There is no "sniper weapon" on M&B, because you can never see more than 100 paces or so.

Lead round ball from arquebus should sometimes deflect from steel armors.  Armorers of the period would "proof" armor by firing a musket into a corner, usually the lower right hand corner of the breastplate, to prove that they worked.  Many surviving armors of this period contain these "proof marks".  It's not a bug.  It's just that bullets don't go through everything like magic.  (My tests with modern handguns say this is not rare - modern pistol rounds won't go through much metal either.  High-velocity rifle bullets will - but the arquebus was not one of those.)  The armor and bullet penetration numbers are pretty accurate.  Test them if you don't believe me.

I'll stand by the horse numbers for two reasons.  One, they are accurate.  Horses do that - they're not cars that have to turn a wheel and roll.  They spin on their feet the same way you do... do you need a large turn radius when running, or do you dig in your heels and basically run right back up your own tracks?  Hard to stay on one when he does that, but we can't simulate that.  Two, if they are lower, horses will be useless - they already get torn to shreds by the arrows.  They need all the advantages they can get, or else they are just target practice for the enemy.

The sword damage thing was done quickly.  Put a one  or two point variation between them if you want.  Don't make it more than a couple of points.  That will deliver the message that they are a little different, without changing the basic function.

And the foil did exist, just that nobody considered it a weapon.  The closest thing to a weapon foil was the estoc - which is present.  You'll notice I removed the cutting edge from the estoc - they are square cross-section, and can be used as a minor club but have no cutting edge.

---------------------

And as for the question about melee weapons piercing steel ... test some hatchets on several layers of auto-body weight steel.  See how many layers a cheap hatchet will go through - it's pretty amazing.  They penetrate more metal than many modern handguns.  A flint axe (despite being heavier and a little clumsy) will perform almost as well as a steel hatchet - I've seen it.

----------------------

I say the numbers are generally good.  (Put some variation in the swords if you want - every sword is a little different.)  The armor and missile weapons values will stand up to tests.  And check that first link that LCJr posted - it shows a lot of what I said (the reasonable accuracy at short range, even from the hip with no practice, and the mediocre armor penetration), even though the weapon is much older than the ones we are simulating and had no way to aim it.


Offline LCJr

  • Journeyman
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #37 on: February 14, 2007, 11:21:43 AM »
Wouldn't claim to call myself an expert in early firearms but from what I've gathered during this period the ball wasn't wrapped in a patch.  The few period excerpts I've read seem to indicate that wadding was used and if forgotten the ball would roll out if aiming downwards.  I'd say it's safe to say this was a learning period:)

Quote
'A Musqueteer may fail of his shot by sundry accidents, as by rolling out of bullet, an badde matche, an matche not right cocked, by evill powder or wet powder in his pan; and I have often times seen an ranke of musquetiers having presented and given fire that three or four of ten have failed of their shot'

Quote
The experienced soldiers were insistent about using wad, Orrey stated  'Besides all this, whoever loads his musket with cartridges, is sure the bullet will not drop out, though he takes his aim under breast high, for the paper of the cartridge keeps it in; whereas those soldiers which on service take their bullets out of thier mouths ( which is the nimblest way ) or out of their pouches, which is slow, seldom put any paper, tow, or grass, to ram the bullet in; whereby if they fire above brest high, the bullet passes over the head of the enemy, and if they aim low, the bullet drops out ere the musket is fired; and 'tis to this that I attribute the little execution I have seen musketeers do in time of fight, thought they fired at great battalions and those reasonable near'

http://www.fairfax.org.uk/main/soldiers/musket.htm


Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #38 on: February 14, 2007, 05:33:39 PM »
Not putting in any wadding?  Having the ball fall out of the weapon?  Boy, now those guys must have REALLY been incompetent.

Did it say anything about people who got their spears turned backwards?

Offline Hellequin

  • Journeyman
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #39 on: February 14, 2007, 05:48:57 PM »
Incidentally, Ron, the volley of arrows fired up at 45 degrees was not always a "let it fall where it may" thing.  That's a myth.  I've watched archers at my local SCA chapter (I know, I know, no perfect resource - but in the wrong direction, they'll not be as skilled as, say, an English longbowman of the War of the Roses period) put arrows consistently into a ~2' diameter hula hoop at 250-300 yards, using a high arcing indirect shot.  Like anything else, that's a knack, and one which can be practiced.  So I would not at all be surprised if those arrow storms often contained shots which were much closer to being aimed than we realize.  Certainly the hissing sheet model which has the fire being concentrated onto the front few ranks is very likely.  You can kill the guys further back with the next arrow.

None of which has a very great impact - but don't use "they fired at long range with a high arc" as an argument for inaccuracy.  Quite the reverse - they were just pushing the envelope of a quite accurate weapon and, more to the point, skill.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #40 on: February 14, 2007, 06:25:06 PM »
Well, I and others I know have killed a lot of little furry life forms with arrows.  I can honestly say that an aimed shot against a single target is not going to happen at over 50 paces or so.  Arrow travel time is just too long to hit anything that's trying to evade.  High-arc shots against massed or group targets can, with a little practice, get pretty close... but firing into a ten-foot radius is still area-effect targeting at best, or at worst, just highly inaccurate when it comes to hitting a person.

But yes, targeting of squad-size or larger massed groups is an accepted military practice.  Be it volleys of arrows or laying down machinegun fire, you still have to hit the general area.

M&B doesn't really have any places where you can shoot more than 100 paces, so indirect targeting can't really be added to the game.  Human graphics only appear at maybe 150 paces, as a speck.

The real point was that early guns and average bows shoot about the same pattern, but it takes years of practice to be decent with a bow, while musketeers can be trained in days.  The early guns should not be given a pattern so bad that you can miss a standing man 10 paces away for 15 shots in a row.  At a hundred paces, maybe, but not ten.  The game's 99% accuracy still won't keep shot on a body at 100 paces, even with extremely high skill ratings, so that's a moot point.

Wait and see the mod - the bows are accurate enough.  I've split too many of my own arrows in practice, from stacking groups too tight... I know what archery is capable of.  I think I did a fair job of simulating it, both on ONR and here.


Riptokus

  • Guest
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #41 on: February 15, 2007, 06:01:30 PM »
As a Marine Machine gunner, i've got a little to say on Machine guns and Indirect fire.

Firstly, I was required to qualify with my machine gun. I had to fire tight, controlled bursts into targets about the size of a quarter. A Machine gun is NOT a "Spray and Pray" Weapon. If it wasn't accurate, then why would people bother to get under cover when it is fired. Machine guns aren't as accurate as say, a Sniper rifle, but their inaccuracy mostly comes from the vibrations caused by the gun repeatedly firing. I personally can put a 10 round burst through a space the size of an inch at 100 yards. Further it's a little harder to keep it as small, but up to 800 yards I can put 7 out of 10 bullets from a burst into something the size of a human. One of my fellows could do 10/10 in a target the size of a human head at 800 but at that range for me I can't even distinguish the head ;) (If none of you realize what the hell that means, go measure out 800 yards and have someone stand at the end. You'll be suprised at what they look like at that range ;))

Something I never did, but certainly was trained at, was using the Machine Gun for indirect fire. By elevating the gun, you sent the round on an arc that was able to hit targets over hills or in ditches. Depending on how much play you give the gun depends on the size of the area your bullets land in. You can very easily target for "The front rank of that formation" and rain fire down, but Firing indirectly with a machine gun, the same problems ron states pops into view. 3 Seconds of delay, even if you can put a round or arrow through the center of abe lincolin's head in a penny through indirect fire, nothing stops that guy from moving. Formations do something strange though, which is something I don't think Ron understands. When you are moving in formation, you are moving at an exact speed with an exact distance from the guy to your left and your right, and usually you don't change heading at all. Seeing this, You can time your shot to hit your target perfectly, which I am sure the Veteran English Longbowmen would be able to do.

So what does it all boil down to? It doesn't. It's just extra information you might not have.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #42 on: February 15, 2007, 08:34:55 PM »
My brother was 2nd Marine Division on this recent move into Iraq, so I know what you're saying.  The USMC trains very hard to get its people to aim their fire, even with medium machine guns - but they seem to be the exception to the rule.  In the First World War, however, the primary function of machineguns was suppression fire - a practice that many armies still train extensively.  It wastes a lot of ammo, but it does serve a purpose.

Indirect arrow volleys (and slings, if you go back to Roman period) are the same thing.  You might kill somebody like that, maybe ... but the real function was to keep them cowering behind their shields or dragging off their wounded, instead of maneuvering or returning fire.  They had time to get behind their shields, that's for sure.  However, it kept them neither in a position nor a state of mind to fight.

Still, pretty much all the combat in M&B happens at 100 paces or less.  Regulated formations do not exist.  This makes it a moot point - we can't simulate that, nor do we need to.


Riptokus

  • Guest
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2007, 01:20:45 PM »
I still Disagree with your assessment. Here is a proposed experiment for you. Get 60 Tennis Balls and get 20 kids. Give each kid 3 tennis balls. Divide them up into 4 groups of 5. Place them at corners to a square, tell them if you get hit by a tennis ball to sit down, and the team with the most people standing in the end wins. Watch how they throw. Next combine them so it's just 2 groups, and repeat the experiment. Again, watch how they throw. Next a group of 5 with 12 balls each and have the rest stand in a big mass with no balls, and again watch how they throw. And finally, do the same thing as the previous one, but tell the mass of 15 kids if anyone of them manages to tag one of the 5, the 5 group looses and the 15 wins. Watch how the 5 group throws then. Finally, Divide them back into 2 Groups 3 balls each and set them at 500 feet from each other. Watch what happens then.

What you will see is more precision when they only have 3 balls, less with 12 each, but every time you will see one constant, and that is that every individual kid is aiming at another kid in the formation. If you are going to fire a volley, you HAVE to make at least some of it accurate or the desired reaction, pinning them down, will not happen, as the last part will show. Like you said though, Moot point, Formations don't exist so volleys won't work, and you can't even make your people's morale break in the middle of combat nor can you get them to be pinned down, So this conversation really does nothing, except encourage you to play with kids! ;)

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: Combat realism model
« Reply #44 on: February 19, 2007, 07:07:08 PM »
Yeah ... without formation or morale in the game engine, the whole logic of breaking an enemy line or suppression fire are lost.

I'll pass on kids and tennis balls, thanks.  I've seen games like that before.  You would be surprised how hard a tennis ball can be, when thrown by some kid determined to injure another.


Edit:
And yes, I would agree that aiming at an individual target is the best way to get close to the individual or group.  I would agree with the USMC emphasis on aiming every shot ... I was raised by cowboys, after all, who are known for hitting what they shoot at.  (People say I'm one of those guys who never misses - not with firearms or bows or swords.  Not entirely true - I've missed my share of shots that I should have made blindfolded - but I do give off that image.)  However, my statement that many armies still train for zone fire still stands - many do.  As I said, it wastes a lot of ammo ... doing what a couple of really hard individuals with sniper rifles could accomplish in a dozen rounds or so.  Of course, ammo is easier to get than hard individuals, hence the logic of that.  People do a lot of things that I think are mistakes.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2007, 10:27:40 PM by Ron Losey »