Snipers

SPWaW is a tactical squad-level World War II game on single platoon or up to an entire battalion through Europe and the Pacific (1939 to 1945).

Moderator: MOD_SPWaW

User avatar
Mike Wood
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Oakland, California
Contact:

Snipers

Post by Mike Wood »

Hello...

Appreciate your viewpoint. Snipers do not really reflect reality as modeled. Increasing sniper rifle or unit values do not, either. It creates a very potent light machine gun, in game terms.

Feel realistic sniper might go two turns or more, in LOS of enemy and have zero shots available. When shot becomes available, one only, should have very high chance to hit and fairly good chance to kill NCO or officer (who would have to be replaced on the fly by lower ranking fellow). Should be even harder to spot than now, except by another sniper. How would that be?

Would require entirely new system separate from infantry combat. Could revisit issue, when working on code again, if idea popular.

Thanks for Input...

Michael Wood
ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

...by doctrine forego a shot unless they are positive they can get the kill. But SPWAW does not portray them correctly, unless you adjust the unit's stats...
User avatar
KG Erwin
Posts: 8366
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cross Lanes WV USA

RE: Snipers

Post by KG Erwin »

I like it. Snipers adopt realistic roles. In AI role, Japanese snipers become recon elements in offensive mode, and are quickly destroyed. In the defense/delay mode, could be very useful.
Image
Riun T
Posts: 1848
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 4:22 pm

RE: Snipers

Post by Riun T »

That sounds fantastic Mike but will that tendency to fire fewer times to highten the chance of hit change or effect their ableity to spot or call more accurate Arrty corections??
RT
User avatar
Mike Wood
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Oakland, California
Contact:

RE: Snipers

Post by Mike Wood »

Hello...

Nope. Not unless you folk want it. I know how I think they should work, but I will NOT be the only one using them, so I posted to get input.

Bye...

Michael Wood
ORIGINAL: Riun T

That sounds fantastic Mike but will that tendency to fire fewer times to highten the chance of hit change or effect their ableity to spot or call more accurate Arrty corections??
RT
Riun T
Posts: 1848
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 4:22 pm

RE: Snipers

Post by Riun T »

Thanks again mike, your always so prompt at responding and would love to have a chance for a sit down talk in person sometime to give this more modern vet a chance to convay old yarns that could be scenarios. LIKE that best old soldier wild bill. RT
User avatar
Afrika Korps
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2002 6:05 pm
Location: Rhode Island

RE: Snipers

Post by Afrika Korps »

Nice...[:D]
DAK
User avatar
Korpraali V
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:52 am
Location: Finland

RE: Snipers

Post by Korpraali V »

Sounds very good!
Image
User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Snipers

Post by m10bob »

Mike....In combat, officers and NCO's do not wear their rank, so they would (normally) only be identifiable if they did something incredibly stupid, like "pointing", wearing binoculars,giving obvious orders,etc. Therefore, the thought of you going to the extent of making the computer respect the importance of an acquired target by rank, is IMHO not necessary.
(Must control myself..have urge to finally rid the world of all remf shake 'n bakes.. must control urge...).

I saw Flashfyre's comments on how he had changed the hit results, and I do appreciate those results, much better, from a historical standpoint.
The thought of using "snipers" to "suppress", as the "only" detriment, is just so "chutes and ladders"....
Mike, you changed the results of the small arms years ago, to the good, and I remember the flak you got from some..I supported you then, and nothing has changed.
(Before the changes, an initial burst of infantry fire would kill an entire squad(!)
Back then, snipers were never an issue, because the "realism" portrayed in the game had never reached the point it has at this time, to make the necessity as noticeable as it has become.
Image

User avatar
Gunter_Viezenz
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:00 pm

RE: Snipers

Post by Gunter_Viezenz »

Great success during enemy attacks since commanders can often be recognized and shot at long range due to their special clothing and gear such as belts crossed on chest, white camouflage in winter, etc.
http://www.snipersparadise.com/history/german.htm

I do not beleive I need to say more.
Gloo
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Chapelle-Guillaume
Contact:

RE: Snipers

Post by Gloo »

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

...Would require entirely new system separate from infantry combat. Could revisit issue, when working on code again, if idea popular...

Hello folks. Sorry if I seem to mess up with the mood but, if you're up with altering the program code, woudn't it be nicer to refine other aspects of this great game system first, rather than the snipers code? Such things like those we can play with in SP WW2? Possibilities like a reverse gear added to tanks; more varying terrain altitudes; altering the core units composition during campaigns; modifying the command structure at ease; recon planes (sorry to argue again on that one :) but imho it would make much more sense -regarding the tactical game aspect- than high altitude bombers...); and so on? What about working on the bugs list a little bit more? Or adding small features like efficient shortcuts to access the units list, or ending a turn replay? Don't get me wrong, I salute the efforts made by some still around working hard to improve this great game... for free! I'm really gratefull for that and hope it'll continue but I'd really enjoy to finally see the reunion of ideas that carried on both parallel paths SP WaW and WW2. It's really frustrating to see so many good ideas never mixed in a same pot... ! For players sake it would definitly be a must!!!
{:]]

"One ring to find them all..."
264rifle
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 7:19 pm

RE: Snipers

Post by 264rifle »

Gentlemen;
While comparing game snipers to real snipers DO NOT confuse WWII snipers rifles with modern sniper rifles (Vietnam and newer). The rifles themselves, the optics and the ammunition were all different.

1. The rifles: WWII; Most rifles were the standard military rifle, selected at the factory for better than average accuracy, some countries then "worked" them over. The British for instance improved the wood to metal fit or bedding, polished trigger parts for a lighter and more consistant release. Fitted a cheekpiece so shooters head and eye would align with scope better. Most other nations did similar things but not always.

1a. Modern rifles: Many nations fitted special heavy barrels to military or commercial actions. If wood stocks were used the actions were "bedded" using an epoxy resin compound (called glass bedding). this helped avoid changes in impact due to humidity changes. Triggers were modified and in some cases repaced with costom trigger units.
Russians built special rifle from ground up. Americans if not using commercial bolt rifles used the M-21, the name for the National Match M-14 when used by snipers. 7 changes from a regular M-14.

2 optics: WWII; Most nations used scopes of about 2.5 to 4 power. Some scopes did not have coated lenses (coatings increase light transmission through glass/air interfaces) or had single coatings. Front lenses were small in diameter which limited light gathering. Aiming marks or cross hairs were thick so they would be rugged. (Some target scopes of the time used spiderweb for crosshair material). Some scopes might not have been ajustable for windage and others might have needed a tool to ajust them. Not sure what scope was used in "Saving Private Ryan" Either a Lyman, Unertil or possabley a Fekker. I have exaples of all 3 in my collection. They were target scopes and while used on occasion they were not general issue.

2a Modern optics; Scope magnification increased, at least in western countries. Multi-coatings become commen allowing increased magnifiacation and High briteness sight picture. Aiming marks are etched on glass making them more rugged and allowing for MIL-DOT and other size/range finding reticules. Easily turned Knobs come into use. Some scopes even have "Ballistic Cams" installed. Turn knob to a range setting and scope applies correct elevation. Scopes also are more waterproof and fog resistant.

3 Ammunition: WWII; Most WWII snipers got regular ball ammo. If a particular production lot was known to perform above average maybe they could get some of that. Some wartime ammo was pretty poor stuff (from all countries) in regards to accuracy for sniper work. Bullet jacket concentricity, jacket wall thickness, bullet weight and air voids in lead filling are some problems in just the bullet.

3a Modern ammunition; Production tooling got better and supply was usually easier leading to special lots of ammo being supplied to snipers. Sometimes just selected lots of regular ammo or sometimes special lots using a different bullet and/or powder combination. Modern hunting ammo shoots better than some WWII match ammo. Modern match bullets are wonders of uniformity. U.S. Had at times regular ball, M118 special ball and M73 Match ammo (not usually ,at times, used for sniping because hollow point was against Geneva convetion).

hoping that this brings a little perspective on weapons capability.

Individual snipers running around with WWII radios is a topic for another day[;)]
User avatar
Puukkoo
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Seinäjoki, Finland

RE: Snipers

Post by Puukkoo »

Yes, I feel that snipers are modelled a bit different way than they should have. Using snipers to scout is unrealistic. Infantry squads should be able to detach one man to look on and if he survives, he should be able to return to the squad. The scout patrols are however better than nothing.

Yes, the modern snipers are more effective, or at least they have better equipment. Though anyone who knows how to use the rifle can become a sniper. Many snipers worked with only a little better weapon than the primary infantry rifle.
Don't be shocked, I AM funny.
User avatar
Gunter_Viezenz
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:00 pm

RE: Snipers

Post by Gunter_Viezenz »

19. Was it advisable to equip the sniper with a double telescope? What magnification did the double telescope have?

A. 6 x 30 enlargement was insufficient for longer distances. Later I had a 10 x 50 telescope which was satisfactory.

B. Double telescope was equally important as rifle. No further information.

C. Every sniper was equipped with a double telescope. This was useful and necessary. An enlargement of 6 x 30 was sufficient up to a range of about 500 meters.

Yes same site, same 3 men
A. Matthais Hetzenauer of Tyrol fought at the Eastern Front from 1943 to the end of the war, and with 345 certified hits is the most successful German sniper.

B. Sepp Allerberger of Salzburg fought at the Eastern Front from December 1942, to the end of the war, and with 257 certified hits is the second-best German sniper.

C. HelMut Wirnsberger of Styria fought at the Eastern Front from September 1942, to the end of the war and scored 64 certified hits (after being wounded he served for some time as instructor on a sniper training course).
User avatar
Korpraali V
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 6:52 am
Location: Finland

RE: Snipers

Post by Korpraali V »

The first one in every summaries - Simo Häyhä - had well over 500 registered kills during the Winter War (under 105 days that Winter War lasted - Häyhä was wounded week before the war ended). All of them with Mosin-Nagant m/28-30 rifle with no scope at all.
Image
264rifle
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 7:19 pm

RE: Snipers

Post by 264rifle »

Gunter: does double telescope mean binocular???
6x30 is usually short hand for 6 magnifaction and 30mm diameter front lens. Binoculars very useful for spotting targets and recon before firing.

Puukkoo: any very skilled (or talented) man could use normal service rifle out to 500-600yds. telescope allows for use in less than ideal light conditons. Accurized rifle really dosn't extend max range by a lot but would increase hit percentage at the longer ranges.
Are we talking about a good chance of hit or a 98% certainty? Very different.
All I was really trying to point out was that 1000 yd shots had a very low percentage of success in the WWII era due to equipment limits. So low that IMHO the game could safely ignore them. I am not saying it was never done just so seldom that again IMHO we shouldn't bother trying to mess with game engine to allow for it.
User avatar
Puukkoo
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Seinäjoki, Finland

RE: Snipers

Post by Puukkoo »

Terho: 542! (I think he's even still alive!)

I think in sniping important is also the occasion and not merely the excellence of the equipment. Using scope also makes the sniper to raise his head unnecessarily high and the sniper himself becomes exposed. Häyhä indeed hit one Russian sniper whose scope took a reflection from sunray and revealed his location.
Don't be shocked, I AM funny.
Gloo
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Chapelle-Guillaume
Contact:

RE: Snipers

Post by Gloo »

ORIGINAL: Puukkoo
...Using snipers to scout is unrealistic. Infantry squads should be able to detach one man...

YES! That would be a great improvement. Think about being able to use skirmishers like we did in the Battleground series (you did play these great games, for sure :o))! Scouting with snipers should be one of the top lines on the "Verbotten liste" when playing by e-mail (between "scouting with trucks" and "destroying my tigers").
{:]]

"One ring to find them all..."
User avatar
Sturmpionier
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 8:50 pm
Location: Jennings, FL, USA

RE: Snipers

Post by Sturmpionier »

When we talk snipers, the technical details sometimes overshadow the goal of producing the desired effect in the game. I like the idea of the sniper having a higher chance to hit leaders, they were trained to do that. Here is a thought for us to consider: I would like to see sniper fire (most of the time) have an inordinate suppressive affect on enemy units, especially when hit.

The reason for this is pretty obvious; squads take casualties in big engagements and keep fighting b/c they are taking casualties from an enemy w/ whom they are in contact. So it is sort of 'expected.' Sniper casualties are 'unexpected.' Watch the sniper scene Saving Private Ryan. Caparzo gets hit and what does the whole squad do? Find cover. Boom, a whole squad suppressed by one man. This lines up nicely w/ history. I read an account (I don't have it to hand but I'm sure the sniper experts will post the link) of German sniper in Normandy pinning down an entire US company for a couple of days, killing 7 (IIRC.)

This is not to say that snipers should always have this effect, as it would make for some goofy scenarios where snipers would make better MLR defenders than regular infantry squads. But, I think you all can understand my point.

"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash
Gloo
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Chapelle-Guillaume
Contact:

RE: Snipers

Post by Gloo »

ORIGINAL: Sturmpionier
I like the idea of the sniper having a higher chance to hit leaders...

I agree with that. That would greatly improve the usefulness of those units (but it would imply to reconsider the purchase price for it).
I would like to see sniper fire (most of the time) have an inordinate suppressive affect on enemy units...

Don't think that's a good idea...
The reason for this is pretty obvious (...) Sniper casualties are 'unexpected.' (...) I read an account (...) of German sniper in Normandy pinning down an entire US company

...and so what? What's the difference (in the game) between being suppressed by a single man or a dozen (or more)? Why should a squad incure more suppression in this case? They are shot at and take cover no matter who's firing at them and with what. I really don't get the point there. Of course (in real life) it's much more obvious that being shot from "nowhere" is far more depressing and scarry. But I don't think it would be better reflected in the game by increasing the suppression effects. It would be much more pertinent (imho) to dynamically modify the moral value for the unit being shot at than the suppression threshold. Would it be harder to code?
{:]]

"One ring to find them all..."
User avatar
FlashfyreSP
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
Location: Combat Information Center
Contact:

RE: Snipers

Post by FlashfyreSP »

(Copied from my post in the Arty Effectiveness thread):
The problem with the Sniper unit is that the game treats it like any other infantry unit; it has to 'pass' its Experience and Morale checks, and its To Hit chance is calculated the same as the regular grunts in the squad.

This unit needs to have its FC rating increased to the maximum, if for no other reason than to 'improve' its To Hit chance to something closer to that of a real sniper. Becasue the FC rating is directly applied to the To Hit chance, snipers with FCs of 5+ have To Hit chances of 40+% on their first shot. This is why snipers in the H2H version are so much better; that and their weapon has a higher accuracy and range.


Also, increasng the HE Kill factor of the sniper weapon greatly increases the chance of producing a casualty if a hit is achieved. In my personal US Army OOB, I have two units, the US Sniper Team and the Marksman, and two weapons, the M1903 Sniper and the M1903 w/Scope. The Sniper Team is a 2-man team with a FC of 10; the Marksman is a single-man unit with a FC of 5. The wepons are as follows:
M1903 Sniper:
Max Range 80 (20 hexes)
Accuracy 80 (20 hexes)
HE Kill 8

M1903 w/Scope:
Max Range 60 (15 hexes)
Accuracy 60 (15 hexes)
HE Kill 5

M1903 Rifle (base weapon for Rifle Squad):
Max Range 48 (12 hexes)
Accuracy 16 (4 hexes)
HE Kill 1

Keep in mind that the M1903 Rifle is a Prime Infantry class weapon and is carried by all members of the unit's crew. If all members (say 10 men) fire their weapon, this is treated as 10 'HE Kill 1' shots, which is more like 1 'HE Kill 10' shot; at least 1 or 2 casualties will result. Likewise, my M1903 w/Scope is a Prime Infantry weapon, and is carried by all members of the Marksman unit. However, that is only 1 man. An 'HE Kill 1' weapon has a much lower chance of causing a casualty; increasing the HE Kill increases this chance. On the other hand, my M1903 Sniper is a Secondary Infantry weapon; it is assumed to be carried by only 1 man. And the same issue applies here as to the M1903 w/Scope; the HE Kill factor must be increased in order to increase the chance of a casualty with each shot.

A recent test between these two sniper weapons went as follows:

Sniper Team: EXP 70, MOR 70, INF CMND 50
Marksman: EXP 70, MOR 70, INF CMND 50
Marksman(M1903 base rifle): EXP 70, MOR 70, INF CMND 50
Target: 3 GE Recon Patrols at 6 hexes

TURN 1
First shot - Sniper Team (FC 10)
Unmodified To Hit chance: 45%
Result: Hit, 1 casualty

First shot - Marksman (FC 5)
Unmodified To Hit chance: 51%
Result: Hit, 1 casualty

First shot - Marksman Basic (FC 0)
Unmodified To Hit chance: 11%
Result: Miss
---------------------------------
Second shot - Sniper Team (FC 10)
Unmodified To Hit chance: 45%
Result: Miss (target pinned)

Second shot - Marksman (FC 5)
Unmodified To Hit chance: 51%
Result: Miss (target pinned)

Second shot - Marksman Basic (FC 0)
Unmodified To Hit chance: 11%
Result: Hit, 1 casualty
---------------------------------
TURN 2
First shot - Sniper Team (FC 10)
Unmodified To Hit chance: 91%
Result: Miss (target pinned)

First shot - Marksman (FC 5)
Unmodified To Hit chance: 82%
Result: Miss (target pinned)

First shot - Marksman Basic (FC 0)
Unmodified To Hit chance: 18%
Result: Miss (target pinned)
---------------------------------
Second shot - Sniper Team (FC 10)
Unmodified To Hit chance: 94%
Result: Miss (target pinned)

Second shot - Marksman (FC 5)
Unmodified To Hit chance: 94%
Result: Miss (target pinned)

Second shot - Marksman Basic (FC 0)
Unmodified To Hit chance: 23%
Result: Miss (target pinned)
---------------------------------
Third shot - Sniper Team (FC 10)
Unmodified To Hit chance: 94%
Result: Miss (target pinned)

As can be seen, increasing the FC rating makes the sniper a better 'hitter', particularly on that all-important first shot, as does increasing the sniper weapon's Accuracy. Also, increasing the sniper weapon's HE Kill factor increases the sniper's 'lethality', resulting on more casualty shots.

To add to this: The main issue isn't what the role of the sniper is in the game, it's how to realistically portray that role. The main role of the sniper is to cause casualties in enemy units; this isn't happening now, using the base game OOB stats. The solution is to increase both the sniper weapon's HE Kill rating (making each 'hit' potentially more lethal) and the Sniper unit's FC rating (giving it a higher 'To Hit' percentage for each shot).

Think of the Sniper unit as a big-game hunter: He hides in a blind or tree-stand and waits for his prey to approach. He doesn't shoot until he has positively identified his target; he will not fire blindly into the brush at unknown sounds. He only shoots when he has a clear shot and is sure the shot will hit. And if he misses, he waits for his target to reappear; if it doesn't, he moves off to another hiding spot.

Someone said 'Look at the sniper scene in Saving Private Ryan'...I say remember the OTHER sniper scene from that movie; the one with the squad's marksman in the church bell-tower, firing at the appraoching German troops in the streets. Every shot a hit...compared to the regular grunts, who sometimes shot a half-dozen times at the enemy and failed to hit anyone. Now, of course that was a movie, and 'dramatized for your convienence', but the base effect is true; a sniper is a sniper by definition because he is an excellent shot, and hits what he aims at.
ImageImage
Post Reply

Return to “Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns”