Grenade Throwing Distance.

[TREVOR8]

Logged in a while ago and was playing around. One thing I immediately noticed is grenade throwing distance. Most of the Americans at least grew up playing baseball. During my time in the army I could throw a grenade at least double or triple what I saw the troop in game able to throw. I also did not see the grenade roll or bounce. Maybe I am doing it wrong in game. Also the BAR don't have a deployed position yet? 

[XOOM]

On 7/4/2021 at 3:10 AM, trevor8 said:

Logged in a while ago and was playing around. One thing I immediately noticed is grenade throwing distance. Most of the Americans at least grew up playing baseball. During my time in the army I could throw a grenade at least double or triple what I saw the troop in game able to throw. I also did not see the grenade roll or bounce. Maybe I am doing it wrong in game. Also the BAR don't have a deployed position yet? 

Pressing and holding the LMB helps extend the range. I do feel it might still be a bit "heavy" yet. 

BAR presently does not have that capability, I'll point these out to Stefan and get his thoughts.

[madrebel]

18 hours ago, XOOM said:

Pressing and holding the LMB helps extend the range. I do feel it might still be a bit "heavy" yet. 

BAR presently does not have that capability, I'll point these out to Stefan and get his thoughts.

Would be nice if this system gave some sort of visual 'estimate' as to where the grenade is going to go too.

IRL, if I pop my head over top of cover and I see the bad guys roughly 20 yards over there, with little more than sight alone I'm going to throw a grenade that will land 'close'. I don't need to charge up my throw, I don't need to guess, I just know how hard I need to throw and that is that.

Games lack muscle memory and a host of feedback loops that the brain/body have IRL. usually the argument is "i dont want 'fake' cross hairs or indicators cause its more realistic without them" but then we get wonky/clunky systems like this that just never feel right.

Example, in game my rifleman has his back to the wall and a window is open to my left and I need to put a grenade in said window. You realize how trivial this would be IRL vs in game?

[jwilly]

In real life you'd even cook it for two seconds. And, you could consciously choose whether to drop it over the window ledge, or throw it into the room so it'd bounce off the far wall.

Crosshairs wouldn't do either of those...so that approach isn't a too-easy solution, it's a not-good-enough one.

[madrebel]

22 minutes ago, jwilly said:

 

Crosshairs wouldn't do either of those...so that approach isn't a too-easy solution, it's a not-good-enough one.

agreed my point was anything 'visual', like crosshairs, is instantly crapped on in this community from the die hard (fake) realism crowd when in fact visual systems can work far more realistically than the (fake) realism we currently have in some places.

[XOOM]

1 hour ago, madrebel said:

Would be nice if this system gave some sort of visual 'estimate' as to where the grenade is going to go too.

IRL, if I pop my head over top of cover and I see the bad guys roughly 20 yards over there, with little more than sight alone I'm going to throw a grenade that will land 'close'. I don't need to charge up my throw, I don't need to guess, I just know how hard I need to throw and that is that.

Games lack muscle memory and a host of feedback loops that the brain/body have IRL. usually the argument is "i dont want 'fake' cross hairs or indicators cause its more realistic without them" but then we get wonky/clunky systems like this that just never feel right.

Example, in game my rifleman has his back to the wall and a window is open to my left and I need to put a grenade in said window. You realize how trivial this would be IRL vs in game?

This sounds very Rapid Assault like... very anti-realism. Don't like it. Maybe we could do something with the hands to give it some sort of depth in the measurement but no gimmicky visual indicators on the screen.

[jwilly]

In real life, the more rocks or baseballs or hand grenades you throw, the more accurate you get with them.

And, you throw where you're looking. That's fundamental...the brain figures out what the muscles need to do based on the target indicated by the eyes, and experience.

What if an infantry character had a stat for number of grenades thrown since last death, and a way of indicating where he wants the grenade to land, before roll/bounce; and the more grenades he's thrown the more accurate he becomes?

I'm thinking a transparent colored ellipse on screen, centered where he's looking when he throws. The ellipse gets bigger as the throw distance increases, and smaller with experience. The grenade lands at a random location in that ellipse, then rolls/bounces depending on terrain.

As the infantryman in grenade mode looks at an obstacle he can't see through, and sweeps his vision upward slightly to look at an increasing-distance aim point, the ellipse moves away from him until it disappears behind the obstacle. His throw automatically arches upward...the grenade is a ballistic object...and if the ellipse is behind a wall or other cover, the grenade will land in that ellipse...unless it hits something on the way. It's up to the thrower to determine if his ballistic throw-path will hit something before it gets to the target.

Throws are most accurate when standing. Any other position...particularly prone...has less maximum range and less accuracy.

At night, when infantry shouldn't be able to see worth a darn, the ellipses should become very large.

Maybe a seperate throw-mode could provide for short range lobs...just over a wall, sidearm through a window without exposing one's body, standing alongside a tank or APC/truck and tossing a grenade or other object onto the engine deck or into the crew/troop compartment.

[TREVOR8]

IIRC its been historically documented especially among the American units, the old HS baseball pitcher was a dead shot with the hand grenades. There is a reason the US made them shaped like a baseball. 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2021 by trevor8

[greyman]

On 7/4/2021 at 5:10 AM, trevor8 said:

Logged in a while ago and was playing around. One thing I immediately noticed is grenade throwing distance. Most of the Americans at least grew up playing baseball. During my time in the army I could throw a grenade at least double or triple what I saw the troop in game able to throw. I also did not see the grenade roll or bounce. Maybe I am doing it wrong in game. Also the BAR don't have a deployed position yet? 

I did some quick testing and I was getting about 40 metres (45 yards).

re: the US Army Field Manual on Grenades (1942) ...

35 yards is considered a good range after the first 100 grenades have been thrown at an average rate of 30 to 40 grenades a day for 3 or more days. A 50-yard range is above average.

This agrees fairly well with British grenade testing, where the average max. range throw of the No.36 grenade (thrown 'overarm' manner) was 35 yards, and the average max. range of the No.70 grenade (thrown 'cricket ball' manner) was 45 yards.

British No.36 -- 1.7 lb
British No.70 -- 1.0 lb
US Mk.II -- 1.25 lb
Modern M67 -- 0.9 lb

[TREVOR8]

On 7/28/2021 at 5:06 AM, greyman said:

I did some quick testing and I was getting about 40 metres (45 yards).

re: the US Army Field Manual on Grenades (1942) ...

35 yards is considered a good range after the first 100 grenades have been thrown at an average rate of 30 to 40 grenades a day for 3 or more days. A 50-yard range is above average.

This agrees fairly well with British grenade testing, where the average max. range throw of the No.36 grenade (thrown 'overarm' manner) was 35 yards, and the average max. range of the No.70 grenade (thrown 'cricket ball' manner) was 45 yards.

British No.36 -- 1.7 lb
British No.70 -- 1.0 lb
US Mk.II -- 1.25 lb
Modern M67 -- 0.9 lb

Yeah that sounds about right. 45 yards would be a hell of a throw. Could be my observed distance on the screen looked shorter than it was. 

[jon8798]

On 7/19/2021 at 7:53 PM, XOOM said:

This sounds very Rapid Assault like... very anti-realism. Don't like it. Maybe we could do something with the hands to give it some sort of depth in the measurement but no gimmicky visual indicators on the screen.

I dunno man, RA was ok. Like everyone says, not having any idea where the grenade is going to go is anti-realism too. You just end up with people who practice and practice and understand the vagaries of the system being super accurate. I tried to throw one over a 3ft stone wall this evening when I was lying 6ft away. It hit the wall and went off next to me. Not ideal. I may be out of shape nowadays, but I'd still back myself to be able to clear that with a real grenade...

[usaf77]

I like the nade throwing part of the game. Im not that good at it but getting better, Ive been practicing. Its probably the most underused asset in the game.

[jwilly]

On 7/19/2021 at 2:53 PM, XOOM said:

This sounds very Rapid Assault like... very anti-realism. Don't like it. Maybe we could do something with the hands to give it some sort of depth in the measurement but no gimmicky visual indicators on the screen.

Yeah, I disagree with Xoom's perspective too. He's got it backwards.

I don't care about RA...that's the distant past...but no one can reasonably argue that what we have now is even vaguely realistic. In real life, you look at where you want it to go, and your brain and body automatically do the needed throw-technique and effort to get it there...with your experience and skill level determining how close you get.

[madrebel]

On 7/19/2021 at 11:53 AM, XOOM said:

This sounds very Rapid Assault like... very anti-realism. Don't like it. Maybe we could do something with the hands to give it some sort of depth in the measurement but no gimmicky visual indicators on the screen.

This game’s attempts at ‘realism’ are significantly worse than crosshairs or any other visual feedback system as it pertains to infantry. 
 

most ‘realistic’ shooters are less realistic than not because they fail to account for the lack of many things. Most importantly though, the 2d flat view port. 
 

Tell me Xoom, how do I focus on the front site post in game? This is absolutely the most fundamental aspect of iron sight marksmanship and it literally cannot be accomplished the way eyes realistically accomplish this task. 
 

this game’s infantry play isn’t realistic. It is someone’s interpretation of what they feel realism is. Honestly its a religious belief system about how games ‘should be’ yet the actual market for these realistic shooters has never been that large. 
 

i hope im wrong but i fear if you insist on clinging to these dogmas we’ll never grow. 

[XOOM]

Just so I understand, you guys are actually advocating for that glowing thing which makes your grenades almost dead accurate every time? We're talking about a translucent beam in front of you?

Color me a bit shocked here. I wonder if we put that into the game if you guys would actually enjoy getting naded accurately - every time - by your opponent.

[XOOM]

In other news, Grenade Throwing Distance has been largely amped up for Chokepoint. Should be a bit better now. 

[madrebel]

15 minutes ago, XOOM said:

Just so I understand, you guys are actually advocating for that glowing thing which makes your grenades almost dead accurate every time? We're talking about a translucent beam in front of you?

Color me a bit shocked here. I wonder if we put that into the game if you guys would actually enjoy getting naded accurately - every time - by your opponent.

I don’t think anyone is advocating for anything specific but irl grenades are thrown within 25 yards and the accuracy for anyone whos gone through boot camp is going to be ‘deadly’. 
 

to me its the clunky nature of tossing nades at close range that is the largest problem. Things like my back to the wall next to windows example. Irl, you just side hand toss it in the window exposing next to zero of your body. Granted there is the wood wall vs stone/masonry contextual argument that is valid but we dont have that to worry about yet … I digress. The throw system is clunky, i dont know exactly how to fix it but yes, im fine with some sort of visual representation perhaps with some cone of fire so it is close but not perfect everytime along with some sort of short range alternative for tossing into windows. 
 

remember saving private ryan, the last scene right before the jewish American soldier gets a knife in his chest he and another guy are laying down mg fire and a german soldier somply and easily tosses in a stick nade? Remember that? You cant toss a nade like that in game. There is zero finesse with the nade throwing. 
 

there are plenty of other things that irl are trivial,like accurate (man sized target accurate) hip and or shoulder but not aimed fire from a rifle inside 25 yards, that are ultra clunky in ww2ol for no reason other than at some point someone decided ‘realism’ in video games means no crosshairs. Its super easy to hit a man sized target without iron sights inside 25 yards either from the hip or just shouldered but not aimed. 

Perhaps it may be best to define what realism is in your opinion though, and if you’ve considered how that translates to a video game that lacks so much from the real world. 

[TREVOR8]

56 minutes ago, madrebel said:

I don’t think anyone is advocating for anything specific but irl grenades are thrown within 25 yards and the accuracy for anyone whos gone through boot camp is going to be ‘deadly’. 
 

to me its the clunky nature of tossing nades at close range that is the largest problem. Things like my back to the wall next to windows example. Irl, you just side hand toss it in the window exposing next to zero of your body. Granted there is the wood wall vs stone/masonry contextual argument that is valid but we dont have that to worry about yet … I digress. The throw system is clunky, i dont know exactly how to fix it but yes, im fine with some sort of visual representation perhaps with some cone of fire so it is close but not perfect everytime along with some sort of short range alternative for tossing into windows. 
 

remember saving private ryan, the last scene right before the jewish American soldier gets a knife in his chest he and another guy are laying down mg fire and a german soldier somply and easily tosses in a stick nade? Remember that? You cant toss a nade like that in game. There is zero finesse with the nade throwing. 
 

there are plenty of other things that irl are trivial,like accurate (man sized target accurate) hip and or shoulder but not aimed fire from a rifle inside 25 yards, that are ultra clunky in ww2ol for no reason other than at some point someone decided ‘realism’ in video games means no crosshairs. Its super easy to hit a man sized target without iron sights inside 25 yards either from the hip or just shouldered but not aimed. 

Perhaps it may be best to define what realism is in your opinion though, and if you’ve considered how that translates to a video game that lacks so much from the real world. 

It should not be 100% accurate...and it should be tied into how many you have thrown. A baseball player or football player is prob gonna be better than someone who never has thrown one. If it could get more accurate the more you throw that would be cool. Less accurate the further out. Tossing one into a door or window you are up against should be as easy as pie unless you are under fire or shaking from the stress etc. 

[jwilly]

1 hour ago, XOOM said:

Just so I understand, you guys are actually advocating for that glowing thing which makes your grenades almost dead accurate every time? We're talking about a translucent beam in front of you?

I assume you aren't including me in that response, since I proposed a system very different from a "beam" and "dead accurate":

In real life, the more rocks or baseballs or hand grenades you throw, the more accurate you get with them.

And, you throw where you're looking. That's fundamental...the brain figures out what the muscles need to do based on the target indicated by the eyes, and experience.

What if an infantry character had a stat for number of grenades thrown since last death, and a way of indicating where he wants the grenade to land, before roll/bounce; and the more grenades he's thrown the more accurate he becomes?

I'm thinking a transparent colored ellipse on screen, centered where he's looking when he throws. The ellipse gets bigger as the throw distance increases, and smaller with experience. The grenade lands at a random location in that ellipse, then rolls/bounces depending on terrain.

As the infantryman in grenade mode looks at an obstacle he can't see through, and sweeps his vision upward slightly to look at an increasing-distance aim point, the ellipse moves away from him until it disappears behind the obstacle. His throw automatically arches upward...the grenade is a ballistic object...and if the ellipse is behind a wall or other cover, the grenade will land in that ellipse...unless it hits something on the way. It's up to the thrower to determine if his ballistic throw-path will hit something before it gets to the target.

Throws are most accurate when standing. Any other position...particularly prone...has less maximum range and less accuracy.

At night, when infantry shouldn't be able to see worth a darn, the ellipses should become very large.

Maybe a seperate throw-mode could provide for short range lobs...just over a wall, sidearm through a window without exposing one's body, standing alongside a tank or APC/truck and tossing a grenade or other object onto the engine deck or into the crew/troop compartment.

Quote

Color me a bit shocked here. I wonder if we put that into the game if you guys would actually enjoy getting naded accurately - every time - by your opponent.

Some of us would enjoy CRS not designing-in intentional combat unrealism.

Realistic accuracy...not more accuracy than in real life, and not less either...is a good goal.

 

[madrebel]

8 hours ago, TREVOR8 said:

and it should be tied into how many you have thrown.

In reality, soldiers in ww2 underwent training before combat. They all had a base level of proficiency.

or is that not the assumption? Tying in game accuracy to number of nades thrown will create a grind mechanic where people will just spawn in and throw grenades until they ‘level up’. 

[jwilly]

I'd assume that the baseline accuracy would be that combat-infantryman-training level of proficiency. Real soldiers do get better at their craft as they become experienced, so that should happen in-game too...based on number of throws since last death.

 

[jon8798]

C'mon Xoom, it doesn't need to be a choice between the terrible "who knows where it will go" system as it is or some kind of "lazer nades" system. At 20m, I can't reliably throw a grenade through a 1m square window, but I can definitely land it within a couple of meters of someone. Let me see an outline circle/oval for where I'm aiming and have it go somewhere in there 95% of the time (the circle can be quite big) with the other 5% being for when I fumble it in some way.

[fidd]

I think we're conflating two different texhniques: For a distance overarm "throw" (such as a baseball pitch) you'll get range but poor accuracy. Conversely, for accuracy at medium to long range, a cricket-style bowling acttion is used. It is more accurate because the trajectory at range is vertically downwards, and there's no inclination for it to bounce or roll, as occurs with a thrown grenade. At very short range, a throwing action produces accuracy when "posting" the grenade through an aperture.

So, what's needed is a very short range "spot" showing where you can reliably "post" a grenade, but thereafter 2 possible techniques for the longer throw/lob with differeing range and accuracy.

[madrebel]

1 hour ago, fidd said:

For a distance overarm "throw" (such as a baseball pitch) you'll get range but poor accuracy.

Says who? These are grenades we're talking about. lethal range for a grenade is like 3.5 meters. you're suggesting that soldiers who've been through basic training can't overhand throw a grenade that lands within 15 feet of the intended target?

 

1 hour ago, fidd said:

but thereafter 2 possible techniques for the longer throw/lob with differeing range and accuracy

too complicated. regular throw and shift throw is about all you can ask from designers on the backend and players on the front end.

[fidd]

1 hour ago, madrebel said:

Says who? These are grenades we're talking about. lethal range for a grenade is like 3.5 meters. you're suggesting that soldiers who've been through basic training can't overhand throw a grenade that lands within 15 feet of the intended target?

 

too complicated. regular throw and shift throw is about all you can ask from designers on the backend and players on the front end.

Too clarify, a grade thrown in the manner of a baseball pitcher is thrown with a much flatter faster trajectory, to that of a lobbed grenade. The former strikes the ground at some speed, may roll or bounce eccentrically, It therefore. at the full range of the throw, cannot be threwn accurately in terms of where it comes to a halt. A lobbed grade, by comparison is both accurate and not inclined to roll, albeit it does not have the range of a "pitched" one. It neverthless can be lobbed a fair distance. It is the accuracy of this lobbing technique which forms the basis of British Army infantry training for grenades, to this day. 

My second point was that this technique is not used for "posting" a grenade at relatively short range, through an aperture such as a firing slit in a pill-box, or through a window in street-fighting, because in both those particular situations, the flat fast throw (pitch) is of greater importance than the behaviour of the grenade after landing, and is obviously, at very short range, more accurate.

Hence, imho it would be okay to have a mark on screen showing the point at which a grenade thrown by "pitch" would go through such an aperture - but have that mark disappear one the range is greater than 5-10 yards or so. Consequently, what's really needed is:

Short range flat throw

Medium to long range pitch with flat trajectory - and possible roll beyond, or falling short, of the target, and possible eccentric bounces to side

Medium to long range lob with parabolic trajectory of 90% range of pitched grenade, with better accuracy in both y and y axes.

For axis stick grenades, I'd suggest having them operate as lobbed grenades without eccentric bounces. (the rolling characteristics being to prevent much error beyond a yard diameter or so, after landing) They have greater range than a regular Mills bomb, but perhaps a little less accuracy perhaps. If we're modelling grenades properly, then the lethal radius of the two are completely different, as are the doctrines for their use; the stick grenade being an assault grenade, the Mills bomb (and the like) being primarily a defensive grenade, or an offensive one - with the risk of friendly fire from shrapnel. (IIRC there are recorded instances of the filler-cap killing 400 yards from grenade impact). By contrast you could be pretty close to a detonating stick-grenade and be of only slight risk from shrapnel, it's effect being predominantly blast. A much safer bet if lots of your mates are nearby when you chuck one! The same is not true of the Mills bomb.