PDA

View Full Version : Why cover saves are better.



willydstyle
08-09-2008, 14:30
I've been seeing a LOT of comments on threads regarding cover to-hit modifiers as being "more realistic" or in other ways "better" than the current system of cover saves.

There are several problems with this reasoning.

The first is that the ruleset does not attempt to simulate real combat, but to create a statistical representation of combat.

For instance in the game an auto-rifle (40k version of a modern assault rifle) fired by a human at a human has a 50% chance to hit, then a 50% chance to "wound." This gives each shot a 25% chance to "kill" the target.

In the real world each shot has a much smaller "chance" to hit the target in combat, but the factors which affect the accuracy are much to varied to be accurately simulated in any game. On the other end, when a round does find its target, it is almost invariably immediately incapacitating, though less commonly immediately lethal as well. Ballistic wound effects are again much too complicated to be "realistically" simulated by a game.

Given that the game cannot be realistic, it stylizes combat. Part of the goal for this stylized combat system is that it is important for the game designers to be able to easily tweak the statistics in order to attempt to achieve balance.

Giving cover a "saving throw" means that the designers can simply add in another %. This cover means 50% of shots are ineffective, this cover saves 33% of shots are ineffective, etc. Granted this is more beneficial for lightly armored troops, it means that the statistical bonus granted by the cover is statistically the same regardless of the skill of the firer.

Using a to-hit modifier means that the % of shots that are ineffective is based on the BS of the firer, rather than on the protection of the cover. Let me explain. Lets say there's some squats hiding behind a fortified wall. Nobody likes squats, so we have some Orks and some Space Marines shooting at them.

If the firers receive a to-hit modifier of -2, the space marines drop from a 3+(66%) hit chance to a 5+(33%). The cover protects the squats from half the shots.

The Orks drop from a 5+(33%) to a 7+ (a 6 followed by a 4+, or about 8%) and the cover protects the squats from 3/4 of the orks' shots.

A 50% cover save is not statistically skewed in favor of either firer, and so is more "balanced."

Master Stark
08-09-2008, 14:39
Cover saves fail to take into account that they offer protection from incoming fire because the rounds fail to impact the target.

As a result, it offers differing levels of protection to different models, based on their armour save.

Cover that would give a Guardsman a 4+ save from incoming bolter fire, will not be of any benefit to a Marine or a Firewarrior.

This is wrong.

willydstyle
08-09-2008, 14:46
Well, lets compare powered armour and trees. Loota boys are shooting at guardsmen and space marines in a forest. The Guardsmen duck and hide as the loota shells shred the trees around them, but offer some concealment. The space marines know that the trees are being destroyed by the heavy weapons fire, but their ceramite and plasteel armour is stonger than the trees and will protect them.

You can't accurately simulate "real" situations in the game.

Master Stark
08-09-2008, 14:49
Well, lets compare powered armour and trees. Loota boys are shooting at guardsmen and space marines in a forest. The Guardsmen duck and hide as the loota shells shred the trees around them, but offer some concealment. The space marines know that the trees are being destroyed by the heavy weapons fire, but their ceramite and plasteel armour is stonger than the trees and will protect them.

So the guardsmen can hide behind the trees, and thus take less incoming fire, but the marines can't?

Well thats just brilliant game design...

MajorWesJanson
08-09-2008, 14:55
Marines and units simply choose not to take the cover, as their armor is far more protection than a few piddly trees. Orks and guardsmen are not so well armored, so its best to take cover and hope not to get hit.

Vaktathi
08-09-2008, 15:02
A 50% cover save is not statistically skewed in favor of either firer, and so is more "balanced."

This is exactly where you are wrong.

a 50% cover save is vastly skewed in favor of the unit with the lower armor save. a 4+ cover save *doubles* the life expectancy of orks to any shooting attacks. The 4+ cover save has no meaning to the Space Marine against most shooting attacks, only those with AP3 and AP2 values.


So when I rapid fire 20 bolters into those orks with a -1BS modifier for shooting through another unit, I'm killing 33% more than I am with a 4+ cover save, while those orks shooting back are killing far fewer space marines with the BS modifier than the 4+ cover save that the Space Marines see no benefit from (unless its a tankbusta squad, but thats a different story)

The 4+ cover save means that high and mid AP weapons (mutlilasers, heavy bolters, boltguns, scatterlasers) are now disproportionatley less effective against poorly armored troops, but still just as effective as ever against more armored troops.




If the firers receive a to-hit modifier of -2, the space marines drop from a 3+(66%) hit chance to a 5+(33%). The cover protects the squats from half the shots.

The Orks drop from a 5+(33%) to a 7+ (a 6 followed by a 4+, or about 8%) and the cover protects the squats from 3/4 of the orks' shots. That is exactly what being a more accurate firing platform is all about however.

Also, the most likely solution would have simply been -1 or -2 to a minimum of BS1, capping minimum to-hit at 16.6%, showing a much more equal distribution than the example above as well.

Rob'
08-09-2008, 15:02
well, it's more like "i don't care" than "i can't", but strangely the marine shot by a plasma shot will have had the good idea of hiding behind the tree.

The tree, by the way, will have 50% chance of protecting anybody, while a terminator armour can't. I say all guardsmen should have armour made of wood

Colonial Rifle
08-09-2008, 15:05
Ehh? That's some serious double think there. Shouldn't they both be diving for cover to mitigate the chance of being hit?

Regardless, the cover-save spam we see in 5th has effectively reduced tactics in the game. For example, I was assaulting a fortified Necron position with my BA jumpackers the other day. Despite having brought a rhino for extra cover and there being some substantial trees on the way in, it dawned on me that it didn't make ANY DIFFERENCE which way I went in - I might as well walked across an open field. Under 4th, there definately would have been more skill involved.

Gorbad Ironclaw
08-09-2008, 15:06
But that is really missing the point. A lot of cover won't actually protect you from fire, it will however shield/conceal you from sight, so the enemy have a harder time hitting you. And that aspect doesn't come into it with high armour troops very often.

As for saying that each shot have a 25% chance of killing a human, that is IMO the wrong perspective. A model shooting once doesn't mean it shoot once. It's abstracted so it would be more accurate to say it put out an index value of 100 firepower. A heavy bolter just put out a value of 300, etc.
It represent the 'effect' of the model shooting, not how many shots it literally take.

Faustburg
08-09-2008, 15:23
It was a completely deliberate design when going from 2nd to 3rd edition, 10 years ago now, go find the designers notes in WD back in late 1998...

In 2nd Edition, moving was suicide, you only had four turns in a game, so you only had one chance to get into assault, really, and with overwatch fire, vehicles being death-traps when easily blown up, and armour in general not being more than the happy bonus once in a while if you were shot at (armour save modifiers... even a lasgun reduced powerarmour to 4+, the basic shuricen catapult fired up to 3 shots at -2 save, at 24" range, assualtcannons was the eqivalent of up to 9 Krak missiles really, and so on...) unless it was 3+ on 2d6, shooting ruled supreme.

Squads parked themselves in -2 'to hit' Hard cover and close combat was only done by Genestealer squads and the occasional teleporting or hawkwinged charachter doing surgical strikes.

It had become a dull game, the shift in how cover (along with a lot of other things) made it much better.

As MajorWesJanson said, Marines are not meant to skulk in cover, they are meant to advance and lay the smacketh down upon the Emperors enemies.

Bunnahabhain
08-09-2008, 15:26
To make cover saves work equally, all you need to do is remove one line from the rules.

The bit preventing saves stacking.

If a marine get both the cover save and his normal armour save against a heavy bolter, it is of just as much benefit to him as the same cover is to the guardsman, who has no normal save vs the same fire.

I'm not saying this is a good idea, given how much it would effectively boost all 3 and 2+ saves, but it's how to make cover saves equally useful for all.

MordrekDaMean
08-09-2008, 17:29
My regulars and myself have just been experimenting with having the Cover Save stack. We changed the cover save to 5+ and we take it after hits are rolled but before wounds are rolled. AP effects the target as normal unless they have an invulnerable save. So far its worked fine... true, cover is that much better, but we like it like that.

StormKnight
08-09-2008, 17:45
From a thematic sense, I image that the heavier armors can deflect conventional fire with minimal effect on anything but a weak point. So, when shooting at a Space Marine, you're aiming at a small weak point (and having a hard time hitting it - thus losing about 2/3 or your good shots). The Space Marines gets halfway behind a tree...and you don't care, because you weren't aiming at that half of the marine anyway.


So far its worked fine...
So long as you realize that 'worked fine' includes making high armor models drastically better (and its not like they are bad to begin with!)

Jos
08-09-2008, 17:49
So the guardsmen can hide behind the trees, and thus take less incoming fire, but the marines can't?

Well thats just brilliant game design...

Well, yes! It makes for a more strategical/whatnot (point beiong better) game. In order for the Meq armies to have their wonderful saves and still be at a relatively low point cost somethins have to be scaled of (and still you may argue they're the strongest army) to balance the game.

I agree with OP' thesis but not the stement that the game aims at simulating combat statistics. The Game Aims At Making A Well Balanced Game! Realism should not be mixed up with either fluff or rules.

Ubermensch Commander
08-09-2008, 18:00
*shrug* I have no problem with the rules as is(since I find it satisfies the most important rule: it is fun) and if they changed it to lowering to hit I would probably be ok with that as well, though I would have to actually play it out to make a comprehensive judgement of "to hit modifier" vs "Cover Save".

@ Faustburg
Interesting point about 2nd edition! I came into WH40K JUST as it was switching to third and the 2-3 almost games i played in second hardly count since I am CERTAIN us young 'uns were not reading the rules right. But i do remember one thing from that era....CURSE YOU OVERWATCH!!!...course that was in Necronmunda I think. Break from cover....die by heavy stubber.

Patriarch
08-09-2008, 18:24
I've been seeing a LOT of comments on threads regarding cover to-hit modifiers as being "more realistic" or in other ways "better" than the current system of cover saves.

There are several problems with this reasoning.

The first is that the ruleset does not attempt to simulate real combat, but to create a statistical representation of combat.

For instance in the game an auto-rifle (40k version of a modern assault rifle) fired by a human at a human has a 50% chance to hit, then a 50% chance to "wound." This gives each shot a 25% chance to "kill" the target.

In the real world each shot has a much smaller "chance" to hit the target in combat, but the factors which affect the accuracy are much to varied to be accurately simulated in any game. On the other end, when a round does find its target, it is almost invariably immediately incapacitating, though less commonly immediately lethal as well. Ballistic wound effects are again much too complicated to be "realistically" simulated by a game.


Bearing in mind that a model losing its last wound in 40k isn't necessarily dead, it may just be incapacitated as per your real-world example. Models with 3 wounds don't necessarily have 3 hearts, they are assumed to be able to shrug off the injuries which would incapacitate lesser mortals.


Giving cover a "saving throw" means that the designers can simply add in another %. This cover means 50% of shots are ineffective, this cover saves 33% of shots are ineffective, etc. Granted this is more beneficial for lightly armored troops, it means that the statistical bonus granted by the cover is statistically the same regardless of the skill of the firer.

Using a to-hit modifier means that the % of shots that are ineffective is based on the BS of the firer, rather than on the protection of the cover. Let me explain. Lets say there's some squats hiding behind a fortified wall. Nobody likes squats, so we have some Orks and some Space Marines shooting at them.

If the firers receive a to-hit modifier of -2, the space marines drop from a 3+(66%) hit chance to a 5+(33%). The cover protects the squats from half the shots.

The Orks drop from a 5+(33%) to a 7+ (a 6 followed by a 4+, or about 8%) and the cover protects the squats from 3/4 of the orks' shots.

A 50% cover save is not statistically skewed in favor of either firer, and so is more "balanced."
Doesn't it depend on the protection the cover offers. Sure, if I crouch behind a 6" steel plate, it doesn't matter too much who is shooting at me if their bullets can't penetrate. However, it does make a difference if I hide behind plywood. The effect of cover here represents the firer not knowing precisely where I am; in this case a high BS represents the intelligence/anticipation/patience (in battlefield conditions) of the shooter in waiting for me to pop up for a look round and taking a shot at me, or guessing correctly where I am behind the plywood - i.e., his BS. To a degree this applies to the steel plate as well. An Ork is going to be really poor at this, given he can't usually hit in ideal circumstances.

Raxmei
08-09-2008, 18:43
Switching from cover saves to BS modifiers would affect armies unevenly to the relative advantage of those with good BS and armor. Making the switch without handing a massive advantage to Space Marines would require a lot of rebalancing. Not to say it's a bad idea, it'd just take a lot more work beyond rewriting the cover rules.

Sajuuk
08-09-2008, 18:58
I'm behind Bunnahabhain.

Sure, this game like the others can't simulate real combat. But have to be at least close to logic and equal. Nobody will bamboozle me that a marine on open field should be as easy to shoot down as one behind a three or a wall. Anyone?

As Bunnahabhain said. Unstack cover saves and we are closer to what I see is more balanced. Sure, it will make hard plated guys even better, but it how the things are.

Modern soldiers even in spectra and so on (whatever they use now) hide behind anything they can get. Why? Because they use absolutely everything that can make them least longer. Whats more, they are trained at taking cover better than regular troopers. Astertes I suppose are not exception. Their armor is not 100%

EDIT: the only reason I see why covers saves are as they are now is not many ideas to make shooting better. Making c.saves better favorite CC oriented army.

Templar Ben
08-09-2008, 18:59
The LotR "In the Way" rule works better.

To me a better way of handling the relative protective power of cover would be to divide the S of the attack by 2. For each fraction of that in inches the shot traverses you make one "In the Way" check.

For instance you are behind 4" of cover. The lasgun has to make 2 checks (25% chance of the hit connecting) while a lascannon has to make 1 check (50% chance of the hit connecting). Then again that is a topic for another thread.

Othiem
08-09-2008, 19:07
So the guardsmen can hide behind the trees, and thus take less incoming fire, but the marines can't?

Well thats just brilliant game design...

So the human size guardsman in camos and a flack jacket can hide behind trees, but the 8 foot tall superhuman in hulking power armor can't? Actually yeah, that makes a great deal of sense to me.

In the context of how shooting works in 40k, I think the cover save system is pretty good. It provides a much needed buff to weaker units, while not making hard to kill units like marines or terminators any stronger than they already are.

Dictator
08-09-2008, 19:10
This thread is wrong. Simple.
Cover saves help poorly armored units from most projectiles, while cover saves only help heavily armored units from extremely powerful projectiles. It is a balance thing, not necessarily a real world thing.

Cartographer
08-09-2008, 19:27
So the human size guardsman in camos and a flack jacket can hide behind trees, but the 8 foot tall superhuman in hulking power armor can't? Actually yeah, that makes a great deal of sense to me.

/glib reply
Except the 8 foot tall superhuman in hulking power armour actually *can* hide behind trees if he wants too, especially if plasma weaponry or melta weaponry is pointed his way, how come he can't when regular weaponry is pointed his way?
/glib reply off

Seriously though, it's mostly covered in the points cost of the armies. GW assume you have 25% of the available table covered with terrain which should for the most part grant cover saves (of one sort or another), and the armies are "balanced" (and I use the term loosely) with that in mind (amongst other things).

xragg
08-09-2008, 19:57
The first is that the ruleset does not attempt to simulate real combat, but to create a statistical representation of combat.

For instance in the game an auto-rifle (40k version of a modern assault rifle) fired by a human at a human has a 50% chance to hit, then a 50% chance to "wound." This gives each shot a 25% chance to "kill" the target.

In the real world each shot has a much smaller "chance" to hit the target in combat, but the factors which affect the accuracy are much to varied to be accurately simulated in any game. On the other end, when a round does find its target, it is almost invariably immediately incapacitating, though less commonly immediately lethal as well. Ballistic wound effects are again much too complicated to be "realistically" simulated by a game.



Just like most roleplaying and minature games, 1 shot doesnt necessarily mean 1 shot in "real world" terms. When a marine shots 1 shot, it can easily represent a short burst of 3-5 shots. Of that burst, only 1 shot realistically had a chance to harm the target (which is rolled to hit/wound).

A model may have 1 or 2 close combat attacks, but it "real world" terms, he is actually making several attacks and blocks. Of all the fighting, only 1 or 2 of the attacks have potential to actually wound an enemy.

You cant make straight comparisons of real world and game mechanics. Look at a MG and how many rounds they can fire, do you really think its only 3 shots like a heavy bolter or whatever gun you want to compare it to? Yet, a MG can be wildly inaccurate when fired quickly, which can be represented as 3 potentially "good" shots.

willydstyle
09-09-2008, 07:19
You cant make straight comparisons of real world and game mechanics.



That was basically the point that I was trying to make. Since game mechanics cannot actually simulate real world combat, the mechanics to adjudicate the effects of cover must be a balance decision rather than a "realism" decision, and the cover save is the more balanced of the choice between cover saves and to-hit modifiers.

Vaktathi
09-09-2008, 07:24
That was basically the point that I was trying to make. Since game mechanics cannot actually simulate real world combat, the mechanics to adjudicate the effects of cover must be a balance decision rather than a "realism" decision, and the cover save is the more balanced of the choice between cover saves and to-hit modifiers.

The problem is its not however, it grossly favors poorly armored units, making them far more survivable where they should not be, and offering nothing against most fire directed against 3+/2+sv units even when almost fully screened.

A BS modifier, especially if capped at reducing BS to 1, would have resulted in a far fairer solution, either that or if the 4+ cover save meant the shot hit the unit in front (which would have been the actual *ideal* solution to my mind).

Havock
09-09-2008, 07:44
I still wonder how a unit of ork boys can 'cover' another mob of them against a battlecannon shell.
Are they going to stop the thing with their heads or something?

The fluff example of 'the gunner is distracted by the potshots taken at him by...' or something like that is ridiculous as well. I mean, you are in a goddamn tank, if you are distracted by that, i'll have the commissar drag you to the back of the closest building -probably with the gunner screaming, and the commissar yelling- and put a nice bolt round through that defunct head.

Vaktathi
09-09-2008, 07:47
I still wonder how a unit of ork boys can 'cover' another mob of them against a battlecannon shell.
Are they going to stop the thing with their heads or something?

The fluff example of 'the gunner is distracted by the potshots taken at him by...' or something like that is ridiculous as well. I mean, you are in a goddamn tank, if you are distracted by that, i'll have the commissar drag you to the back of the closest building -probably with the gunner screaming, and the commissar yelling- and put a nice bolt round through that defunct head.

I'd also wonder why the cover save doesn't block the entire shot, but instead when it hits amongst the orks, half seem to miraculously survive.

Master Stark
09-09-2008, 08:36
Well, yes! It makes for a more strategical/whatnot (point beiong better) game. In order for the Meq armies to have their wonderful saves and still be at a relatively low point cost somethins have to be scaled of (and still you may argue they're the strongest army) to balance the game.

Now that I can agree with. It is an abritrary game mechanic to balance the imbalance ceated by the AP rules and the general disparity between armies.


So the human size guardsman in camos and a flack jacket can hide behind trees, but the 8 foot tall superhuman in hulking power armor can't? Actually yeah, that makes a great deal of sense to me.

:eyebrows:

So what about the Firewarrior or Stormtrooper? They can't make use of cover against boltguns, but can take cover when being fired on by a heavy bolter? And marines can't take cover against the Heavy Bolter, but can against the plasma cannon?

Ridiculous.

Now I'll be honest, I don't have a fix for it. It would require all kinds of changes to the 40K system, and we all know how GW gamers respond to change!

Helicon_One
09-09-2008, 12:58
My regulars and myself have just been experimenting with having the Cover Save stack. We changed the cover save to 5+ and we take it after hits are rolled but before wounds are rolled. AP effects the target as normal unless they have an invulnerable save. So far its worked fine... true, cover is that much better, but we like it like that.
The main issue I'd have is that it further encourages static cover-hugging strategies over mobility. GW don't want a game where two armies hide in trees and snipe ineffectually through each other's stacked saving throws for 6 turns, the 40K background fiction is full off movement and flanking and blitzkrieg strikes and heroic charges and what happens on the tabletop should at least superficially reflect that. If it devalues cover and throws up oddities (like the above examples of well armoured troops ducking when low AP guns are pointed at them but standing up straight for incoming small arms fire) then I can see why people might have issues with it, but I'd prefer to see Space Marines stomping across the board heroicly shrugging off gunfire than hiding in the ruins at the back so that they can maximise their survival rate.


GW assume you have 25% of the available table covered with terrain which should for the most part grant cover saves (of one sort or another), and the armies are "balanced" (and I use the term loosely) with that in mind (amongst other things).
'Terrain' is not the same as 'cover saves'.

Granted, in the aftermath of 4th Ed's 1-dimensional 'everything is area terrain' manifesto, it seems that everyone has a terrain collection consisting entirely of woods and low ruins, but that's a metagame issue which should hopefully self-correct over time. A good gaming board should include a variety of terrain, some of which grants cover saves, some of which blocks line of sight, some of which imposes difficult/dangerous terrain tests, and some of which does a combination of the above. It shouldn't be as simple as having 25% of the board granting 4+ cover, which we see all too often at the moment.

Devon Harmon
09-09-2008, 16:38
I'm OK with the cover save sytem used in 5th. That being said, I just wish that the items granting cover didn't seem to default to giving a 4+ save. If you look at the chart on pg. 21, 2 items give a 6+ save, 5 items give a 5+ save, 22 items give a 4+ save, and only 1 item gives a 3+ save. I believe that there should be more things that give a 5 or 6 save, and less that give a 4+.

The biggest offender in my mind is that units grant a 4+ cover save. It seems unintuitive to me that units taking up a position in a building get the same cover save as those with intervening models.

Othiem
09-09-2008, 17:03
/glib reply
Except the 8 foot tall superhuman in hulking power armour actually *can* hide behind trees if he wants too, especially if plasma weaponry or melta weaponry is pointed his way, how come he can't when regular weaponry is pointed his way?
/glib reply off

Seriously though, it's mostly covered in the points cost of the armies. GW assume you have 25% of the available table covered with terrain which should for the most part grant cover saves (of one sort or another), and the armies are "balanced" (and I use the term loosely) with that in mind (amongst other things).

Because he's still obscured? I don't know, and it doesn't matter. If you're really into that level of detail per unit, play Necromunda. You can come up with any real world justification to help you remember the rules, but the rules come first. And you ignored the other point, that being that the current cover save system works to balance out low armor save and high armor save units while still allowing for a mobile game that doesn't invovle terminators skulking in trees all the time. While there are plenty of realistic modifications to the cover rules in this thread, I don't think a one of them would make for a more balanced, more fun game.

Mireadur
09-09-2008, 19:41
Well, lets compare powered armour and trees. Loota boys are shooting at guardsmen and space marines in a forest. The Guardsmen duck and hide as the loota shells shred the trees around them, but offer some concealment. The space marines know that the trees are being destroyed by the heavy weapons fire, but their ceramite and plasteel armour is stonger than the trees and will protect them.

You can't accurately simulate "real" situations in the game.

Haha, sorry but was this a serious comment? i guess better armours have the secondary effect of making the wearer retarded.

Now seriously. Your reasoning would be perfect if cover saves were a different save just like in fantasy you can roll your ward save if failed the armour save.

The unability to roll more than a single save in 40k is something i will never understand and imbalances the game a lot, even if some think it is balanced as it is, imo it is not.

Neftus
09-09-2008, 20:39
The unability to roll more than a single save in 40k is something i will never understand and imbalances the game a lot

"Feel no pain" is a pretty good example on why multiple saves shouldn't be common-place in 40k.

Unless you increased the rate of fire of every weapon in the game, units won't die fast enough to have a fun, futuristic, fire fight in five turns (how's that for alliteration.)

The best way to help cover is to give more tactical options for units behind cover instead of just the save. This could include other choices when being charged by an enemy when in cover instead of just giving I 10 (which no longer makes sense as any kind of bonus for weak melee armies like Necrons and Tau). Or possibly adding in other shiny rules like over-watch which could be conditional on cover. I feel that "going to ground" was a step in the right direction, but 40k still needs more cover specific reactionary rules like that.

I feel this approach is superior because not only does it avoid turning the rules set upside-down or producing immortal marines; but it keeps the rules streamlined and simple, while promoting tactical play involving cover.

AllisterCaine
09-09-2008, 23:37
Funny topic. The way I see it, if youve already ****ed something up beyond the point of no return, you might as well go the full mile.

Also known as the story of 40k.

MaraudingMercenary
12-09-2008, 14:34
Though I'm favouring BS modefiers for beeing more realistic (well armoured troops will try to use cover), I see the statistical problems. If you compare two troops hitting on +4/+5, a -1BS modifier would reduce the +4 by 33%, the +5 by 50%. You're dealing with absolute modifiers.
So the approach taken after 2nd. Ed was actually fine. But the cover + armour could have stayed in place, as well as very strong weapons reducing cover and armour saves. Though this would be an easy to implement change rulewise, it would mean a total new balance pointwise.

Talking about realism, the range modifiers in 2nd. where a really nice thing. Reduced the static nature of the game a bit.