Weapon accuracy damage and cover

[Sandermatt]

I assume accuracy helps to hit units at range and units in cover, while damage decides how many casulties a unit gets with each bullet that hits. Is this correct? Does somebody have information about the formulas?

Top quality guns typically have low damage. How big of a drawback is this in your experience?

Edited December 16, 2016 by Sandermatt

[LAVA]

1 hour ago, pandakraut said:

The basic formula is weapon damage * (random value between accuracy low and accuracy high) * cover. Accuracy high is not currently displayed in game and cover will result in a damage reduction. There are other factors involved as well as a damage falloff as range to target increases. When evaluating weapons a rough estimate is multiplying the damage by the displayed accuracy and using that number to compare. Attacks will always hit so low accuracy high damage weapons can be useful.

I think you will find that accuracy is a function of the units firearms rating and efficiency the ability to use the weapon to its maximum potential. Weapon stats are just that... what the weapon is capable of.

So if you want to determine how much damage a unit will deal you have to look at all factors combined (weapon, efficiency, firearms and cover). How you quantify that... I have no idea.

And stamina and morale also play a part in the mix because if a unit is very tired or it's morale is very low, it effects fire rate.

[JaM]

Have no idea how formulae works in this game, but i think damage should be more about dealing damage through cover, not the actual kills as even smallest caliber minie ball was quite nasty to human body..

[Hitorishizuka]

Low damage is only a drawback if you let that unit get into a head-head no cover shootout at close range, then they're going to get mauled. Otherwise as far as I can tell your assumptions are correct.

[LAntorcha]

I would love to see "the numbers" behind those formulas.

When facing to equip a new weapon, how to measure its quality? Does it weight more the Reloading capability or the Accuracy, etc...?

I use the $ cost as guide but, for example Spencer and Fayetteville have similar price, though being quite different (also with arty). Does the 3x Fire Rate of the Spencer weight more than the Fayettevilles  Accuracy  and Range in comparison.  Is it a matter of tactical playstyle?

 

Edited March 6, 2018 by LAntorcha

[pandakraut]

The basic formula is weapon damage * (random value between accuracy low and accuracy high) * cover. Accuracy high is not currently displayed in game and cover will result in a damage reduction. There are other factors involved as well as a damage falloff as range to target increases. When evaluating weapons a rough estimate is multiplying the damage by the displayed accuracy and using that number to compare. Attacks will always hit so low accuracy high damage weapons can be useful.

[Shigemori]

There is a weapon guide on steam that is very useful. Link

[pandakraut]

@LAVA Firearms and Efficiency are both used to generate multipliers in the damage calculation. Unlike the Weapon Accuracy values these are evaluated on an animation curve so their effect isn't really quantifiable unless you have access to the game code in Unity. Same for Damage Degradation.

[LAVA]

Exactly!

I was just trying to say that pretty much all the unit characteristics will effect actual damage done one way or another. And as you say, unless we have access to the equation, it's impossible to be precise.

[GersonH]

i think damage should be more about dealing damage through cover