accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[womble]

To a degree you are correct, but no matter how much detail you put into your map you can only jam three bushes/tree into an AS. That's three trees in a 64m^2 area - I can find denser foliage in my backyard.

You can also put some Brush, and make the tile light or dense forest, which would be a significant increase in foliage and concealment. And bash some hedgerow in there as well for good measure. You have a limited palette of things to choose from, but using them all makes quite a 'busy' phytosphere, even if some bits are a bit "artificial" looking. Scrub and bushes without the hedges even, though, is pretty dense in a woodland tile. I think I've said that before, and I wasn't the first, even then.

[Childress]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. In Essence...

Pixeltruppen...

• need to expose themselves less when in cover (constantly peaking in and out of cover even under minimal fire)
  

• become suppressed easier
  

• take longer to recover from suppression
  

• have a harder time spotting enemies (in part because spotters and targets are constantly peeking in and out of cover, see above point)
  

TacAi...

• needs to take over more
  

• have the main intention of keeping the pixeltruppen alive
  

Agree with JasonC - and you. More suppression and fewer kills. CMBB 1.0 was, I recall, realistic in this regard. Infantry was very fragile and the player had to lone up his ducks perfectly to pull off an assault. It represented a marked deviation from CMBO. But a lot of people complained.

Additionally in CM2 you have the reversal between expected wounded and kills. JonS had some good counter-arguments, e.g. minor, untallied wounds, but it still doesn't feel right, in my opinion.

Other factors contributing to the present carnage are aggressiveness on the part of players and the typical promotion of Green troops to Regular and up. Improbable, especially for American troops in '43.

[poesel]

I wanted to test how a duel Mortar vs HMG would end. Had an old test with 12 firing lanes at 200m. My guess is that that should be won by the HMGs.

Unfortunately this crashes CMFI for me (while calculating).

If someone is interested the scenario is here:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8811801/006%20Mortars%20vs%20HMG.btt

Of course I would also be interested if that crashes your game, too.

[stikkypixie]

I wanted to test how a duel Mortar vs HMG would end. Had an old test with 12 firing lanes at 200m. My guess is that that should be won by the HMGs.

Unfortunately this crashes CMFI for me (while calculating).

If someone is interested the scenario is here:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8811801/006%20Mortars%20vs%20HMG.btt

Of course I would also be interested if that crashes your game, too.

I just tried it . Two things:

a) It didn't crash for me

The mortars and HMG are right next to each other , which I'm guessing is not what you wanted to do

also I think at this range the crews will still use their personal arms.

Fun to see though!

[Killkess]

Those 3 people won't get much closer than 100m though, nor be in a state to return fire for very long (and your MG's in decent cover, right?). And if they're bringing any friends, those "stray" bursts either side will be inflicting casualties which will affect their morale and suppression state.

Ok, i did two more tests. One with a squad charging and one with a whole platoon. This time i used heavy forrest tile with 3 trees on it for the germans. I placed the HMG one tile inside the forrest for better concealment.

I let the american troops charge until i got a confirmed contact of the HMG and than stopped to exchange fire. In both cases the contact is made between 350 to 330 Meters. In case of the squad i decided to split into teams after intial contact. Now guess who got outgunned in both cases....

Here is the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l9jRclOLxw.

Here the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbSwCMKVEMI.

Squad suffered one cassualty as did the whole Platoon. What else should i try on that tiny space? A company, a regiment?

If i find some more time ill do a test with vegitation.

[womble]

In both cases the contact is made between 350 to 330 Meters. In case of the squad i decided to split into teams after intial contact. Now guess who got outgunned in both cases....

Well no surprise there. I thought we were testing MG effectiveness rather than how well its firepower stacks up against an entire squad of Garands and a BAR.

If you'd forced the attackers to just keep on running (which is what I thought the target did in the first test), I believe you would have seen a step change in effectiveness as the range dropped.

And again, it's worth noting that the suppression of the MG is potentially artificially limited by the test, since level ground means few "nearby" bullet splashes.

I have just spent the last several minutes of a game I'm in suppressing a squad of troops which are hiding behind low walls with an MG42 at about 230m range. The MG is behind bocage, and its output is plenty to keep the Amis mostly cowering at that range. It even killed a few.

[eltorrente]

Everyone is talking about MG's lack of accuracy and effectiveness - but what about the other 2-5 rifleman that accompany the MG gunner(s)? I think 2 rifleman in cover could easily stop 12 guys running at them across flat ground for hundreds of meters... Heck just one good rifleman could probably stop them.

Instead of keying in on just the MG gunners, we should perhaps think about everyone with a gun.

[poesel]

The mortars and HMG are right next to each other , which I'm guessing is not what you wanted to do

Ooopsie - thanks for trying. That was probably the cause of the crash. Redid the scenario and tried again. No crashes this time.

Interesting result. Up until ~400m the HMGs could suppress the 60mm mortars so that they couldn't really fire. Over time the mortars would wither away (faster on lower distance).

But at ~600m the HMGs had basically no effect on the mortar teams! No or one casualty per mortar after a few minutes. There was however a bug with the mortars: the guy at the tube was sometimes continually adjusting. They only started firing when given a direct target order and then wasted the HMG.

Is this realistic? A deployed MG42 in HMG configuration has a range of 2000m (according to the game data). So there should be no problem for the HMG to supress the mortars at 600m or am I wrong?

The edited scenario is here:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8811801/006%20Mortars%20vs%20HMG.btt

[Killkess]

Well no surprise there. I thought we were testing MG effectiveness rather than how well its firepower stacks up against an entire squad of Garands and a BAR.

You forget that the squad first had to pass a fire zone off 700 meters against the HMG to get up to that ~300 meters. They were neither supressed nor took a single cassualty while running that distance. It looks like they arent even upset since the return fire is accurate (this against the standard argument, that the mg shoots that bad because it is under combat stress, it seems that this stress doesnt excist for the squad). The HMG was also well concealed, seeing 5 guys prone/lying in 350 meters distance in dense brush while running is not bad either. Delivering effective fire after running 700 Meters ,in a time not even bad for a good runner in peacetime, while under fire and than returning effective fire over iron sights at over 300 meters taking out a HMG looks "a bit" questionable to me.

If charging toward an enemy HMG position is all tactical genius needed to take it out, there is something seriously flawed as it does not reflect the historical realities.

I have just spent the last several minutes of a game I'm in suppressing a squad of troops which are hiding behind low walls with an MG42 at about 230m range.

At ~200m you are point blank for a HMG, a sinlge LMG should be sufficient for this. A HMG (especially with such a sophisticated tripod and optics) should give the infantry some serious long range firepower which it apparently lacks in CM2 and as such favours the attacker expecially in open terrain like we often see in Italy. The difference of HMG and LMG in CM2 is often marginal.

@eltorrente

And that is the question: How much firepower should be needed to stop a single squad from advancing? My feeling is also that a couple of rifleman should have been enough to at least keep that squad from advancing such far and expecially so quick. A HMG should have ended that advance almost immediatly.

[Killkess]

And again, it's worth noting that the suppression of the MG is potentially artificially limited by the test, since level ground means few "nearby" bullet splashes.

Did some more tests today, i change the setup so i have 2 HMG in one "firing-line" against 2 squads of infantry. One squad lying in the open, one squad lying in front of a "hill"/inside heavy forrests with trees and lots of brushes. Both squads were subjected to 2 minutes of fire by one HMG each. Range is about 550-600 Meters.

Test 1: "The Hill"

First the squad in the open:

The other one:

Test 2: "Forrest"

Squad in the open:

Squad in the forrest:

My conclusion is that it doesnt make a big difference if u hit surrounding earth or foliage nearby. Neither of the test show a significant "advantage". The usual outcome is that supression of both squads tend to be equal as long as nobody got shot. It basicly comes down to which squad suffers the first cassualty.

[poesel]

More testing from HMG vs mortar

Flat ground, no wind regular/fanatic, unled, mortars with CA, HMG no orders

Distance: 425 - 700m

I've run the test 3 times and noted the results after 10 minutes. The 4 teams from 625+ m away were NEVER hit. Thats 3 x 4 x 10 = 120 minutes of HMG fire on a 5 man mortar team (minus the time for spotting)!

Data link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApF6zBjLENkUdGYwZl9ET3c2T21rU3BhMkRPU3ZobUE

Scenario:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8811801/006%20Mortars%20vs%20HMG%20II.btt

My guess is that the algorithm that does the aiming/missing part spreads to much beyond a certain distance so that you never hit the goal. This is IMHO a bug.

[womble]

You forget that the squad first had to pass a fire zone off 700 meters against the HMG to get up to that ~300 meters.

Actually, no. I took that as read.

...They were neither supressed...

No surprise really on flat ground. I'm entirely not saying they shouldn't be, but IME (and I know your tests are showing something different), that's the way the current mechanic would be expected to work.

...nor took a single cassualty while running that distance... [and] ...A HMG (especially with such a sophisticated tripod and optics) should give the infantry some serious long range firepower...

I'm not offering any comment on whether or not that's a surprise, or whether your assertion is or is not true, but is "long range firepower" (one of) an HMG's purpose in doctrine? Long range suppression, I'm sure we can find evidence for, but were HMGs expected to cause casualties at that range?

It looks like they arent even upset since the return fire is accurate (this against the standard argument, that the mg shoots that bad because it is under combat stress, it seems that this stress doesnt excist for the squad). The HMG was also well concealed, seeing 5 guys prone/lying in 350 meters distance in dense brush while running is not bad either. Delivering effective fire after running 700 Meters ,in a time not even bad for a good runner in peacetime, while under fire and than returning effective fire over iron sights at over 300 meters taking out a HMG looks "a bit" questionable to me.

That's a subsidiary couple of cans of worms you're opening up, there... Not irrelevant, obviously, since the relative performance of weapons systems is important, but not directly bearing on the point of HMG performance.

If charging toward an enemy HMG position is all tactical genius needed to take it out, there is something seriously flawed as it does not reflect the historical realities.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Picking at your methodology is meant to refine it to cover all bases.

At ~200m you are point blank for a HMG, a sinlge LMG should be sufficient for this.

So? At that range an HMG and an LMG differ, I'd suggest, largely in amount of available ammo and sustained RoF potential, for suppression purposes. It's perhaps worth noting that the kills the MG got were in the initial "make them duck" bursts. After that, the low walls mostly got in the way, and the dogfaces just prairie-dogged until their armour showed up.

The difference of HMG and LMG in CM2 is often marginal.

I think this is true, too.

...that is the question: How much firepower should be needed to stop a single squad from advancing?

That's kindof a new question, really. A good one, but new.

Did some more tests today, i change the setup so i have 2 HMG in one "firing-line" against 2 squads of infantry. One squad lying in the open, one squad lying in front of a "hill"/inside heavy forrests with trees and lots of brushes. Both squads were subjected to 2 minutes of fire by one HMG each. Range is about 550-600 Meters.

[snip]

My conclusion is that it doesnt make a big difference if u hit surrounding earth or foliage nearby. Neither of the test show a significant "advantage". The usual outcome is that supression of both squads tend to be equal as long as nobody got shot. It basicly comes down to which squad suffers the first cassualty.

That differs from my experience quite radically. Would you by any chance have the test setup still available for me to have a shufty at to see whether there's something going on (or not going on) that might account for the difference?

[Baneman]

...is "long range firepower" (one of) an HMG's purpose in doctrine? Long range suppression, I'm sure we can find evidence for, but were HMGs expected to cause casualties at that range?

...

I'm no expert, but isn't "suppression" = Worry/scare the enemy and make them take cover because if they don't they will take casualties ?

So if they don't take cover ( as in the game ), shouldn't they take some casualties ?

They don't take casualties only because the bullets are flying so far from the target.

[Apocal]

I'm not offering any comment on whether or not that's a surprise, or whether your assertion is or is not true, but is "long range firepower" (one of) an HMG's purpose in doctrine? Long range suppression, I'm sure we can find evidence for, but were HMGs expected to cause casualties at that range?

By those receiving fire (the suppressed), certainly. After all it has to present a credible threat to force men to ground. If HMGs weren't capable of causing casualties at that range, there would be no reason to use them rather than lighter machine guns.

[-Coulum-]

No surprise really on flat ground. I'm entirely not saying they shouldn't be, but IME (and I know your tests are showing something different), that's the way the current mechanic would be expected to work.

So is it confirmed that rounds that snap by but don't impact near a squad don't cause suppression? This would be kind of a let down for me.

I'm not offering any comment on whether or not that's a surprise, or whether your assertion is or is not true, but is "long range firepower" (one of) an HMG's purpose in doctrine? Long range suppression, I'm sure we can find evidence for, but were HMGs expected to cause casualties at that range?

I think that against targets in cover/concealment HMG's wouldn't have much chance of causing casualties, especially if the target is actively using the cover to protect themselves. But against targets in the wide open (if there really is such a thing in CM) - I think eventually they would get a hit and that you could "expect" to cause casualties at a very slow rate even at ranges up to 600 - 700 metres. And I would argue that if the MG was not capable of causing casualties at this range, in the open, its ability to suppress opponents would really be quite poor at this range as well.

At 200 metres and less, against targets on cover-less ground, should an HMG not be able to effectively "mow down" squads. Maybe I am overestimating it but based on WW1 stories/articles, HMG would be able to take a squad out in a matter of minutes if were exposed in the open at close ranges, especially if they were actually advancing directly towards the weapon.

The problem I see with HMG is that they should be more lethal against troops in the open yet not too lethal against troops hiding/in cover. By simply increasing the accuracy of the gun we will start to see machinegunners are too good at killing troops in cover as well. Thus I suggest making the ai more capable of using cover and then upping HMG accuracy a bit. That way when engaging troops in the open the weapon is effective as it should be but when engaging troops in cover it is more a tool for suppression similar to reality.

Whatever the case, HMG teams are really no more than a glorified rifle team+LMG imo. Even when I set them up properly and catch troops in a killzone with them, they usually get no more than 3 - 5 kills a game. I think their effectiveness is lacking in FI no doubt about it.

Also of note, I find HMG to be very accurate when engaging stuff like vehicles and bunkers. Only against infantry to they have such bad aim.

[Killkess]

No surprise really on flat ground. I'm entirely not saying they shouldn't be, but IME (and I know your tests are showing something different), that's the way the current mechanic would be expected to work.

...

That's a subsidiary couple of cans of worms you're opening up, there... Not irrelevant, obviously, since the relative performance of weapons systems is important, but not directly bearing on the point of HMG performance.

...

That differs from my experience quite radically. Would you by any chance have the test setup still available for me to have a shufty at to see whether there's something going on (or not going on) that might account for the difference?

All in all i am not interested about the mechanics which take place on my computer, what i am interested in (output orientated) is a feasible and believable result. And as such i am not sure if we can strictly differenciate between the HMG and its performance and the enemy actions and weapons because it all end in the situation we see in CM2. If, for example, cover/concealment is much more abstracted than we were told it is, i would expect the movement to be much slower to reflect the use off terrain. That way the MG would have much longer time to deliver fire and cause cassualties and supression. This as a example how the performance of the squad can have a big influence on the performance of the HMG.

Back in CM1 times MGs werent much deadlier, but they easily supressed a much larger group of enemies. Running in the open like we see in CM2 was impossible.

I am sorry but during my tests i rechanged the setup multiple times and so i dont have it available. What i have, though, is a savegame i made to do the screenshots and analys:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42568117/kktest%20102.bts

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42568117/kktest%20202.bts

[Killkess]

I think their effectiveness is lacking in FI no doubt about it.

The issue is much older than FI, it already startet back in CMSF:

[womble]

All in all i am not interested about the mechanics which take place on my computer...

However, bearing what's going on in mind can inform us as to what's likely to be possible to change. "Whizzing bullets" are going to be difficult to implement as a source of suppression.

...i am not sure if we can strictly differenciate between the HMG and its performance and the enemy actions and weapons because it all end in the situation we see in CM2...

Trouble is, the situation people are seeing is different. Part of the point of setting up tests is so that the circumstances can be controlled and we can see what, exactly, it is that needs to change. For example, I was running a test yesterday to see how being "up against the wall" affected the target. Even at 500m, in that test, I was getting casualties on the upright/kneeling troops, and cowering troops with 7 bars of suppression after only a minute's fire. I think that the troops being moving targets is going to have something to do with the (perceived) problem; in order to have the wall there to provide "bullet splash catching" my targets were stationary.

If, for example, cover/concealment is much more abstracted than we were told it is, i would expect the movement to be much slower to reflect the use off terrain.

That would be true if the abstraction of microterrain applied to moving pTruppen, which I think would be an error in the rule set: moving troops shouldn't get the benefit of sub-metre "folds in the ground" that aren't explicitly modelled in the terrain grid. I only half suspect that the microterrain factors are applied to moving troops though, even if there is some sort of "experience" save that means moving Vets are harder to hit than moving Conscripts.

Knowing what all the factors are, as well as allowing us to help determine what could get a tweak in the ruleset, allows us to know what game situations show the deviant behaviour. Maybe everyone who thinks MGs are 'fine' is using them in Normandy, where the flaws in the model aren't exposed, because of short ranges, for example.

I am sorry but during my tests i rechanged the setup multiple times and so i dont have it available. What i have, though, is a savegame i made to do the screenshots and analys:

Ta. I'll have a look and if I can't see what's up from the savegame, at least I'll have a good idea what your setup looked like from multiple angles.

[cool web head]

Killkess posted these tests a month before 1.01, but it looks like this issue is not addressed in the latest patch. Am I missing something here?

[akd]

Patience perhaps?

[sburke]

spare change that has spilled down between the cushions of your couch? The ice cream truck playing jack and jill as it rolled down your street? Hair on the crown of your head?

[cool web head]

Patience perhaps?

Considering the fact that patch releases for this series are spaced so widely apart, I don't think its "impatient" to question the decision to not include a fix for this issue in the recent patch. It will probably be months now before HMGs work properly. If it really was proving tricky to fix this issue, it seems more prudent to delay the patch until this fix can go in, because its such a key problem. Unless of course there is something I'm misunderstanding about the situation, which is what I was asking in the first place.

spare change that has spilled down between the cushions of your couch? The ice cream truck playing jack and jill as it rolled down your street? Hair on the crown of your head?

What?

[Paper Tiger]

Considering that people are still waiting for the Barbed Wire fix to make its appearance for the CMBN module, I can understand why folks would be a bit disappointed that something didn't get fixed in the first patch. It might be months before there is a second CMFI patch and so I understand your frustration.

With regards to the MG issue, I don't think that there is a quick fix for this. It will require the way MGs currently fire at infantry targets to be overhauled and that will mean a LOT of time coding and even more time testing the changes. MGs and other small arms don't go <boom> and so don't cause suppression unless the bullets actually hit someone. Explosions on the other hand have been coded into the game to have an area effect and will suppress any unit, friend or foe alike based on the size of the blast and the unit's proximity to the blast.

[Killkess]

Considering that people are still waiting for the Barbed Wire fix to make its appearance for the CMBN module, I can understand why folks would be a bit disappointed that something didn't get fixed in the first patch. It might be months before there is a second CMFI patch and so I understand your frustration.

What would surely ease the frustration would be a statement by BFC including what they think about this specific issue, about what might be done about it and how long it might take. So far BFC had not responded to this important thread at all.

[cool web head]

c3k mentioned on page two that the bug has been brought to battlefront's attention, I thought that meant he was on the dev team or something. That's why I was suprised to see that a fix wasn't mentioned in the patch notes.