Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Oddball_E8

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,871

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Oddball_E8

    Test range: The Maxim generates the similar firepower per minute like the heavy MG42

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Kauz - on "swinging fire", asked and answered, in post #165 of the "red hordes" thread, the last in it. Which got no response from you, just another thread starting as though it hadn't been written. I also notice you are ducking my questions about rifle accuracy.

    Swinging an HMG through 22 degrees of arc with the trigger down does flat nothing, it is spray and pray and might scare people I suppose, but its actual fire effect is nil. The correct way to use an HMG to cover an area is traversing fire, as I described in the thread mentioned above. But it takes *many short bursts* to cover even *a few degrees of arc* using true traversing fire at typical fire plan ranges, meaning with the adjusts between them small enough that the beaten zones of the successive bursts actually cover the area.

    When you swing an HMG through 22 degrees firing at targets 250 meters away, the space you are covering downrange is 94 meters wide. At 100 meters it is 37.5 meters wide. You don't evenly spread the through that range, either, you bunch up the rounds at the beginning and end of the swing when the gun is starting to move or ending its movement; the velocity isn't a constant because the swing starts and stops, etc. The rounds have inherent dispersion as well. To cover the longer distance you would need to make that swing take about 20 seconds and fire 400 rounds in a long belt. When instead you make the swing in half a second firing a 10 round burst, you are doing "spray and pray", your coverage is almost all gap, and you will miss practically everyone in the target area, even if you had the range perfect and they had no cover etc.

    It just doesn't work, and that is why traversing fire exists, because it does work. But it doesn't fire one continuous long burst, and it isn't done with an unlocked gun. It is done with a short burst, calibrated to the inherent dispersion of the gun at the chosen range even when the gun is locked on a definite deflection and elevation, which is several meters at typical MG fire plan ranges. You fire a burst long enough to have an excellent chance of hitting anyone in the beaten zone of that dispersion, which can be as little as 6-10 rounds, depending on the range.

    *Then you turn the traversing screw* by just enough to move the gun by a tiny angle, like a quarter of a degree at medium range, or a half a degree at close range. And fire another burst. This gives you actual coverage, but you need multiple short bursts to cover each degree of arc. And that is one reason MGs in real fire plans are given *narrow* fire lanes, not half the compass. The other reason it to let them "keyhole" and thus reduce reply fire that can hit the gun; you want everyone who can see it and reply to it suppressed when it is firing, etc.

    As already explained in the previous thread, when you have multiple exposed man targets with a wide angle of separation between each - not a degree or three, but a truly wide target - then it is a complete waste to spray and pray through the whole arc. Most of the ammo is hitting nothing. Instead you actually aim the thing - orient on one target, fire a short burst at it, orient on the next target, fire a short burst at it, and repeat.

    You can do the last just as easily with an LMG as with an HMG. If the angle to traverse through is very wide, a tripod might make it marginally easier to get the second half of the targets without the firer lifting the bipod and shifting his position behind it, about the only benefit it gives. In return it also gives a much more exposed because higher target for replies, but that is another matter.

    The benefit of an HMG comes when you actually can use the locking screw and do true traversing fire. Which is when you have an actual fire plan with lanes and ranges and narrow cones, not wide targets over half the compass.

    Your problem, Kaus, besides the fact that you are repeating yourself instead of actually engaging the people talking to you, who know a heck of a lot more about the matter than you seem to suppose, from actually doing it in real life I might add, is that you have the true benefits of high ROF and of a tripod mount completely backwards. You think they help most when you have a large, continuously exposed target over a wide arc. In fact the high ROF helps when you have a *briefly exposed target* and doesn't help if the shot is easy for a lower ROF weapon. (Because you can't improve on very high hit probabilities by throwing more bullets, only ones that are low to begin with). And the tripod helps the most when you have industrial strength fire plans, the CM equivalent of TRP directed fire on definite aim points already plotted in advance, *not* when you are swinging quickly from target to target one after the other.

    Besides those finer points backwards, you have a more general problem of unrealistic expectations of MGs in general and of the effect of ROF on their abilities specifically. I have already explained to you what the true average performance of battlefield MGs actually was on the greatest outlier successes they have ever had - Somme in WW I and Omaha in WW II as those paradigm examples of large, continuously exposed targets with lots of MGs bearing on them and able to fire at them for extended periods. You have not faced the actual hits per gun achieved in those situations, falling back instead on firing range expectations of your own, not real combat results.

    I have already explained why that is hopeless, with the rifle accuracy example, which you have yet to address at all.

    Second, as others moved game test conditions closer to your ideal of a unrealistic target, continuously exposed forever and endless in bodies able to be shot, the actual observed results per MG doing the shooting soared past the best real world cases above, to the level of 100 per. You then moved the goalposts and pretend that isn't enough - with "enough" set purely in your imagination. If those game test results had been achieved by the MG42s sighted on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, that invasion would have failed with 100% casualties, and the MGs alone would have sufficed without help from thousands of rifles, nearly 100 direct fire light guns, and over 50 indirect fire weapons, to cause 7 times the casualties actually suffered on that occasion.

    In short you have not shown any reason to believe that your expectations about what MGs should do in combat are remotely realistic, or that CMs current lethality for them, under silly contrived conditions or under typical real game ones, are wrong. The fantasy between your ears of what you think you could do with an MG42 is no more important for that, than the reality of what I do every weekend with a rifle at the range.

    If I extrapolated what I do with a rifle every weekend to expectations for Omaha, I would think the guys on the bluffs with K98s would have sufficed to defeat the entire invasion without a single MG to their names, let alone any artillery. In less than five minutes, in fact. I don't make that extrapolation because I know that weapons in combat do not do what weapons on firing ranges do. You should think about that thought experiment very carefully, before you try to extrapolate your expectations to combat reality.

    Heh, ignored again it seems.

    He made 3 posts after yours, completely ignoring you and instead chosing to reply to another poster.

    I don't know why you even bother. I gave up on the guy ages ago.

    I try not to discuss with fanatics any more. It never ends well.

    0

    My Five new soundmods are now available! :D

    in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods

    Posted

    But will they actually sound different in game because of the ROF when they use the same sound file? Just downloaded all your latest mods to try them out. Been a fan since CMBB :D

    Theoretically they should.

    But the problem I've had with CM is that not only do the visuals lag sometimes, but the sound also lag sometimes.

    If you're going to try it out and compare an MG42 to an MG34 using the same sound file, you should do so looking top-down on the guns from a close perspective to minimize lag.

    Also, only my Simplified and my Lightweight mod has the same sound for the MG34 and MG42. The others actually have different sounds for them...

    EDIT: but will they sound like the idealized sounds you have in your mind of the MG42? I don't think so. But that's a whole other story.

    0

    My Five new soundmods are now available! :D

    in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods

    Posted

    if the grease gun has its own sound and MG42 mg43 it should have its own;) - as for me, may limit the number of other sounds, but definitely not for light weapons

    air rockets, certainly uses CMBN - in CMRT not seen the missile raid ;)

    Dude, the thompson and grease gun sound nearly identical in real life (if you shoot just one shot of course)

    Same thing with the MG34 and MG42. The main reason they sound different is because of the different rates of fire.

    Anyone who has tried my Light or Simplified mods can testify to this.

    0

    My Five new soundmods are now available! :D

    in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods

    Posted

    Agree with the above comments regarding the use of joint sound assets for some of the Soviet small arms. Wasn't this something to do with BF not wanting to hog computing resources and therefore using joint assets in some cases? No idea, no programmer but hard to see how a few extra sound files would overburden most modern computers.

    Actually I'm pretty ok with them using a single sound source for multiple weapons (in fact, I've even tried to promote it in the past but that tunred into a cluster**** because people don't seem to understand how sounds are handled in the game).

    BUT, I'm not so ok with which sounds they use on which weapon.

    The Mosin-Nagant, for example, should have its own separate sound so that us modders can add bolt action sounds for it.

    SVT could use the gun 7 single and then the MG's could use the gun 7 pk since they all are the same caliber and essentially sound the same.

    In fact, BFC could clean up the sound resources significantly by letting the tommy gun and grease gun use the same sound, the MG34 and MG42 could use the same sound as well. They could dispose of the coax sound completely and get the tanks to use the sound that corresponds to the weapon fired instead.

    I could go on, but I think you get my point.

    0

    Tank crew AI under fire

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Well there are damages that are not included in the UI of the game.

    Things like dislodging the turret or a penetration that severs the driveshaft might not be reported on the UI and thus the vehicle is effectively destroyed, but still has no reported damage on the UI.

    (ok, driveshaft damage might go under "engine" but what would a dislodged turret be? After all, the systems in the turret such as the main gun and coax are still operational)

    0

    Tank crew AI under fire

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    I recall in CMBN, having a sherman being bombarded by 20mm fire.

    It was basically rocking back every time a shell hit (and those were quads, so plenty of hits).

    And yet, it didn't seem to have a lesser accuracy when firing.

    I think that not only penetrations, but even riccochets from weapons should affect the accuracy of a tank.

    0

    Pps42

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    PPS-42 was in the Beta, actually. Had its own model and skins. Cool little mg. Unfortunately it was determined that most of 'em ended up fighting in the Leningrad area far to the north (where they were manufactured), so the weapon got pulled from the game pretty late in the process. Not much functional difference between it and PPS-43 but it was pretty 'cool'. The manual must've missed the weapon getting pulled.

    I don't get it. If it was essentially already done, why pull it?

    Why not keep it in but in very limited numbers?

    0

    My Five new soundmods are now available! :D

    in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods

    Posted

    I will try out the CMRT-standard Version. Thanx a lot!

    I hope you enjoy it!

    Thanks, Oddball! Nice and convenient.

    What is you YouTube channel, and does it have CM-related stuff?

    I have three actually :/

    One that I don't use any more because I got a really hard smack on the fingers for putting up the intro to supertroopers (wasn't even the whole movie or anything, just the intro and they slapped a ton of restrictions on the channel that are permanent).

    Another one is my "personal" one. That's the one I usually put up CM stuff on.

    And then I have a third one which is my main one. I use that to put up storyline videos from Star Wars: The Old Republic.

    Here are the links to the two I still use:

    The Chakra Kusanagi channel (SW:TOR): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ-GYUv0NPgGLvsSroj4L9Q/videos

    The LoboOddball one (where I post CM and other stuff): https://www.youtube.com/user/LoboOddball/videos

    0

    My very last mod is coming...

    in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods

    Posted

    Thanks, Oddball_E8.

    -Will check out your mod as soon as I can. Sound mods seem to be a thing that, as a player, you often want to cherry pick from different mods to get a full "set" that you like. Since that takes some work, I haven't tackled it yet.

    Thanks again for all your work!

    That's how I do it :)

    It's how I started soundmodding in the first place way back when I was playing the original Rainbow Six game :)

    0
×
×
  • Create New...