RockinHarry

Probably not the exact thread you´re looking for, but right search term would be "low bocage", which is part of the solution limiting LOS/LOF into and through woods. Here´s some useful stuff: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100109 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100111

Found this, but can´t tell if this was the wartime, or post WW2 definition: "In the US military, the definition for effective range of a firearm is the distance that an average soldier can be expected to hit a man- sized target 50 percent of the time."

I think first round "kills" equals not first round "hits". Depends on target then. A Sherman is likely more easy to first shot kill, than a Churchill maybe.

Is that diagonally placed buildings? If yes, the center of the action spot, taken for path finding, either coincides with the outer wall of the building, or even lies within. Actually a limitation in the game, even if the small street looks wide enough to let a vehicle pass. Now moving actual "nogo" waypoints in V2.0 may lead to that behavior. In V1.1, vehicles would have refused to move entirely.

Exactly. Germans had to throw their combat principles and doctrines overboard a million of times, for which we know is a multitude of reasons. Ammo and supply shortages is one of them. It´s just a game, but at times it gets felt, when important weapon systems are dumbed down for this or that reason. Personally I don´t care for "balance". There´s other means to achieve that. From personal experience I know there´s little detailed material to be found on certain WW2 topics in your own language oftentimes. Same goes for german MG34 and MG42, when you´re actually researching doctrines, tactical employment, command and that stuff. For everything else, just a short look at Wikipedia is mostly sufficient. You can download almost every WW2 US FM from the net, but beeing non german native speaker gives you just very few, mostly incomplete translations, summaries and analyses, which also aren´t always "correct", or lack the big picture. Also makes a difference, if translated material was up to date at time of translation. There were important changes from wartime experiences in 1939/40 and then 1941, with minor changes after. I know there´s translated material available in 1944, that originates from pre war german stuff, so likely causes bits of confusion then. There´s yet a book about german MG employment missing, similar to one for german tanks, of which the best appears to be Wolfgang Schneiders "Panzer Tactics" and Jentz Panzertruppen 1+2. Chris McNabs "MG 34 and MG 42 machine guns" is not bad, although a bit short (80p), but has bits of everything. Some of its primary sources is also stuff freely available from the net (Lone Sentry, Carl and others).

Yep, I´m speculating. Why not? It´s an interesting topic, even for non programmers like me. I also try to understand things from a developers POV (believe it or not ), even if I´m wrong with my speculations. We aren´t getting told any programming secrets here anyway, so wtf...

Yep. I already have some the tech manuals and TMs for the M240 and M60. But no need to dig through all that, unless I find something that´s closer related to the german WW2 doctrine, tactical HMG usage and combined weapon concepts. As said, MG42 ROF, the tripod thingy ect. is just part of the whole concept and wartime application. Found it. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_flippingbook&book_id=22 ok, I have the first one mentioned "German squad in combat" (german: "Die Gruppe im Gefecht" by Fritz Kuehlwein). There´s little in about HMG usage, as can be expected. Also makes bit of a difference what issue you have translated there. I know there´s an online resource available for this translated version (CARL?), but it´s from early 1930ies. I have 2, the same german orginal from early 1930ies and one issue from 1940. But as said, that´s not of concern. "Training manual for schnelle Truppen" and "Training and Employment of the Panzergrenadier Company", I do not have these, but these obviously have a too narrow focus to have necessary details on HMG34/42 usage. From 1940 on, usage of HMG was responsibility at Btl. level, so one either needs manuals that deal with Btl (or higher) level stuff, or very much narrowed down to specialities of the HMGs. I have no abundance of such (HMG related) manuals, but what I have is rather exhaustive. HDV 73 - shooting regulation for heavy machine guns. HDV 130/3a, Employment of the machine gun coy. 1936 HDV 130/9, Leading and Combat of the Infantry, The Inf.-Btl, 1940 HDV 240, Shooting regulation for light weapons, 1937 Die M.G.-Kompanie (the machine gun coy), Hofmann/M&S, 1939, sort of "Reibert" for HMG training. Der Feuerkampf der Schützenkompanie, OW, 2. Kriegsauflage 1940 (fire combat, employment of fire in the rifle coy) Der Feuerkampf des s. M.G., Froböse/M&S, 1940 (fire combat, employment of fire of the HMG. Has whole lots of examples for commands, employment, tactics from single HMG, up to coy level) Das Kommandobuch, Die Maschinengewehrkompanie, Band 2, Mars/Siwinna, 1940 (command book, the machine gun coy. Sort of summary of a number of HMG related regulations in a single book) That´s the most important and detailed stuff. There´s a dozen or so other books that deal with Btl. tactics, combined arms and such, in my posession. Yet when it gets down to details again, it´s all the same. So far correct. I now have to stop bugging you, since I´ve yet my CMBN urban map to finish.

I´m not a programmer, but there must be a reason to cap bursts at 7-8 rounds max currently. Maybe it´s more of a frame/slice that can compute only so many things in a given computation cycle before things get out of sync? Just when assumed that every single round is really simulated, as otherwise abstractions can and likely need to be made for particular time slices, in order to get i.e a 1 second, 20 round burst resolved from a HMG42. But I´m not a programmer and usually developers do not publicly tell about how they do code things.

Yep, when speaking of RT play. Think more of us WEGO preference players don´t mind if a 1 minute turn takes 2-3 minutes, or a bit more to get resolved. So that´s the bad compromise for this hybrid concept game.

That simple?? Ok that would´ve been the least advantageable and least skilled, as well as non doctrinal use of (german) HMG. For something better and more realistic. First of all, at the NORMAL 1000-2000m combat ranges that (german) HMG where used (otherwise you can get along quite well with LMG that usually cover the range below), the attacker would as well have a hard time spotting these well dug in and likely keyholed HMG. Spraying an attacking infantry attacker at that large ranges has what purposes? Maybe to slow em down, or even stop them in order to get the concert of combined weapons starting. Now with a likely slowed down enemy attacker, mortars and artillery get the attacker on the move again, to again make him a target for flat trajectory weapons... Whatever the attacker attempts to counter the defensive long range HMG fire, the HMG crew would move to a switch posititon, maybe to yet another one after, before the attacker put observed fire on the now abandoned HMG position. The HMG34/42 were able to deliver fire with that effect (halting or slowing down) at large ranges. No idea why this is taken in doubt so stubbornly here. Maybe dig some more resources, particularly combat principles and tactics for german usage of combined weapons? Unless deployed singly for a particular reason, german HMG were more of a tactical system, not just guns. Normally they operated in pairs as smallest tactical units with observers and technical means, not just from their own. Higher levels (platoons and up) have FO like units, similar to those for mortars and artillery, that as well have range finding equipment, 10x scissor scopes and such. A HMG with enough time to have its position prepared, will also initiate terrain christening, writing up range tables, ranging in on spots on the enemy and near friendly part of the battlefield (TRPs). Also why is it not a sound tactic to stop or slow down an enemy at large range already? On the defense, the tactical purpose is not quite to let an enemy come near, just in order to shred him to pieces more easily. When the attacker has a numerical advantage, this is pretty much a dangerous tactic for a defender. A numerically superior attacker must be weared down and not allowed to reach the forward frontline. When the enemy comes too close, defensive mortar and artillery fire becomes impossible as well. If a HMG´s far range capabilities aren´t used, then the defender (attacker too) allows the enemy to come dangerously close for effective return fire, particularly from small arms. An enemy HMG at close to medium ranges of 300-800m increasingly becomes a big target and switching positions becomes more difficult then. Same principle for Panther/Tiger like tanks. Hit & kill the enemy at range, where he can´t yet return with effective fire. This is just few points from german combined arms concept (which surely is not much different from other WW2 armies btw) and the role german HMG played, is medium to long range employment of fire power (high ROF). That with accuracy and flexibility, not just by means of the tripod/optics, but also through unit organisation, communication, doctrine and training, just for this purpose. So even when the HMG´s in the game are given desired long burst, quick succession burst capabilities, it´s just a frame from the big picture. If I´d be given a map with just short range LOS/LOF, I personally wouldn´t opt for purchasing HMG´s, unless I have no other choice (premade scenario setup). The inherent short range LMG FP of squads would be more than enough and quicker, as well as more felxible to be moved. Wide open maps, just slightly broken with options to place HMG´s in some keyholed, flanking postions? Give! But not the HMG´s with the current (in-) capabilities yet in V2.0 CM. So while HMG´s can be given more RL capabilities, just part of it would be of the plain technical kind. Others is tactical usage and possibly coding the AI to make use of it in reasonable ways. Hope you take the challenge for V3.0! Sure, if you assume an attack already has materialized with both forces already quite close... That takes away a whole lot of options as mentioned above. So CM rather simulates the end part of an attack, where all artillery barrages have been made, switch positions already been taken and the defender failed to keep an attacker at range and so one. Just as mentioned in the CMX1 manuals. Nonetheless a large part of players would like to have bigger maps, with more options to maneuvre, counter maneuvre, make use of long range hitting power and such. Maybe even including a preparatory barrage, infantry yet in their dugouts. Sticking to rather small maps and resolve sort of a preset endgame, is little fun and rather boring in the long run and personally I´d move away from such games in short time (like I did with various games already). I found it particularly annoying in CMSF (which I don not have much interest in anyway) that these sort of preset endgames are also expected to be played out on rather smallish maps. What yet works for WW2 and considered as medium/long range, on modern battlefields it´s already point blanc range, thinking of M1 Abrams, Challengers, Leopard and all the russian origin stuff. I exclude plain infantry battles from this, which could be much fun off course. Please part LMG from HMG (or MMG). 5-7+ bursts are for little stabilized high ROF LMG, while larger, continuous bursts are for stable HMG weapon systems. As said, tactical ammo units for german HMG is belts of 50 rounds minimum. Whether they´re applied in continuous fire mode or in quick succession bursts, largely depends on the target, not necessarily the range. "Final defensive fire mode". Sounds like a game concept, as I never heard nor read about it before, at least not in that terms. High intensity defense fire vs an enemy that is about to break into the positions. I see that concept in action in CMBN, but it´s somewhat illogically applied. So the quick succession short bursts at close range, just diminish to the same short bursts, with longer pauses between and increasingly inaccurate. That´s the game concept, but is not true in RL. Even longer range targets would be engaged with short succession short bursts from LMG (until desired effect is achieved), while HMGs still use longer bursts, unless just bits of harrassing fire is desired.

leading a moving target must be considered by every halfway trained gunner, no matter if from a HMG, tank gun or any other. The example above obviosuly is for static targets.

WEGO/Iron. Always opt for the most "realistic" mode and even never tried the other modes once.

Bits form US Wartime sources Tactical and Technical Trends A German source states that the MG-42 has a close and dense cone of fire which results in greatly improved observation. The cone of fire has a slight ‘creep’ hence this machine gun can be held on the target for only a short time compared with the slower-firing machine guns. This German source states that as a result of the increase in the rate of fire from 420 rpm with the MG-08, to 900 rpm with the MG-34 and to 1,500 rpm with the MG-42, an increase in the percentage of hits in proportion to the length of burst should be obtained. However, preliminary trials in this country have not produced a rate of fire above 1,200 rpm. It would appear, in any case, that a high degree of skill and training are required to obtain the best results from the MG-42 … a. When Used As a Light Machine Gun Trials under battle conditions have shown that the best results are obtained from bursts of 5 to 7 rounds, as it is not possible to keep the gun on the target for a longer period. The destruction of the target is therefore accomplished with bursts of 5 to 7 rounds, the point of aim being continually checked. It is of course important that re-aiming should be carried out rapidly, so that the bursts follow one another in quick succession. Under battle conditions the firer can get off approximately 22 bursts in a minute, or approximately 154 rounds. Comparative trials under the same conditions with the MG-34 showed that the best results in this case were obtained with 15 bursts in the minute, each of 7 to 10 rounds, i.e. approximately 150 rounds. It will be seen from this that the ammunition expenditure of the MG-42 is a little higher than with the MG-34, but to balance this, the results on the target with the MG-42 are increased up to approximately 40%. (US Army 1944a) US Army report on MG 42 in medium machine-gun role Long periods of sustained fire must definitely be avoided, as they do not produce the best results and lead to an unwarranted expenditure of ammunition. The reasons for this being, first, if the extraordinarily dense cone of fire of the MG-42 is on the target, then this should be destroyed in approximately 50 rounds; secondly, if the cone of fire is not on the target then the gun must be reaimed, if necessary with adjustments to the sight. In order to assess the position of the cone of fire, fire must not be opened until an observation has been obtained. For instance, if with a range of 2,000 yards the time of flight is 4.7 seconds, then a useful observation cannot be obtained in less than six seconds. Sustained fire for a period of six seconds, however, is the equivalent of an ammunition expenditure of 150 rounds, whereas an observation of the position of the cone of fire or of the effects on the target, could have been obtained with 50 rounds. Trials under battle conditions on the same lines as those carried out in action with the MG-34 have shown that, in general, when using the MG-42 as a medium machine gun, bursts of 50 rounds with repeated checking of the point of aim give the best results. In this way, not only will the best results on the target be achieved, but the expenditure of ammunition will be kept within limits which will be very little in excess of expenditure with the earlier MGs. (US Army 1944)

...yep, already had some great fun with it during last related HMG thread, 3 month gone. Here´s bit of a different setup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIHwZ4YZFFo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKux4VCkyJw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egyevu1i37E

As said, I like to compare with my original wartime sources, but they´re obviously all wrong, since 70 years later, we know it all better, do we? Comparing M240 with MG34/42, with regard to technical specifications, doctrine and supply? Their tripods? Ammo specs? No idea if this leads closer to the truth. I "believe" not. What exactly is that german tactics manual translated to english you mention? "German Squad in Combat"? Any of the "Reibert" series? If there´s talk about effective combat ranges of 500-1000m, then it´s surely about the bipod MG stuff. Use of tracers? Don´t see them mentioned in my sources, but can have a look again. So far just the burst hitting the target area and "effect" on target (suppressed/silenced...) were observed/evaluated (if possible). As said, speaking of tripod heavy support ground role, not AA or other. Wished I´d a scanner to put it all together in ebook format, so everybody with deeper interest in the matter can make own evaluations (..after translations). With regard to CMBN/FI, is it a technical problem, to have more than 5-7 round bursts modelled in the game? Or shorten the pause between bursts, so there´s a quicker succession? I could well "imagine" that this would be no good for RT play, unless things get more abstracted again. Just to compare a 1 second burst of various, stabilized WW2 machine guns systems: Mg42: 20 - 25 Mg34: ~15 Browning M1919: ~6 - 8 Vickers Mk I: ~8-10 Maxim PM1910: ~6 - 8 To me it looks "suspicious" that the bursts lengths in the game are capped around 7-8, thus making all the games HMG "firepower" the same. I agree CM is just a game and not a sim, so certain things simply aren´t doable (yet), more so in RT, which appears to be the main focus now. WEGO surely would allow for other solutions. I do "assume" you do not intend to optimize the game for one or the other option (RT vs WEGO) and if yes, I´d "assume" it will be RT. Maybe better to be discussed for CMX3 then.

Jason, for now I´m only speaking of the MG34/42 on tripod with its special features (optics and adaptable width/depth fire settings). As you know, it wasn´t just one guy sitting at the weapon and plinking away at targets of opportunity. There´s the gun leader with his 6x or 8x binocular, scanning for targets in accordance of task given by a superior. If it´s a "mass target", there´s no difficulties to find and assign it to the gunner with his 3x scope at the tripod. Things might get more tricky, if it´s enemy "point target", but it was solved at ranges between 1000 to 1500m for sure. I do not even dare to mention the "black art" of indirect HMG firing at ranges between 2500 to 3500m. Wasn´t likely used that much, yet it was taught and kept in the manuals. A said, tactical ammo units was "belts" and if germans had necessary ammo at hand, the doctrine is "max amount of bullets, delivered in shortest of time accurately". That was the only purpose for the high rate of fire for MG34 and 42. The tripod with 3x zoom and a leader/spotter with 6-8x binocs gave the means to do it at those ranges AND with sufficient accuracy to provide effect (suppression or destruction). For the ranges you say 600m to 800m and below, that´s still effective ranges for the light (german) machine guns. In defense (and also offensive support) role and properly planned setup, german MG´s weren´t operated singly, but in sections (2xHMG), platoons (4xHMG) and up, if the terrain allowed. Other measures to raise efficiency, was to provide enfilading cross fires. I keep saying it again, technically and doctrinally, a Maxim is not a 30.cal, is not a Vickers, is not a tripod MG34/42. And THAT´s the weapon systems to compare. Not Bren to BAR to DP to MG34/42 on bipod. It´s also not a wonder weapon and with increasing lack of ammo and replacements in the last war years, germans surely had to "adapt". Yet the training and doctrine kept in effect til the last days, as well as developments that aimed at even higher ROF (MG45).

It´s really not about believing or imagination. I compare from numerous original german tactical and technical manuals from the war era, as well as combat reports. The statements made here simply do not coincide and if it´s about imagination or believing, why should germans teach this and that all over the war years, if it´s at last all wrong under front line conditions and in general practice? So let me ask for "sources", so one can agree on some facts at last, maybe even some generalizations. I provided mine sources in the link above, although these are not even complete, but more than sufficient. Just with regard to HMG engagement ranges. All given combat and training examples from my books and manuals are for "effective" ranges of between 1000 to 2000m. That´s the basics. Off course frontline conditions weren´t all the same everywhere, but the main purpose of german HMG´s was to deliver a high volume of fire in shortest time at targets, that a bipod/light MG can´t deal with effectively. A game is a game, as is CM. If it comes to RL and historical facts, I´ll surely don´t take CMBN as reference. Same goes for "other" games. Would be nice if certain original german language sources would be available in english too, but that´s obivously not the case.

Just out of curiosity, would like to know your main sources, that you base MG modelling and (heavy)MG42 in particular, so I can compare with my collection of TMs and doctrinal usage stuff here: http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18276 As much as the worth of HMG weapon systems is dependent on tactical situation, terrain, ammo availability and crew training, nonetheless doctrinal usage is not equal in every army of WW2, the more if the weapoin systems vary very much in technical capability and quality. A Maxim is not a 30.cal is not a Vickers, is not a MG42.... If you say a HMG is a just a nuisance at combat ranges of 1000m+ (or any other), then it´s cause you made it a nuisance in the game. HMG34/42 do not plink away with a handful of rounds to achieve any effect. Tactical ammunition units for the MG34/42 is measured in "belts" and the section commander orders targets to be engaged in this way. Example case, a "lone" (normally work in pairs/section) HMG42 in support of defending german line, engages a "point target", maybe a supporting enemy HMG at range of 1000-1500m (or any other). After figuring range, tripod would be set for accurate point fire and the target showered with 50-100 round belts, or less if ammo is at low supply. 5-7 round bursts as it´s in the game, in RL would just be a nuisance, waste of ammo and likely reveal the HMG´s position unnecessarily. That doesn´t generally coincide with german doctrinal and tactical usage for this particular weapon system. If the game can´t handle 20-50 round bursts minimum for a reason (frame rates, RT play?), then it´s one thing that can be accepted. Same for fast succession shorter bursts. Also if "balancing" is an issue, since MG42 appear a bit "overpowered", compared to other nations MG, can be accepted to a certain degree as well, although as said, would be a matter of tactics applied to deal with it.

"Overpowered", if that means a HMG34/42 that is capable of doing more than 5-7 rounds a bursts, put on a stable platform for accurate/variable fire (tripod & optics), used at more appropiate tactical HMG range role (1000-2000m) and can also be operated from crews who can be expected to have learned their job. All that properly adapted for the other nations HMG. "Balancing" is adapting tactics to deal with anything and that also counts for users of "Overpowered" weapon systems. In Case of HMG34/42, germans had to use frontally covered positions (keyholes) deeper in the main combat area, switch positions, good camouflage and a good fireing plan (+ TRP). Otherwise I do not really care about HMGs in this game. I treat them like LMG nailed on a wooden stake, beeing a larger target for return fire, carrying a whole lot of potentially unused ammo and otherwise a shadow of what they were used for in RL.

What´s actual the doctrinal usage for the 30cal HMG? 500m looks pretty much LMG range to me. German HMG usually weren´t deployed right at the frontlines and usually farther back (well within the main combat area) and if possible from defiladed flanking positions. Ranges to work with in this (Defense) mode are rather in the range 1000 to 2000m usually. Then there´s switch positions, so the HMG can alternate, in case they get spotted at that ranges and plastered with enemy mortar and Arty. Not much different in offensive mode. If the HMG could overshoot, or have usable gaps between forward attacking infantry formations, supporting ranges are also more in the 1000-2000m field, unless the terrain does not offer that far fields of fire, in which case single (or pairs) of HMG were subordinated to the attacking infantry Coy. I tried using german LMG and HMG34/42 in those situations in CMBN and figured, there´s no real advantage in using HMG´s at all. Plinking with infrequent 5-7 round bursts at usual combat ranges of upto 2000m with a HMG34/42 is a waste, the more if the big, densily packed 6 man crew makes such a good target for any return fire (mortars in particular). Yes, HMG were "suppressive" and "area denial" weapons. Sure the MG34/42 was just build for that purpose and combined with tripod & optics, applied combat tactics, was just an expensive device to waste ammo in huge quantities. Well, who belives in Santa Claus? One surely can discuss further about applied combat tactics and RL doctrines for those weapon systems, but it simply does not work in the game. For my personal games I´ll avoid HMGs, offensively and defensively. LMG´s do the trick equally well, the more that usual CMBN maps aren´t big, nor open enough to invest in long range punch, that isn´t.

I´m really getting sick of reading about "balancing" this or that. If certain similar type bolt action rifles are treated the same, then ok, but when it´s about sophisticated weapon systems, like is MG34/42 on tripods with optics and halfway trained crew, handled like "any" machine gun type weapon dumped on piece of wood with a no brainer crew; I feel like I´ll skip any further modules (like I did with CMFI already) and see if BFC comes up with something better researched. Merry Xmas

Consider rifle grenades beeing HEAT too and it makes sense.

I much feel the same, seeing lots of infantrymen getting hit, by not reacting to obvious hazards properly, of which some is reloading weapons in full exposure (instead of going prone or take cover) and non prone stance buddy aid possibility. Also seeing squad members getting hit, does not hinder more squad members run into the same enemy line of fire and get them also hit. And all that has nothing to do with unit experience unfortunately. Even crack/elite lack some the basic SOPs.

Sure, but that highly depends on a soldiers experience/morale. As said, I´m not speaking of handling a bolt action rifle and individual reloading of single rounds, but rather changing mags and belts for a weapon. For a fully trained and/or experienced soldier it was SOP to take cover (crouch, prone, any other physical or just offerning less of a target), not less, no more. Can´t think of a reason, why a soldier that has just expended his rifle ammo while standing behind a window (example), can´t go down to crouch/prone to reload and not offer himself a nice target while doing. I´d suspect it´s rather a lack of animations and not quite the actions itself. Same for the wannabe medics. Maybe more coding necessary, LOS calculations and such, if soldiers that are visible all of the time, suddenly go down and up again after reloading. So in this regard, It´s more complicated, I agree.

Still would like to know, what´s the big problem getting soldiers reload their rifles/arms in cover (or prone), instead of fearlessly do it fully exposed to an enemy returning fire? Same for buddy aid. Why can´t it be applied in prone position? Make some tests and count infantry losses, due to unnecessary exposure to enemy fire! How many times do you see pixel heroes go down, while their last noticable action was "reloading"? Personally I do not want more "micro managment" as Steve works out. I rather would like to see the basic infantry SOP implemented in more realistic ways. If hide can´t be combined with any targeting orders, then be it so, but it wouldn´t be necessary, if Pixeltroopers have more brains to avoid above mentioned exposures.