Fūrinkazan

You're welcome. Thanks should go to the guy who did the vidéo, i think it took him a lot of work.

Hi guys Even if i watch the forum every week, i don't find the need to post. I play all the games since the first CMBO and i still like it after all those years. Today i just found a channel on youtube that can be interesting especially for new players. It's called G.I. History Handbook https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFwP2RKKNYv7o8DJwYO9KxA there are only 3 videos but i think they are very well made. I don't know if that was allready mentioned on the forum but i think it was great to share the link. There is another reason why i decided to talk about those videos. On the video about infantry tactics there is an indication of the practical range of BAR automatic rifles. With the last uppdate of the game, BAR and Bren have been limited to less than 200 m in automatic fire. I know that this was allready mentionned on another thread but i don't know if Battlefront answered to it, if it's a bug or not. I think this totally cripples allied infantry. German squads can use lmgs at 600 m or more and have an unrealistic advantage i think. On the vidéo, it is indicated that lmg can be used on groups of men from 500 to 1 000 yards, 400 to 900 m. Rifles are used at about 400 m . In the vidéo it's at minute 10 and after. I guess that for the Bren, it was more or less the same. I don't think that at long distance, those weapons shoot only single shot, especially at groups of men. I just hope that this can be changed in futur patch. I hope that people will enjoy the link and that the maker of the video will keep is very good job. I wish there was something like this for other nations. best regards Furinkazan

hi, Just can't resist to come back for a few precisions. It seems that some people think that hmg=lmg and that hmg are useless. I would like to try to demonstrate that this is wrong. I think the only way to test the firepower is in a hot seat battle on an open map using area fire. You can count the bullets at all distances without other things that would change the results. So the firepower in game of lmg42 and hmg 42 are : at 100 m 250rpm for hmg 150 for lmg about 70 % more for hmg at 200 m 172 rpm for hmg 116 for lmg 50% more for hmg at 500 m 89 for hmg and 56 for lmg about 50% more for hmg at 800 m 74 for hmg and 50 for lmg about 50 % more for hmg No riflmen were shooting, even at 100 m so it's pure hmg firepower. I did not test to many times but the results may vary a little. But I think this gives a good idea. so, we can say that one hmg in game = 1.5 up to 2 lmgs at all distances. I noticed some variations in the rate of fire during tests so it can happen that 1 hmg has 50% more firepower than an lmg and sometimes up to 100 %. I remember that when the changes were made, BFC said that they also increase hmg accuracy. So i don't think that lmgs and hmgs are equal in game. During my gaming experience, i have played a lot of pure infantry battle, and each time, hmgs were key in my defense. With trench and trps, they can be devastating if well placed. On some battles, i just did not use my riflemen and inflicted more than 50 % losses to the AI just with hmgs. To take the battle of the Somme as exemple, JasonC is right when he said that the British troops were Moving slow and with a lot of equipement, and that's the reason of the disaster. I've been reading that the french had, on the contrary, a good success. It was ordered to the troops to make short moves from cover to cover. I 've been reading that they had half less losses than the Brits. I think that's what our troops do in the game. In game, we must not forget that : What we see is not what our soldier see. At long range, a crawling man is certainly a very difficult target, our pixel troops are not stupid so they try to preserve their lives, it takes time for the leader of the hmg team to point the target and give the order to fire. It's still possible to inflict 20 or more casualties in one battle for one hmg in game. I had up to 35 or 40 on some situations in QBs. I don't know if hmgs should have more advantage on lmgs, but they have one now. I think it would be nice to have more random in the length of bursts for hmgs, but this would increase the difference with lmgs. It's difficult to find the good balance i think. Should one hmg = 3 lmgs at long range, i don't know. One thing BFC should look at is fortifications. Trench and foxholes are hard to use sometimes. I noticed that hmgs suffer the same problem AT guns had in the past. I prepare 2 or 3 positions for my hmgs in trench if possible. I noticed that sometimes, when you go in a trench, the hmg shooter goes crazy and starts to crawl, and it can be far from the trench. Changing the fire direction is sometimes too slow i think, like AT guns. The reason is that the team starts to crawl and it can be very long. Hope this helps in this thread regards

I think that if you think something needs to be improved in the game, people of BFC are always listening. Tanks were too accurate, they could fire at too short range and at too high elevation, they fixed it. the same for tank crews, spotters of snipers team who used to shoot at too long range with their smgs and hmgs firepower. But they always try to find a nice solution that will not make them rework the all game engine. This is why asking for too realistical things is not possible. Some people wanted tank gun elevation. This was not possible but they found a solution with targeting delay that is nice and works quiet well. And the effect for the player is the same in game. and all this made a new much better, more realistic game each time. I think the hmg fix works at short range, and that's why it was efficient in CMBN. If you play in bocage, you'll notice less the problem that will rise when you'll play in big opened maps. The main difference at short distance between hmgs and lmgs is ammo and the number of men that make hmgs more resistant on the battlefield.They are also more accurate at long distance if i remember well. The problem now is to convince developers to take a look at this. When i read last answer by Steve on your other thread, i'm not very optimistic. But, who knows, it took time and a lot of fight to have a change on hmgs the first time and having a better firepower at long range is not impossible, and should, i think, improve the game mechanics and tactics, like the first hmg patch did. I remember that some people said that we were "childish pricks" because we asked for a change on hmgs. i don't think that now, people would like to go back to the old version....

Kauz I would not totally agree with you when you say that hmgs are useless now in the game. Each battle that i play, they cause the most casualties beside artillery. If you want to see useless hmgs play cmsf or cmbn 1.0 and you'll see that it's hard to have more than 10 casualties with hmgs with those versions of the game. During the other threads on the same subject back to cmbn, i wrote that the problem would be more obvious in the east front with larges maps and open field of fire. At long range, hmgs should shine, i would say past 800 m. The game works this way : the longer the range, the longer time it takes to aim, the less bursts you'll get. Isn't it strange that you shoot less bullets at 1500 m to hit a target than at 400 m ? I think the system works well with rifles smgs lmgs. But hmgs are different weapons. Why shoot at 250 rpm at 100 m and 90 rpmor less at 1500 m ? At that distance you target a group of men not a single target. When the enemy is close, it makes sense to shoot short bursts to change of targets fast, but at long range, longer bursts seem to be more logical. But i may be wrong. I like to place my hmgs way behind, sometimes at 500 or 600 m behind my main line of defense, and on the flank if possible. i think that, at those distances, the rate of fire is too low. I don't think that bfc, despite the fact that they always improved the game in the past, will implement swing of the gun. But, maybe longer bursts, with some random in it, and maybe less delay to target at long range. One short to simulate range evaluation, and 2 or 3 long to simulate the fire for effect then repeat the process. when you area target, the bursts don't hit the same place, so this could simulate the swing of the gun. For me, it's like having a mortar that would shoot at 10 rpm at 500 m and 5 rpm at 1500 and 2 rpm at 2000 m. I'm not talking about inflicting more casualties, but to be more efficient at long range, that's all. this would also make hmgs really different from lmgs and more in the role of collective weapons like mortars. Now, it's also true that they are a part of a system and placement, with cross fire etc is also crucial.

Kauz I agree on the fact that lmgs can only fire short bursts, that's what i've been reading on german manual. i guess it's more or less the same for every army, from BAR to Bren lmg34 or dpm. If you simulate german hmgs with 25 bullets bursts, how would you simulate all the others ? Should they all fire long 25 bursts or why not more for some ? It's a difficult thing to simulate + you must take count the ammunitions. When the game came out, i never went out of ammo with my hmgs. Now it happens often. you point 300 to 450 rpm for german hmgs. Is it for all distance ? If you compare to the game with let's say about 60 rpm at 1500 m this means that in game hmg shoot 6 x less bullets than you say. More that what they shoot at 100 m. there is no precision on the time they use this rate of fire. is it 300rpm for 10 seconds, 1 mn ? or 1 brutal 25 burst then 1 mn pause then another ?

Hi, I can understand that some people may be disappointed by hmgs, but they are much better than they were in first version of the game. I did a firepower test : just area fire and count the bullets after 1 mn of fire. - at 100 m hmg 42 = 250 hmg34 =228 lmg 42 = 144 lmg 34 = 126 dpm = 93 maxim = 187 sg43 = 153 - at 300 m hmg 42 = 136 hmg34 =111 lmg 42 = 087 lmg 34 = 076 dpm = 47 maxim = 100 sg43 = 100 - at 500 m hmg 42 = 092 hmg34 = 077 lmg 42 = 050 lmg 34 = 050 dpm = 44 maxim = 78 sg43 = 59/75 - at 1000 m hmg42 = 83 hmg34 = 42 maxim = 57 sg43 = 40 - at 1500 m hmg42 = 58 hmg34 = 42 maxim = 54 at 2000 m hmg42 = 40 hmg34 = 39 I let people take conclusion on those tests made in game. The firepower can vary a little because some random has been introduced, but it gives a good idea. i just wonder just one thing. would it be more logical to shoot more bullets at very long range to have a chance to hit the target (1000 m +) If the procedure for lmgs seems correct to me, i think the firepower of hmgs is maybe decreasing too fast. At long range, there is not much difference between hmg34/42 and maxim. I don't know if it's realistic or not. Maybe more variations in the length of bursts at long range would be good. At short range (under 800 m ) short bursts 5/7 bullets like lmgs, and at long range maybe more. or let the player have a role in it. With target light = short bursts, and target = longer bursts, depending on the hmg. Now, in CMBN this was frustrating, i saw troops moving in the open under the fire of hmgs without much problem. Now it's no more the case. I just feel that some improvement can be done at long range. If some people have the rate of fire used in real life at 1000 , 1500 2000 m for hmgs we can make a comparison with what we have in game and see if there is really something wrong. BFC have changed and improved things to make a more realistic game every time they could, but only for good argumented reasons. implementing swing of the gun is certainly time consuming and i think they could find and faster solution if there is a problem. we can see that hmgs have a rate of fire of about 50 rpm at 1500 m. the only question is : is this correct and conform to reality ? regards

Hi guys, I've been testing and posting on hmgs in the past. I tested the rate of fire of all the teams and hmgs in cmbn at different distances. There was some fight with the efficiency of hmgs. I even tried a comparison with CMBO. In the end, BFC did some modification and i can say that the game is totally different now. Today on a QB, map 081, with 2 bridges to defend. After 22 mn of combat, one hmg 42 inflicted 33 casualties and the other 23. In situations like that i had more than 45 casualties inflicted by only one hmg in more than one QB. Moving on the open ground was possible in version one of the game. Now it's a bad idea and i had the occasion to pin infantry with only 2 or 3 hmgs at more than 700 m in game. In fact they have effect at far more longer range, up to 2000 m if i remember well the test i did in the past. First, like in real life, the placement is very important. Try cross fire, with trps and your ennemy will have a bad day. I 've seen tests made by real hmgs gunners in real life with a vickers hmg on a tv show. It's hard to stop an attack from the front. Lots of bullets miss the target and the enemy can com e close. On the flank it's on the contrary devastating. Using hmgs at 100/200 m is not a good idea in CMRT, and in general. The russians have an advantage at that range and i use to withdraw when they come under 250 m to keep my advantage in firepower. In my QB today, hmgs were at 400 m of the bridges and with both area and target fire, i inflicted 56 casulaties in short time. I had one riflemen company and use only hmgs and i stopped the attack. Without tanks or arty support, no way to cross those bridges. The best i did was more than 50 casualties for one hmg in a QB. For tanks, everything is not perfect, but it's way better than it was especially in city fight. Try CMBN 1.0 and now and you'll see 2 different games. Before, assaulting a city with tanks was possible, now it's a suicide. If you have a good map with ruins, walls etc, tanks are just blind targets. Even in the open, with some cover i had good results in assaulting tanks with infantry. Some things may be improved with fortifications, but i did not tested it. All i can say is that BFC improved a lot the game for small weapons fire and tanks. Not perfect, but a good representation of the battlefield, with the limitations that games have. And it's the best tactical wargame i've ever played, by far. Regards

Maybe a simple solution in defense would be to allow the crew to get cover and let the gun, an come back after the mortar/artillery strike. I think they should be able to take cover in trench/foxhole and be safe. The gun, except maybe a direct hit, would have good chances not to be damaged. Placement in buildings could be a great addition. I remember some soviet movies were you could see 45 mm at gun in buildings even on the higher floors. Some hmgs can be redeployed without time penalty with short distance movement, why not AT guns ? I also think that guns should move faster when pushed by the crew at least for short distance, but not the biggest guns. For the change of orientation, i think guns have the same problem than hmgs. The crew starts to crawl on the ground, at very low speed making change of direction slow.

After a few days of playing quick battles to test the changes, i would say that i'm impressed by the work that was done by developers. The spotter of sniper teams is now holding fire and it makes them harder to spot i think. Also for those with smgs, they save ammo for short range fight. Something that i was waiting for since the first cmsf. The most important is the way tank spot and react in urban combat. Now, tanks attacking without infantry support are targets. I have a test map, a modified qb map with more ruins and buildings, and i must say the changes are very important. Assaulting tank is much easier to do , they spot less, they can't shoot at very short range, or with a lot of problem and they are very slow to shoot at troops in high buildings. Killing tc with sniper is easier, the team is not always destroyed immediately, and opened top vehicles (TD, half tracks etc... ) are very vulnerable to top attack, infantry is better at killing the crews and targeting with grenades. Infantry can now stay very close to a tank without problem and most of the time the result will be a destruction and immobilisation, or the tank will try to withdraw in emergency away from infantry. AT mines are also now very effective just like in CMFI/GL. Even if i don't use it too much, firing rockets from buildings is now possible, but will result in suppression, injuries for the team/squad. So, split teams should be a rule. Demo charges work very well at close range since most of the time, the tank will be destroyed before it can spot or aim at assaulting infantry. Infantry in a city have now the advantage and this makes the game much more realistic. Also something i was waiting for since CMSF. The maps are beautiful and it's too bad that there are some bugs with ammo sharing. Hmg's ammo carriers have now an utility since they carry a lot of ammo. For me, the result of all these changes is a much more realistic game. The changes are as important as the hmg/small weapon changes made in the previous version. With more fog of war, the game is also more difficult, and tactical mistakes leads to high casualties. Urban fighting is really harder and i would advice those who are new to the game to watch the videos made by Lt. Col. Jeffrey Paulding for the armchair general magazine, or to go to the battledrill blog (impressive work, very usefull) to get tactical lessons that are a must to win battles now. Thanks to all Battlefront team for the effort made in improving the game. Can't wait to see those changes in CMFI/GL. Keep this good work. Regards

Since CMBO, i don't see any other game that can compete with what BFC made. When i buy modules and base game, i don't only buy a game, i consider it also as a support to developers. I have spent 10 $ for CMBN upgrade in december and 35 $ in may for CMFI. This means that i have spent something like 9$/month for the game, less if i consider that we are in august. I don't think it's excessive if i compare to other things like what you pay for TV, cell phone, cigarettes for those who smoke... Each module brings improvements, vehicles, maps etc... and i consider it's a lot of work. But, i also see it as a way to encourage developers to improve the game, and i think that's what they did since the begining. Everyone, including myself, would like to see new vehicles/troops, new features, improvements on the game engine etc.... and i can uderstand that some people may be frustrated, but there is one thing that i think is sure is that the game is getting better and better with every patch, module or upgrade. With the upgrade system, CMBN may have new features like fire and a lot of other things. All this is a lot of work and i consider i'm not only buying a module, i support a team that made games i've been playing for years.

Yes, that was what this thread is about, at the beginning. I would just like to point a few things about urban combat, that's all. And some people on this thread want the use of rocket launcher inside building to be allowed, so... I'm not sure that, with the actual system, throwing things at tanks would be a good idea. I had to face an opened top vehicle, a little m8 howitzer carriage that was immobilized at only 2 m of a building. I had 2 men on the second floor and they started throwing grenades. A lot of explosions and a few seconds later, the vehicle turned its turret an kill my guys. Well, bad luck, so i send the rest of the squad, more men, more grenades and same result. i had lost about 10 men and no crew member was hit. Imagine the result with a tank that is less vulnerable. If there is no concussion, stunning effect, for the crew, your team will be blown in seconds. All i'm saying is that shooting from inside or outside building is maybe not the problem. I'm not against allowing AT rockets to be fire from inside buildings as long as it is historical. I have no proof that it is. On the contrary, from what i have been reading in the Osprey books, it was not permitted for bazooka and panzerschreck. If someone as solid proof that it's false no problem for me. Seedorf81 pointed something interresting. AT teams have problems to spot and turn in the right direction and this gives bad results. When soldier crawl to face a new direction, they loose contact with the target even if it's a tank at 10 m. I have sent teams with demo charges to kill an immobilized tank and notice that, even on a flat street they may loose contact with the tank. Today, i played a QB against the AI. I destroyed 4 tanks and some infantry with only 5 losses. I lost 2 men that were hiding in a corner of a building. A buttoned up tank came, spotted them first and killed them. How can they be spotted while they were only at 5m of the tank. Also, the tank was moving, and they did not react. My point is that AT team should be faster to spot and shoot than the tank. From what i've been reading, i think we all agree that the main point is that tanks are too powerfull in cities. It was the case i think also in CMSF. If you take a look at videos made by Syrians insurgent you will see all the problems that tanks face in urban areas. I think it could be possible to tweak the spoting for tanks and infantry without changing too much things. Reducing the field of view of tanks on the sides or rear at close range would also help a lot. Making the infantry react faster than tanks and making explosions (grenades, demo charges) more effective on the crew is also possible. This would not need new features and would give back advantage to infantry. My guess is that BFC will certainly not make huge changes on the game. But they may tweak things, like they did with hmgs or the super tank crews, to limit the problems.

I don't want to start a fight like it was for the hmg problem but i think that shooting from buildings with bazooka etc.. is not the problem. First, i've been reading the osprey elite books: "infantry anti tank tactics" and "WWII street fighting tactics". Both books forbid the use of AT rocket launchers in buildings. So i would tend to think BFC is right on that point. I've been playing a lot of QB's in a small city map that i modified and it can be fun to train to kill tanks with demo charges/grenades or panzerschreck. I use some rules : - The map : It's very important to provide infantry with places to hide, put some destroy buildings, shell holes, walls, tree, ruins and use the elevation tool in the editor to simulate ruins. I have modified the qb map 260 to have a place to play. You already have an AI plan so just modify the map. - Split squads is a must. I have AT teams oustside buildings protected form infantry by the rest of the squad. This avoid loosing a squad if the attack against the tanks fails. You also can assault tanks from multiple directions for better results. prepare alternative positions if things go bad. - Use obstacles and mines : they help to slow tanks and make them go were you can set ambush. If in cmfi mines are efficient, it's not the case in cmbn. I have seen a tank touched by 3 mines and still rolling. This should be looked upon i think. - it's possible to destroy tanks with at rifle grenades but you'll need lot of luck. I 've seen once a sherman destroyed and burning with one single rifle grenade shot from a building. with trainning and good tactics, tanks will have a very bad day if they come in cities. Now, there are some problems i think : - spotting : i have seen many times buttoned up tanks spot infantry before infantry spots them. Even from the rear, they have very good spoting and i think that this could be modified. Even with destroyed optics, they spot well. Infantry , AT guns and Hmgs suffer from what i call the crawling problem : when they have to change their spotting direction (with fire arcs for exemple), instead of just turning, they start to crawl and that takes too much time. - Foxholes and trenches are not efficient. Because they are not really holes inside the ground but more just sandbags they don't provide enough cover. It's sometimes better to be in shell hole than in a trench. If you take a look at pictures from real life, in foxholes you can just see the heads of soldiers. I've seen hmg position were the barrel of an hmg42 was just over the hole, maybe 20cm or less making it very hard to spot and kill, the same for AT guns positions. - I don't think that the concussion effect of demo charges or grenades affects the crew or not enough. As you can see on this link : http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/german-tactics-against-tanks.html the crew should be temporaly knocked out. I have seen crews ready to fight just after they were hit by demo charge and their tank destroyed. the crew shoud be blinded or K.O. for a moment allowing a close assault of the tank and making it easier - we don't have much blinding possibilities except smoke but sometimes, through smoke infantry spots after the tank and gets destroyed.Incendiary Bottles would be an interresting addition to the game i think. - small weapons don't have blinding/moral effect on crews or maybe not enough. - as i said in my other post, tanks don't have minimum range or gun limitations. When cmsf came out i had the chance to talk with Steve about this and it seems it's a problem of AI programming that would bring a lot of other problems. Now, assault guns have gun limitations, so developers managed to do it maybe they could take a look at this to avoid the most extreme situations and adapt the rules made for assault guns to tanks. - The reaction time : as said before, tanks seem to react immediately. Even if the TC is killed by infantry (sniper) they spot, react very fast. - I would really like to have more stealth snipers. Back to CMX1 i remember that they were a plague for tc and i used to never approach building areas with opened hatch. These are just my experience after a lot of AT fighting in cities. I'm not expecting the game to replicate the exact reality, but i still hope that BFC will find a nice solution to those little problems like they did for hmgs/small weapons. I still enjoy destroying tanks in cities, especially with troops not equiped with at rocket launchers and those problems are not game killing for me, but i think that improvement is needed to avoid the most frustrating problems. This could be as important than the modification made for hmgs i think. Regards,

I have found this, taken form an excerpt of the field manual (d560/4) of the panzerfaust 100. the distance of security behind the weapon is 10 m. If the weapon is fired from a trench of foxhole, you have to let at least 1 m behind you or there is a risk of getting your back burned, or shoot with the rear of the weapon outside the foxhole/ trench. The weapon is deadly at 3 m behind it. Unfortunately, there is no mention of the use or restriction of fire inside buildings. I found this on a review about german anti tank tactics. It seems that there was a use of panzerfaust in buildings in Berlin, but no details so very hard to say if it was safe or not. So i think that there will be a lot of fighting just like it was for the hmg efficiency thread. I tested anti tank fighting in QBs against the ai, with engineers or with troops without panzerschreks, only demo charges, grenades or faust. I'm not sure that the problem is firing from buildings or not. The problems of destroying tanks comes from : - spotting : it seems that sometimes infantry does not spot tanks well, sometimes at few meters while the tank spot them. I had an at team crawling behind a buttoned up sherman with no tank commander cupola that was spotted at a few meters and destroyed by the tank. How were they spotted ? It also seems that tanks react very fast, sometimes faster than infantry. - for vehicles with open top like tank destroyers, it seems that infantry targets the vehicle and not the passengers or open top. When crawling behind the tank, they start firing their rifle and after throw grenades. When on the second or third floor of a building it's also hard to kill the passengers. I think there was a thread about this, for jeeps or trucks, were infantry targeted the vehicle instead of the crew - no minimal range for the weapons of the tank. I attacked an immobilised tank with a team and demo charges. At 3 m they were killed by the main gun. Some things disadvantage infantry i think, spotting to easy maybe, buttoned up tanks are almost blind at close range, this is more the case for allied tanks without cupola, and the no minimal range for weapons, allowing the tank to destroy infantry at too close range. If i remember well, in cmx 1, tanks had lower spotting capabilities when buttoned up, especially with infantry in buildings. Despite this, it is perfectly possible to destroy tanks with grenades and demo charges but it's a lot of micro management. For what is about allowing AT rockets to be fired from buildings, maybe this could be linked to the experience of the shooter. Green troops would have a high level of risk to get injured or killed while veterans much less. Another rule would be to have the at team detached from the squad and alone on the floor from which they are firing.

Thanks for the patch. I tested it with a new install of the game and infantry combat is a lot different now . Even on the table map test, 2 mgs do a better job than 4 or 5 before. Flanking fire is devastating and i think that now, hmgs do their job and are really an important part of the game. No more charge in the open and it changes tactic a lot. Lmgs and small weapons fire is great too. No more fanatics super tanks crew and super pistol:). Just a great improvement for the game i think, really almost a new game. So thanks a lot to all BFC team, developers and testers for those changes i've been waiting for so long. Thanks for listening to us and for your effort to improve the game. Keep the good work, and i can't wait to play with modified CMFI and the next modules. I noticed 2 things : Hmg don't respect the 15 sec delay to dismount when leaving a building. When inside building, i saw bullets hitting the building wall and ricochet backward, not all the burst but a few bullets.