Fūrinkazan

I did new tests today with the new v2.00 of CMBN. I tested only hmg 42 with regular experience against a company of US riflmen without heavy weapons. First the max range : During my first test when CMBN came out i did a mistake on one point. I thought that it was impossible to shoot at targets over 800/900 m with targeting even with area target order, but it's possible with area target, so : the max rang of an hmg 42 is 2000 m, but you will fire at a target that you can't see. Now, without order they usually start firing at around 800 m if i remember well. The rate of fire (approximatly, but gives a good idea) : from 600 m up to 2000 m : around 50 rpm sometimes only 30 at very long range but can vary. 500 m : 60 400 m : 77 200 m : 119 100 m : 189 50 m : 322 is also did another test. I target a fixed infantry position at 1800 m. Instead of moving, the US company was just fixed at 1800 m. I used trps and fired with 4 hmgs. Bullets have a curved trajectory, and a little more dispersion but not much. You can have effects and suppress infantry at that range but not much. The suppression effect showed by the indicator does not last long. In 5 mn i killed 3 soldiers and wounded one. From a tactical point of view it may be interresting to put hmgs far behind the first line of defense. Infantry would serve as spotter for hmgs. Hmgs, firing at long range remain unspotted by infantry. It's like the tactics used in WW1 when hmgs were used as indirect fire weapons. Now posted on the flank and far away, let's say 1400 m. They can fire without being detected and certainly cause more casualties on moving infantry. I usually play iron mode and with big maps to allow long range firing and flank attack. Feels much better for me than small maps with frontal engagement at less than 200 M. Is it better to change moral or rate of fire ? If we consider hmgs like long range suppressing/support/and for interdiction weapon, i think that at long range the rate of fire is too low, and i quiet agree that if suppression effect is changed this will affect all infantry against all weapons. I would make a difference between 3 types of firing : - harrassment : 1000 to 2000 m (area fire out of sight, need of a spotter, infantry unit or hq in the main line of defense) - support/suppression : 400 m up to 1000 m (in sight area) the range were hmgs are efficient from soviet manual (remember 600 to 1000 m) - emergency : short range 400 m or less, when infantry is a threat for hmg position, because riflemen start to shoot at 500 m or more 400 m and can return fire. From 700 m up to 2000 there is not much difference between rate of fire around 50 rpm Under 400 it's to 77 rpm and increase to 322 rpm at 50 m There are solutions to improve the efficiency and suppression of hmgs. First reduce de delay between bursts. The delay simulates, i think, the time it takes to estimate range and fire. Or increase the lenght of the burst. In emergency mod (400 or less) i would suggest 3 sec delay and down to 1 sec (20 burst 140 rpm at 400 m up to 60 burst 420 rpm at 50 m). This is close to what it is now. In support/suppression mode (400 up to 1000 m) : or less delay or, what i think is better longer bursts for exemple 2 sec bursts. 1/2 burst range estimation 2 burst effective fire etc. (7/7/50 bullets ) with 12 burst mn for exemple : 256 rpm In harrassment mode (1000 m 2000 m) : 2 burst of range estimation and 1 long burst (2 sec) etc... (7/7/50 bullets etc...) with 10 sec delay ,6 bursts: 128 rpm with the actual system, an hmg can fire for more than an hour on a target at around 2000 m (approx 2760 bullets / 30/40 rpm = 1h30 to 1 h ) With this system this is more 20 mn or less of fire. There is certainly a compromise to find between rate of fire and ammo preservation, but there is room for improvement i think. It's also the responsability of commander to watch ammo and, at long range we can imagine that a prepared position would have more ammo (trucks, half-tracks, bunkers etc...) Now, in emergency mode, ammo is less a problem since it's the life of soldiers that is in balance. Can't imagine that in real life they would save ammo when assaulted by enemy, no need for ammo if you're dead. Just suggestions to have an idea of what i mean. Regards

If there are exemples of fanatics like the japanese troops, i quiet agree on this. There were issues with moral for tank crews i think. After the destruction of their tank they kept on fighting just has if getting out of a destroyed vehicle was nothing. I did not have the time to play with the new CMBN patch but it seems that crews tends to panick and withdraw much faster than before from what i've seen in the few qb's i played. I think it's going in the right direction. Now in the case that was pointed out by slysniper, maybe making the ratio between riflemen/smg firpower against the 4 hmgs would help to explain. I would say that at 250 m the firepower was something like 12 burst mn 5 bullets for each hmgs = about 60 rmp x 4 = 240 rpm. This roughly means 20 riflemen firing 12 rpm or only 10 firing 25 rpm. Taking in count that 200/250 m is in the range of rifle, and that they aim at each target if you have 20 guys shooting they may have cause more casualties than hmgs. And i don't count in this the guys with smgs and the fact that during an assault, troops are getting closer, making it easier to hit targets. Now at very short range 80/50 m that's another story since an hmg 42 can reach something like 420 rpm in the game . Now also keep in mind that firepower = suppression. If, after increasing firepower of hmgs, infantry was still not suppressed, then maybe we can imagine to raise the suppression effect. Now, also, maybe BFC made this on purpose to make the game much funnier to play for non wargamers. If some people want more realistic model, some may not like the fact that the game is too difficult. Or, just like the problem of accuracy of tanks on the move, they did not see or realise this. Now that tanks miss almost all the time when they fire on the move the game is much better, let's hope that they will keep to improve it. This is why i think that the solution of tweaking the lenght of some bursts could be a helpful : bursts of, for exemple : 7 + 7 + 50 + 7 + 50 etc bullets would give at 250 m 12 bursts = 256 rounds for an hmg 42 and let's say maybe 200 rpm for an allied hmg. this would mean an hmg would be 3 x lmg and 21 to 10 riflemen depending on the weapon they have. If you take a look to soviet datas, quiet correct i think. regards

Totally agree on this. I had better gaming experience with lower quality troops. In the cmx1 manual : for cracks "you will encounter troops of this caliber only rarely" for elite " soldiers of this caliber are exceedingly rare". To slysniper : if i understand well the starting point of the italian attack was at 200/250 m of the US side. i think it's very short range to estimate the efficiency of hmgs, but that was certainly not the aim of your test. Did you put the hmgs in the flank or in the front of the line of attack ? 200/250 m is more the range of rifles and maybe that's why you had those results, i just guess. If your hmgs were on the front, most of the bullets may have go between ranks without too much losses. Now i found this, that i have already quoted on another post about hmgs, it's taken from "Soviet infantry tactics in wwii" : - "the machine gun section can give effective fire out to 1 000 m ... It's also advantageous to open fire suddenly at ranges of 600 m or less" - "most effective is hmg fire from the flank or in echelon (on an angle)" - "long continuous fire from the same position is forbidden ... For this reason the section leader is responsible to have, in addition to his own postition at least three alternative positions connected with trenches..." - "with the beginning of the ennemy attack the fire of the hmg section will increase to its maximum rate" - "a faultlessly operated machine gun cannot be approached by ennemy infantry " with this in mind i think that : for the russians, alternative positions for hmgs are a rule, and my guess is that it was the same for all nations. Hmgs open fire at a range were squads cannot return fire (400/ 600 m) and from the flank. An hmg position is an hard target for ennemy infantry without support. Now the rate of fire taken from the same manual for exemple : dp lmg : cyclic rof 600 practical rof : 80 7.62 MT hmg : cyclic rof 600 practical rof : 250/300 7.62 ds-39 : cyclic rof 600 practical rof :300-310 7.62 sg 43 : cyclic rof 700 practical rof : 250-300 the effective range given for all weapons is 1000 m rifles are given 10-12 rpm or 20-25 rpm with effective range of 800 m to 400 m. Now this means that, roughly, in terms of firepower : - one lmg = 6 to 3 riflemen - one hmg = 20 to 10 riflemen - one hmg = 3 to 4 lmgs Now just think of how many bullets fire hmgs/lmgs in the game (did not test rifles) : at only 250 m lmg42 :12 bursts of 7 bullets max = 84 bullets hmg 42 :14 bursts of 7 bullets =98 bullets now i did not test riflemen but let's assume they fire at 12/25 rpm max : In the game : an lmg is 7 to 3 riflemen an hmg is 8 to 4 riflemen an hmg is 1.16 lmg conclusion : for lmgs it seems correct but certainly not for hmgs. we can estimate that the fire power is at least divided by 2 and in the game an hmg = an lmg. Now this not true for the ammo, number of men and precision of the weapon but it is in terms of firepower. Every player can do tests again and find his own conclusion, but if you count the number of burst minute at 250 m you 'll find roughly the same numbers. More, russians hmgs are given a practical rate of fire of 250 rpm, far from what we see in the game : at 400 m 10 bursts : 70 rpm for an hmg 42 Now if we take a look at lmgs : practical 80 rpm from the soviet infantry tactics. At 400 m for lmg 42 in the game :70 rpm . Quiet correct i think. Think it's worse for allied hmgs because burst are only 3 to 5 bullets. According to the excellent Armchair general videos, firepower is the key in the modern combat. My opinion is that increasing rof for hmgs would be much more realistic. I remember how hard it was to attack a german infantry position defended by 1 or 2 hmgs in cmbb.... needed to use support and a lot of tactics to win. This is just my opinion, and i tried to explain with arguments how i fell about this particular part of the game. Regards

Interresting but i have never had the opportunity to read something about the number of bullets needed to have suppression. I think that one thing is sure, in real life or in the game, the more bullets the more suppression you have. you can see it in the game at close range. For exemple try an hmg 42 at less than 100 m. During a QB, i ambushed a squad with one hmg (less than 80 m if i remember well). they shot one burst second so about 7 x 60 = 420 rpm !!! this during a few seconds. The squad was pinned immediatly and wiped out in a few seconds. So, the game engine can handle higher rate of fire and this shows how it is important for suppression. Now, hmgs are more long range weapon, at short range they are more vulnerable to infantry squads and the problem is that the rate of fire is decreasing with distance, making them not much more efficient than lmgs for the number of bursts. I would suggest to keep the system at short range (less than 200 m) with short delay between bursts (2/3 seconds ) each burst of 7 bullets for germans and 5 to 3 for allied and increase rate of fire just like i explained before at longer range. Now some players think the 0.50 cal is not efficient enough. Again, my guess it's that it's the same problem. At short range, devastating ! I had a squad taken under fire at - 100m by an half-track and they suffer heavy suppression and casualties, but if you shoot at let's say 500 m, this will mean something like 10 bursts each of about 3 to 5 bullets, so only 50 rpm. My guess is that it's not enough to cause a lot of suppression so we have the feeling that hmgs are not efficient. When i saw this system, already with CMSF, i thought that something was wrong at long range. In CMBN it's sometime less a problem because of bocage and shorter range, but it comes again in CMFI with longer fields of fire, and my guess is that there will be other threads about it for the eastern front if BFC does not or can't tweak things.

If the suppression and fire power of hmgs need to be improved i guess that BFC will not make big changes or had new feature. They would do with the actual system. At long range, let's say over 600 m you can expect 5 to 7 bursts mn for all hmgs in the game. German will have 7 bullets bursts while allied 5 and if i remember well less for the 0.50. This means for germans 7x7 bullets mn : around 50 rpm and allied 5x7 bullets mn around 35 All hmgs fire this way: first shoot / pause (in this case 10 secondes) / burst / pause etc... Or Bfc can increase artificially the effect of bullets by increasing suppresion or let hmgs shoot more bullets. More bullets will give more suppresion on target. Imagine they change a little the firing procedure : Hmg 42 : short burst (to estimate range) / pause / short burst 7 bullets / 2 seconds bursts on target (around 50 bullets) / short burst / short burst / long burst etc.... with 7 burst like this we have : 7 + 7 + 50 + 7 + 7 +50 + 7 = 135 rpm at 600m + Compare with the 50 rpm with the system we have now. for a Vickers hmg : 5 +5 + 25 +5 + 5 +25 + 5 = 75 rpm compared to something like 35 rpm. This is just to give an idea of the system. I think this is possible to tweak and i see many advantages : - more bullets = more suppression - the ammo consomption is still reasonable - real difference between hmgs and lmgs - no need to had complicated new feature More, the system simulates the time it takes to estimate the range for a shooter and can be adjusted to shooter experience : for exemple a veteran would only need 1 short burst to estimate range and fire 2 sec burst while a recruit could need 3 or more. The use of trps could also reduce the need for short bursts to find range and would make hmgs even more effective. I noticed also this when i was testing hmgs : I tried a company of infantry against 5 hmgs. When bullets were flying around them, the stress/ suppression indicator was full red, but they did not take cover and kept advancing but, when a man was hit by a bullet, they immediately stopped progression. So it seems that taking casualties is, in that case, what was pinning down troops not incoming bullets. All this are few ideas, but maybe worth trying it . Regards

Hi, I've been reading this thread with interest, and also other threads on cmbn forum about the same subject. I'm glad i'm not the only one who think that something could be improved with hmgs. I tried in this thread : http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105423 to expose my point of view. You'll find some tests that i did with CMX 1 and CMX2 to try to make a comparison and have strong arguments. First, i noticed while testing lmgs/hmgs in CMX2 that at about 300 m, an lmg will fire the same number of bullets than an hmg. Then if you compare with cmx1 you'll find that the abstracted firepower of an hmg is much more important (you'll find the figures in the test ). For exemple at 500 m lmg will fire 8 bursts minutes and hmg 9. In cmx 1 the hmg has 52 of firepower and lmg 18. This means that in one game the firepower is almost the same and in another, an hmg42 = 2.88 lmg 42 at 500 m. I don't want to go in real life use of hmgs, because this would be too hard to model, but in my memories, hmgs were more effective in cmx 1. It is less a problem at short range, like in bocage, but become more importante when the distance increase. I think that hmgs in general are modeled like lmgs with more ammo. They have the same way to open fire. During my talking with other players, dieseltaylor showed me a link about the use of hmg 42 http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/intelligence-report/use-of-mg42.html This makes me think that the way hmgs fire should be tweaked at long range. For exemple : 1 short burst or 2 to observe the point of impacts, then 50 rounds and so on until the target is destroyed. Something like mortars do, a few shots to find the good range and then effective fire. We can imagine that experimented shooter would only need 1 try while green troops will take 2 or 3 bursts to find the range. Trps could reduce the procedure or allow a 50 round burst immediately like for artillery support. Now that is just a suggestion, but with this, there would be a real difference between lmgs and hmgs. Now, hmgs can be impressive in the CMX2 , but at too short range i think. The placement is crucial but they can have devastating effect, and i had good results in the game but only under 300 m, after it seems that it's harder to have better results even with flanking fire. I saw in a tv show an experimented british machinegunner shooting with a vickers hmg. First, the weapon is not precise this is why it is very important to have flanking fire. They made a test with balloons that represented a company of infantry "charging" the hmg. If the mg is on the front it is very hard to hit targets, a lot of bullets going between the ranks of infantry. During the test, the gunner had 250 bullets for 250 balloons. From the front, if i remember well he only shot 80 balloons, but from the flank 240. The main problem for me is the difference of efficiency when comparing the 2 games. If you have CMBB or CMAK just make the test of charging in the open in front of one hmg. In cmx2, with the 1/1 representation of troops, it's certainly much harder to model. Now the game is getting better with each patch/module so i hope that BFC will take a look at this. Regards

Hi, I 'll try to explain my point of view better. First is the game realistic ? I think so. Yesterday i watched the very interresting video n°4 that Lt. Col. (ret) Jeffrey Paulding put online. If you look at is comment on the game and what is says on the vidéo CMBN is a good representation/simulation of combat. He uses the words "combat simulator" and that's the best compliment for the game. When i see that it takes him 3 hours of thinking before playing to prepare is troops i must say that he is much more involved in the game than i am. Now does it mean that everything is perfect ? BFC made strong historical and technical research but some things may need adjustment. They patched the game to change a few things ( soldier behaviour etc...) Each time the game is better. Now, about smgs hmgs. I had more time in the past to play CMBO/CMAK and when i went to CMSF and CMBN i noticed differencies about the effect of hmgs. More, i've seen threads and posts about that in the past. So, are hmgs underpowered ? I don't trust my feelings, especially when i can only play the game the week end. So i had to find an exemple to make comparison. I did not find on the tactical books i have sufficient datas to have an opinion on the subject. I've found datas about tactical trainning of german lmgs and that made me think the game is correct about lmgs, but i had no clue with hmgs. I used the word "logical" for CMBB/CMAK, Why ? On one side we have 2 men with one lmg with bipod. On the other side a tripode mounted hmg with optics and more ammos, with 5 or six men to serve it. this is reflected is CMBB/CMAK by the differencies in abstracted firepower. At short range much firepower for hmgs (more men, ammos, smgs etc...) At long range also (almost 3x the firepower of an lmg). Logical since you can't fire the same way with both weapons. Now, what do i see in CMBN. At long range, weapons have the same rate of fire, the same procedure ( i did not tested acccuracy). This was strange for me and when i compared with CMBB, i guessed that it was the reason of the feelings i had. After some research, i think the delay of fire between bursts is correct, so no need to change the delay i think. Thanks to dieseltaylor, i had more infos on hmgs procedure : If i understood well, German hmgs gunner used to shoot a first burst to see the accuracy, the shoot a 50 round burst. Then repeat the process. This is not what we see in the game. I'm not asking the game to represent everything in detail, but when i see the M240b datas, hmg 42 datas, it may explain why some people, inculding me, have the felling that hmgs are underrated at long range. I also imagined another point of view : The psychological effect of the weapon is less strong in CMBN than CMBB. I needed a comparison, imperfect of course, but better than just my point of view. I try to have objective argument and not subjective impression. Some people think that when someone is pointing something about the game it's an attack against the game engine and BFC. I'm not angry against them, i think they are just passionate by the subject and the game. I'm not attacking the game, i'd be a fool to buy games i don't like . So, if you think i'm wrong or right, tell it and explain why. That's not a problem for me if people have good arguments. And i'm interrested in others point of view. It's a good way also, i think, to help making better game. Now, i'm gonna buy this week-end CMFI and have a good time with it:). Sorry for the long post. Best regards

It's out of subject but did some of you watched the last tactical video of Lt. Col. (ret) Jeffrey Paulding ? I'm downloading it because i loved the first ones, they were very interresting. See is comment on the game : "All the work Battlefront did on the infantry AI in the Combat Mission Shock Force series is what makes Battle for Normandy such a great combat simulator.":) For those who think the game is broken, i think that the opinion of a professional who played also CMBB highly valuable. That's when i read this that i really don't regret the support on BFC simulations since CMBO. And i think that in the future, with future patch and new game engine will be greater :).

Thanks for sharing informations dieseltaylor. For lmgs it confirms what i've been reading in German squad tactics in ww2 book. In this i think the game is ok, also i guess with Bren and Bar. I did not have infos on the hmg use. If i understand well, they fire short burst, observe the point of impact then fire 50 rounds at long range. Then they repeat the process i guess, if the target is not destroyed. Different of what we see in the game. I wonder if the differencies between the 2 games comes from firepower or the adjustment of psychological effect on infantry (suppression). I've seen troops with their suppression indicator at the maximum still advancing until one man is hit. In CMBB, infantry seems more affected, they hide or crawl as soon as they are hit by hmg fire. Was it exageratet in CMBB/CMAK ? What is your opinion?

I agree on this, variability is important in the game. The problem is if those things happen a lot or not. I would make a distinction between adjustement and a bug. It seems that hmgs team do not respect the delay to deploy for exemple, i would call this a bug since it was designed like this. They should respect the time to dismount the weapon. An adjustment is different. It's like moving up or down a cursor. In the case of my Stug, i think it was bad luck. 99% of the time, i don't see irrealistic results. But it seems that infantry is spotted by tanks to easily sometimes, that there are some spotting adjustment needed. BFC did those adjustment in the past : they put down the cursor, probability, for tanks while moving, to hit something. The problem is that it is difficult to estimate if it's bad luck or over/under estimation of something. Maybe, and i insist on "maybe", as we see multiple incident it seems, they should put down the cursor on spotting ability of tanks moving, especially when button up for exemple. I think that buttoned up tanks should have a huge disadvantage in combat. i've been reading this on a recent article about tactics and doctrine of Israelian tankers during the Kippour war : They had tank commanders unbuttoned while Arabs used the soviet doctrine of fighting with close hatch. Israelian had heavy losses in tank commanders but according to a US army study, an open hatch tank is twice more efficient in combat than the one with closed hatch. In the same article : Israelian estimated that if you fight 1 against 2 and shoot first you have more chances to win than if you fight with a force of 5 against 1 but you shoot last. First shot is very important and spotting is capital when it comes to tank combat. More, Israelians discover that with the flat trajectory of their APDS rounds up to 1600 m they did not have to know the exact position of target. They abandonned the procedure of estimation of the distance of target, including with rangefinder and prefer fast fire. They prefer visual estimation of distances and lot of training. The average delay between target spotting and fire is 12 seconds. One little story : When i was playing CMBO, i played the Villers Bocage scenario. I played it many times to try different tactics. Once, i advanced very confident in the power of Wittmann's Tiger. After a few meters, BANG !!, the tank was hit. Then the crew bailed out and they were captured. They were hit by a Stuart. The 37 mm round went through the driver sights, killing him in a first shot. This was the end of Wittmann's career . Happened only once, but this is why i love this game.

Hi guys, Quiet agree with you on spotting. As i said on another thread, i had a Stug unbutonned under trees, on the left on the enemy supposed progression (250/300 m) A first Sherman comes and is destroyed, so i go . Then a second one, buttoned, descending a small hill. It spotted first, shot first on the move full speed, and killed my stug with one round, and i go :mad:. More, after battle i checked and the crew was green inexperimented. I had also issues with tanks hunters that can't spot a tank firing on another squad at less than 10 m. It does not happen a lot, i think but it's still frustrating. Maybe some improvement on tank spotting on the move (and spotting infantry while buttoned) is needed, it's quiet logical that an immobile tank with open hatch can spot better than one moving fast buttoned. Also maybe for firing on the move. Now i understand that BFC cannot change everything, it takes lot of time and testing so they must be sure that there is a real problem. I think that they have the will to improve the game, but the process is long, and certainly too long for us, players. But i think they try to listen our demands the best they can. For the price of the upgrade, i think it's fair, and i hope they will make an offer for the next CMBN module (if i understood well, it will need version 2.0). The last patch was huge improvement for me. I'll wait and see what happens with CMFI.... Regards

I think that trying to find comparable datas is the best way to make your opinion. Usually, when BFC publish a game this is what happens : Someone starts a thread " tanks are too accurate " Few days later another thread " tanks are totally inaccurate" etc... It's the same with spotting, snipers etc... Sometimes, people are right (tank firing on the move, pistols accuracy...) but everyone has different perception about the game. It's difficult to have an opinion basing on a few things that happened while playing the game. When i replayed CMBB/CMAK, i didn't play it since CMSF, i was surprised by the effect of hmgs on infantry and the difference with CMBN. With 2 bunkers (6 hmgs if i remember well) i was able to block 250 soviets troops at 500 m +. Not a question of casualties only but they were more easy to pin down. Same in CMAK, with 2 hmgs against US company. I also remember that in CMBB, a german infantry position was hard to take and i had to use all my combined weapons to eliminate them. Now it doesn't mean that CMBN is totally wrong, but it seems there are huge differencies that i can't explain. It was certainly more easy to have a better hmgs representation in CMX1 since it's more abstracted than in CMBN with 1/1 representation of troops. My guess when i see M240b datas is that the weapon can use sustained and rapid rate of fire at long distance ( at least 500 m). So the mg42 and vickers should be able to do it. So with 100 rpm to 200 rpm for M240b we fall to something like 70 rpm for mg42 and 50 rpm for allied hmgs. Would it be correct to expect 100/200 rpm for a vickers for exemple at 500 m with 5/6 seconds pause ? This would be 4 times what we see in the game. This can explain the differencies between games. With less bullets on target, less suppression etc... It's worse for mg 34/42 since they have higher rate of fire. The fact that bursts are, it seems, limited to 7 bullets for german and 5 bullets or less for allied doesn't help. If we compare M240b with allied hmgs, they can shoot up to 13 bullets by bursts compared to something like 5 max in the game almost x3. I've been reading this on the Soviet tactics manual : "with the beginning of the enemy infantry attack the fire of the machinegun section will increase to its maximum rate." "a faultlessly operated machinegun cannot be approached by infantry.Thus, the machingunners increase their fire to the utmost, in every instance, even encirclement, and sacrifice themselves to it". No indication of distances or more details, but it seems that they were very confident on their hmg teams. CMBB/CMAK were closer to this representation than CMBN i think. I think you're right about jamming, but maybe they'll put it in a next version of the game. It will be interresting to see how hmgs do in CMFI, with longer range for firing than in bocage. Each patch brings improvement, now snipers can be used very effectively, and most infantry combat is great. Pistols and super tank crews are still annoying but i think BFC are working on it. I just have little frustration with smgs hmgs but i hope that maybe one day....

After doing some research i found that table : sustained rate of fire for the M240B : 100 Rounds per minute fired in 6 to 9 round bursts and 4 to 5 seconds between bursts. Barrel change every 10 minutes. rapid rate of fire for the M240B : 200 Rounds per minute fired in 10 to 13 round bursts and 2 to 3 seconds between bursts. Barrel change every 2 minutes. For people, like me that think that something is strange with hmgs rate of fire, i must say that Battlefront system is correct concerning the delay between bursts. At short distance, we can consider that they switch to emergency mode and use something close to cylcic rate of fire mode (650 to 950 Rounds per minute fired in continuous bursts. Barrel change every minute for m240b) We can see that on sustained fire (6/9 bursts) we have 100 rounds mn for the m240b heavy mg. This is what the mg 42 is shooting at 500 m or more but, if we consider that they are on sustained fire mode at 500 m + why do we have only something like 60/70 rpm ? We can consider that they switch to rapid fire (10/13 bursts mn) mode at 400 m to 200 m. The m240b is shooting 200 rpm in that mode, the mg 42 with 13 bursts mn will fire 90 rpm. So if the delay between bursts is correct, i see differencies in the amount of bullets. I have a few questions about that, if someone can answer : what is the sustained rate of fire of hmg 42 ? I have seen from 200 to 350 rpm. At what distance do they use rapid and sustained fire with M240b ? Would it be possible that, in sustained fire mode, the hmg 42 is able to shoot at 100 rpm or more at 500/600 m ? I first thought that the delay was too long between bursts, that's not the case. And it's logical that, with distance decreasing, the delay is shorter. Now, my only question is about the amount of bullets. The reason is the following : - the maximum effective range of the M240B for an area target : Tripod –1,100 meters - the maximum effective range of the M240B for a point target : Tripod – 800 meters Bipod – 600 meters If the m240b can use sustained fire at 800 m this means that it cant shoot 100 rounds mn at that distance. That's more than an mg42 in the game. This may explain the feeling i have about the lack of power of hmgs in the game. Before someone attacks me on that point, i'm not asking for exact rate of fire in the game. I just have questions, that other players have. I tried to explain that using CMX1. now that i have more solid datas i still have questions. For smgs : I found in "Soviet infantry tactics in WWII" that, in defense the soviet doctrine recomands to shoot at 100/200 m. I have no precision if it's full auto or single shot. It seems that at long range, soviet smgs are more precise that germans or other allied smgs. I think the game is not far from reality, but 270 is still to much i guess. This was reduced in the first patch but i think that a little reduction is still needed. I will appreciate if someone with better infos could give is point of view here. To explain my purpose in the thread : Some people, including me, have questions about the game and in this case hmgs and smgs. There were other threads about the same subject. I just propose to answer those questions in an argumented way here. That's what i'm trying to do. People may think that i'm complaining about the game. This is not the case. I only post when i see something repetiting that makes me think it's strange. I'm not saying my point of view is correct, i would like to find answers. I think it can also be usefull for the game improvement. A few weeks ago, one of my Stug was ambushing tanks, hiding under trees. One first Sherman comes and is spotted first and destroyed. The another one comes, descending a hill at full speed. It spotted my Stug first, shot and destroyed it on the move with first round:(. More, it was a green crew . Since i have only seen it happened once, i think it was bad luck and i did not post about it. This is how i'm thinking when i'm posting. Thanks for answers. Regards

Just something i forgot to say about the comparison CM1/ CMBN : We can see that an hmg 42 team has about 2000 bullets ammo (including rifles) In CMBB it's represented by 85 ammo "points". 1 ammo point is about 23 bullets. When firing at 500 m they shoot 7 points something like 160 bullets minutes. In cmx 2 its something like 8 bursts of 7 bullets = 56 bullets. I know it's more complicated than that but it gives a good idea i think. If we compare tanks for exemple, they share the same amount of ammo in both games. It's just a question of logic. So it makes me think that i'm not far from the truth. Now i may be wrong and only Steve or Charles could tell that. I also think that 160 bullets mn makes something like 22 bursts mn. So there would be a delay of 2 and a half seconds between bursts approximately, the time to approximatly target and shoot in the mass of the target (infantry, building etc...) so it's not totally crazy i think. More, in CMX1 when a unit was low on ammo they started to shoot less if i remember well. That's also logical. It seems that in CMBN they do the inverse, they start ammo preservation way before they're out of ammo. Can we imagine a system were soldiers are more likely to shoot at long range more ammo and when the ammo comes to 500 or less bullets, they will go in "let's preserve bullets" mode ?

It's maybe similar to the sniper problem before the patch. If i remember well, they were aiming at the body of tank commanders, making them hit the turret armor, instead of the TC's head. Maybe some adjustment needed so that they target passengers too.

Troops should have the abilty to shoot through smoke. I may not explained myself well because of my bad english. If you try to use the target order and target a point behind smoke it will show you no line of sight and you cannot fire. Now, in my case, i ordered an area target and the smoke rounds fell after. When the field was full of smoke they kept firing. I used the target order, it showed no line of sight, this makes me think of a but. Dieseltaylor and Baneman explained it better i think. As i said, i'm not the only one that has the feeling that hmgs are underated in CMBN. I had to find a way to show that there is maybe something to do about that. The same for smgs. I did not test accuracy but the firepower, the amount of bullets a weapon can put on a target. Good point about accuracy, but, it's not a problem of casualties inflicted. It's logical that with an lmg at 500 m, a lot of bullets are missing. It can be an advantage when shooting on a group of men. Now, should i use CMX1 for comparison ? As i said they simulate the same tactical level, the same weapons etc... When CMBN came out i immediatly notice the problem of tank accuracy on the move. This was not the case if i remember well in CMX1, that's why it surprised me, and BCF changed this and both games are closer in the results now. My point is that an hmg should put more bullets on target due to tripod etc... This is the case in CMX1. The abstract firepower of an hmg in cmx1 shows that one hmg = 2.5 to 3 lmgs in long range. I'm not saying that it should be exactly modelled this way in CMBN. When i replayed cmx1 i have found hmgs more efficient than in CMBN. If i don't find an objective point of comparison, people will say that i don't know how to play the game, i have bad tactics etc.... I have no problem with the game, just want to know the way other players think. BFC modified things for smgs in the last patch, but i still see mp40 wasting ammos at long range, this shows that sometimes a change of behaviour of our soldier is needed. I'm no counting every bullet to compare the games, but i think that if both games are accurate, we should see the same effect on target with similar weapons. Imagine in CMBN a Stuart destroying a Tiger at 2000 m from the front every time, i think that CMAK would be a good comparison to say that there is a problem (that's an extreme exemple to i hope explain more my point of view). Now, i feel frustrated to wait sometimes 6 seconds between bursts. Kanonier Reichmann wrote in the mp40 effectiveness thread : quote "it seems that HMG's appear nerfed compared with other automatic weapons." I have the same feeling. Infantry combat is also for me quite natural, and you're right about the time for targeting, but an hmgs is not targeting a particular man. So i don't think that it should take so long when you use area target, or when you target a group of soldiers. It's not a game killing problem, just something frustrating.... Thanks for reply.

I noticed a bug during a QB. Hmgs team were firing through smoke. I ordered an area target and smoke rounds fell between target and my troops. Despite lack of visibility, they kept on firing. I have a save file if Needed. Now the main reason of my post. First, i would like to say that i have no problems with the game or game engine. I also don't have tactical problems. I can win battles or campaings and in QBs i play with disadvanage against A.I. I'm also an experimented wargamer and i think in know how to use my troops. Like other players i'm thinking some adjustments is needed for some weapons,Hmgs, smgs, mmgs. This is not a huge problem but it's quiet frustrating and irrealistic i think. If you read the MP40 effectiveness thread, you'll find other players that have the same fellings. In order to have forceful argument, i decided to compare CMBO and CMAK with CMBN. The games simulate similar tactical situations, with the same weapons. The way they simulate things are different but the results should be quiet the same. CMX 1 datas : In cmx1 the firepower is shown by an abstracted number. The higher it is, the more you'll inflict casualties and suppression to a target. ------------40 m----100 m ----250 m----500 m-----1000 m Hmg 42-------155------125-------77-------52--------27 Hmg 34-------120-------95-------63-------47--------26 12.7 dshk-----100-------82-------58-------45--------28 Maxim--------100-------78-------48-------33--------11 Mg42 lmg------50-------45-------30-------18 Dp lmg---------30-------28-------18-------11 Bar------------34-------26-------15-------07 You'll notice the differences between hmgs and lmgs, especially at long range. An hmg42 is 50 % more efficient at 1000 m than an lmg42 at 500. At 500 m we are at almost 300 % in advantage of hmg 42. This is for me logical. Hmg42 has optics, more ammo,tripod, more men allowing more firepower at long range than an lmg team of 2 men. If you compare with other weapons you'll see that it's the case for all mmgs/ hmgs versus lmgs. Now CMBN datas : I counted the number of burts (the firepower) by mn for 2 weapons for comparison. 1 Bursts for hmg 42 is about 7 bullets, about 5 bullets for allied hmgs. at :50 m--100--150--200--250--300 m--400 m--500 m--600m--700---800 hmg42--41---26---20---17---14---12------10------9------8------8------8 lmg42--26----19---18---12---12---11------10------8------8-----7 I was suggested to use TRP for better results : Hmg 42 targeting trp at 50 m 42, 100 m26, 300 m 13, 500 m 10, 800 m 8 First, there is no improvement in firepower with or without TRP. Maybe more precision, but i did not test that. Second, you'll notice that hmgs loose firepower faster than in cmx 1 serie. At 250 m or more an hmg is equivalent of an lmg. In CMX 1 hmgs have 2.56 the firepower of an lmg at the same distance : We can now consider that they should shoot something like 30 bursts against 12 for lmgs in CMBN to have an equivalence (210 rpm). At long range, in cmx1, at 500 m : hmgs have 2.88 x the firepower of an lmg so it would be in CMBN : 8 bursts x 2.88 : 23 burts mn for hmgs ( something 160 bullets). You may argue that ammo conservation is important and that's a point but at 500 m, firing without stop, an hmg team with a little more than 2000 rounds would fire about 12 minutes at a rate of 23 burst mn and 31 mn with the actual system. Now that's the same with cmx 1 serie, an hmg 42 has 85 ammo points. At 500 m it will shoot 7 points mn = 12 mn of continuous shots. I also did tests with infantry in CMBB, CMBO and CMBN. In the same situation, a company of infantry charging in open ground, Hmgs were much more effective against infantry in CMX 1 serie than in CMBN. It's logical since at long range the fp of hmgs is degraded in CMBN. More, the effect on moral is much more higher in cmx1 than cmx2 and it's not a question of casualties inflicted. I had much better with 1 hmg42 and 1 hmg 34 in cmx1 than with 5 hmgs in cmbn, despite the fact that the mg 34 jammed 3 times (great feature) ! (i used same type of troops and same "tactic" in both tests). Troops seems to have more self protection attitude in CMX1 ( they stop, and somtimes crawl to continue to advance). Now Smgs, I won't go in details, but in cmbn they open regulary at 270 m wasting ammo i think. The datas in cmx1 are : at----40 m----100 m----250 m mp40--36------9--------0.44 ppsh--50------11-------0.5 Conclusion : again it's logical due to higher rof, ppsh as more firepower but at 250 m both smgs are useless. It's not the case it seems in CMBN. More, BFC modified the behaviour of troops so that "they are less likely to open fire at long range" with smgs in the last patch but it dit not solve the problem i think, so there was something to change before the first patch. To finish i would say that CMBN is really a great game with a lot of potential. Only some details needed adjustment (remember tank accuracy on the move ?) The last patch was great, improving a lot of things and making the game much better. I really think that making troops more likely to shoot with smgs at about 100 m or less and much more likely to shoot with hmgs/mmgs at long range, to reach something like 23 bursts mn at 500 m, would be an improvement for the game. It's not logical that lmgs and hmgs are equivalent in firepower in CMBN. I'm not asking for an exact simulation of real life, but i think there is room for improvement here. To the members of this forum who took the time to read my post : Just Thanks. Feel free to criticise my point of view, i'm open minded and the opinion of others on that point is also interresting for me. To the BFC team : I understand that you are very busy with the new game and patch. I also understand that you don't want to modify things in your game for no good reasons. So i did my best to convince you for a future patch or future game engine. The idea of making upgrade is simply great and i wll buy upgrades and CMFI and i can't wait to play with CMBN 2.0. You always tried to make better games and i really appreciate that. I think that we share the same passion for wargaming. The only way i have to thank you is to buy your games, that's what i do since CMBO a long time ago ..... So, please, just take a look at that. Keep your good work. Best regards Marc "Furinkazan"

Thanks, Kanonier Reichmann, i really appreciate. To finish with this : In Cmx 1 things are logical in my point of view, let me explain. Definition of FIREPOWER a : the capacity (as of a military unit) to deliver effective fire on a target b : effective fire One lmg 42 as 50 of firepower an abstracted number but that gives an idea to the player. This is the firepower of the mg42 the second men is the loader and is not supposed to open fire. For hmg42 we have 155 fp : 2 MP40 =72 + 3 rifles = 19 = 91 fp this leave 155 - 91 = 64 fp for the hmg (shooter and loader). The advantage for hmg is 64 - 50 = 14 fp (30% advantage for hmg) This makes sense for me even at 40m the hmg has more ammo and a tripod that allows a gain in firepower. If we transpose to CMBN : lmg at 50 m 26 bursts, hmg 41 advantage something like 58 % better for hmg. Here, it seems that hmg is better evaluated in CMBN at short range. But there is note a huge difference. Now at 500 m we have only mg 42 firing : In CMX1 : lmg 18 and hmg 52 almost 300 % advantage to hmg Transpose to CMBN : lmg 8 bursts hmg 9 something like 12 % advantage for hmg only. To have more equivalence hmg should shoot something like 24 bursts mn i think. Does it make sense ? For me yes, in CMX 1, developpers took in count, tripod, optics and ammo. And the conclusion is more firepower for hmg. It's not the case i think in CMBN. It's the same with pistols and smgs. Pistols degrade highly at 100 m in CMX1 from 8 to 2 and smgs from 36 to 9 for mp 40. Again, for me it's coherent a man with a pistol at 40 m as a little advantage on rifle (firepower 8 pistols againts 6 rifle) but at 100 m you have 2 against 5.25. In CMX 1 it seems that smgs are more 50/100 m weapons and pistols under 40 m or less. Why not in CMBN ? I don't know the values for halftrack but i guess that it should be between lmg and hmg since the weapon is more stable, has ammo, but no optics. So, if i did not any mistakes i think this shows that some tweaks are needed on small weapons. For me it's like having a Panther with 80 mm front hull armor in CMX1 and 60 mm in CMBN. The games simulate the same things, in differente ways but the result should be roughly the same, a Panther is a Panther and an mg 42 is an mg42 in both games. I notice that nobody answered me on those points . So it would be really nice if some people could give their point of view on this, especially developpers or beta testers. For those who are interrested i found that video on youtube : A comparison between mg 42 and russian sg 43 that i think is very interresting. You'll see weapon characteristics, change of barrel, loading etc... And a quiet impressive assault use of mg 42. The guy is shooting from the hip and shoulder and i was very astonished on how the weapon is stable. Take a look and say what you think of it Regards

[quote=JonS;1378592 If you're depending on the firepower of the SMG in an HMG team, you're doing it wrong. Overall, you post seems consistent with a common, but misguided, theme of complaint. Many players seek to extract the maximum possible efficiency out of every single thing under their command. They want to be able to dial up exact artillery attacks that only use an exact number of rounds on an exactly defined target. They want every single weapon in every single unit to always and only fire at the exactly range they think is perfect for each weapon. They want their men to move exactly from one location to another. They want to know exactly how much fatigue their units will accumulate and exactly how long it will take to recover. They want to be able to order on-map mortas and tanks to fire an exactly defined number of rounds at an exactly designated target. And the list goes on. I don't have a lot of sympathy for such views.

To JonS I agree with you about the use of weapon the placement etc.... I must say that i did not use trp during testing but i will give it a try. Do they have an effect on the hmgs fire ? When i tested i only wanted to know how hmgs were firing especially at long range. Of course, in a game, i would use combined weapons, but that was not the purpose of my "tests". I tried crossfire area target in front of infantry but i was not convinced by the result. What do you think of the rate of fire at long range ? Don't you think that less delay between bursts or longer bursts should be more realistic ? I may be wrong but i think that lmgs and hmgs share the same behaviour. An lmg on area target will shoot about 12 bursts at 250 m and an hmg 14 and there is less differences at longer range (at 600 m 8 bursts for hmg and 8 for lmg). Those weapons are different and i think there should be a difference at long range. During game i had good results with hmgs but it was at short range, that's what i try to point here. It's the same for smgs for me. I have seen them open at 270 m and i think this should be changed. When an hmg team is firing you don't have control on smgs in the team and you can't limit the range. After a few minutes of firing your smgs are low on ammo when infantry is closing in, were the weapon is the more efficient.

I forgot to say another thing. With lmg, the bursts are short and accurate (this is how germans trained their soldiers from what i've seen on manual) With hmgs, i don't think your shooting a particular soldier, it's more area target. The purpose would be to pin down infantry with heavy firepower, and once infantry fixed, destroy it with mortars or arty. I think that at long distance, hmgs fail to pin down infantry, because of lack of firepower and the result, not enough suppression. I don't imagine 120 men running in front of 5 hmg 42 for more than 800 m without cover note beeing pinned down. During the few tests i did infantry was able to reach less than 100 m of 5 bunkers and even destroy one of them. Even with the suppression bar at the maximum, they kept advancing until one man was hit. And i think they recover from suppression too fast, especially for regular troops with average moral.

The placement of the hmg is very important for max efficiency. As i said in this thread, i saw an experimented machingunner shooting with a vickers on a documentary. He insisted on the flank placement. For accuracy, i don't know. He said targeting with accuracy was very difficult even with the mg mounted on a tripod, that was the case during the test they made. They simulated an infantry attack and when firing from the front of an attacking line a lot of bullets were missing and go between the targets, and it would have been more difficult with moving infantry. Since CMSF, i always regretted that it take so much time between bursts at long distance. Maybe because the simulation is in the bocage, with short distance, the problem is less important, but when you start to play on open maps, with longer range, it's really annoying. The first test i made was on a flat map with 5 hmgs against 120 men charging on a flat map with no cover and support, and the result was poor for Hmgs. Someone made also a test with CMBB, if i remember well, in the same conditions and the results were totally different. In CMBB, hmgs were able to stop the infantry charge way before it could reach their position. It's much more difficult in CMBN. I tried to make infantry charge in column to benefit from enfilade fire with better results but still insufficient i think. I took the exemple of soviet practical rate of fire, about 250/300 rpm, that i found on a book about soviet infantry tactics. We can estimate that an mg42 on a tripod should have a practical rate of fire a little higher. In the game, at very short range for a hmg i've seen 1 burst second = about 7 bullets x 60 burst : 420 rpm. The problem is that as soon as the distance increase you loose all your firepower to drop to 12 bursts/mn = about 84 rpm. So the firepower is divided by five when you fire at about 600 m +. I don't think it's a problem of game engine, i made 5 hmgs area shooting at 50m (about 1 burst sec) without slow down in the game. The rate of fire is totally linked to distance, it seems that the shooter is targeting, firing, then targeting again, and at long distance it takes too much time. What i've seen in the real life test is short bursts but with 1 or 2 sec of delay between each. I think that's what we should see more or less in the game. I also think that allowing longer bursts should be permitted to the player. I would suggest : with the target light order : 7 bullets bursts (for mg42) with 1 or to seconds max of delay with target order : longer burst 2 to 3 seconds of continuing fire with maybe a little more delay in between. This would make a noticeable difference between target and target light orders and the player will have tactical choice according to the situation and the ammo left. With hmgs, i personnally don't use target light since i see not much difference between the 2 orders. It would be also nice to have hmgs jamming sometimes and a delay for the change of barrel. If i remember well, hmgs used to jam in cmx 1.

Just made another little test this week end. To see if the rate of fire of Hmgs was better against a real target instead of area, i choose to target an halftrack. At about 750 the rate of fire was about 10 bursts of 7 rounds = about 70 rpm The halftrack returned fire with is 30 cal. about the same number of bursts but with an average of 5 bullets by bursts about 50 rpm. Then the Halftrack lost the shooter and i ended the test. So i think not much differences between area and target objective. This doesn't mean that hmgs are ineffective. I played Qbs and in one, the Ai had a 40 % advantage, it was an infantry only battle. The ai started to make infantry rush through a path in the bocage. I had 2 mg 42 in the flank and in a few minutes i inflicted 61 losses (30 for the 1st mg and 31 for the second) to the ai but it was at about 150 m and the the ai made the mistake of rushing its troops in mass. I still think hmgs at 250 m or more should be tweaked. I think hmgs for the moment are more lmgs with more men and ammos than real hmgs since the rate of fire is quiet the same. I 've seen recently real life movies from an old tv program of the 70s about WW2. I noticed that bursts were longer than what we see in the game, i counted about 3 seconds of non stop firing, certainly something to look at too i think. The mp40 were also firing at 150 m during my qbs and i think it was a waste of ammo. 100 m or less should be the rule, that's were those weapons are more efficient.If you open at 250 m you will be without 9mm ammo when the weapon is really effective at close range. One very interresting thing happened the second time i played on the same map. Infantry attacked in the same field and i started to area fire with my 2 mg 42s. Then smoke rounds started to fall between my troops and the attacker. The hmgs kept firing without line of sight, directly through the smoke. I checked with the target order and i had no line of sight, despite this they kept firing with all weapons. I guess it was a bug, i have a saved file if needed, but it would be cool to have it as a new feature, area target through smoke can be usefull. Each hmg inflicted something like 20 and 10 losses to attacker firing this way.

No problem, i was just joking. To Agua, i may have misunderstood but it seems that it's the Panther that is hull down, not the firefly. Sabot6 wrote "from a hull down PzVG Panther". Now, if the Panther is hull down, the Firefly will hit the turret with chances to penetrate it. I hope that Sabot6 will let us know the result. Maybe if you have a saved game replay it to see if the result is still the same. If fact i think the decision depends if you're ready to take the risk to sacrifce the sherman III to kill a Panther or be more cautious and wait for a better opportunity. Not sure that the crew of the Sherman III would like to be a distracting target in real life...

I can answer your question. I would tend to do as beatmasta said. It also depends if your playing against Ai or human. A human player will target the firefly first and if you loose it you will have more problem i think. Depends also on the experience of the German crew. You will certainly hit the Panther but not sure you'll kill it with the first shot on the target. Waiting for a flank shot is safer for your men. If the german crew is experienced thay may hit your firefly at the first shot and kill it. But that's only my opinion. Usually i surrender at every battle i play against the AI or human when i see big german cats.