Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Killkess

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    166

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Killkess

    accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

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

    ...

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

    ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

    0

    accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

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

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

    Test 1: "The Hill"

    First the squad in the open:

    mg_wall_2.jpg

    The other one:

    mg_wall_1.jpg

    Test 2: "Forrest"

    Squad in the open:

    mg_forrest_2.jpg

    Squad in the forrest:

    mg_forrest_1.jpg

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

    0

    accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

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

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

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

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

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

    @eltorrente

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

    0

    accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    0

    accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    Based on what I've seen in many PBEM's, I have to say that MG's do a pretty good job.

    I've had many, many games that an MG unit in a good position has made a huge difference in battles. They suppress positions from a distance, and that's their primary role - at least in my battles.

    Historically one of their main task was to cover large open fields of fire because exactly there it is where the main advantages of these weapons can be brought to full use (ROF/Tripod/Optics). This apparently is not possible in CM2 if it cant even stop 3 people within hundrets of meters running in the open without cover.

    And mind U, these are ideal conditions, add terrain which offers cover and concealment for the attacker and things go even worse for the MG... if that is realy possible.

    Based on the PBEMs i´ve seen the conclusion is, that HMGs are not worth the investment. At least not if u try to use them in the intended role.

    Sublime - every MG ever fielded could fire off its entire ammo supply in minutes, and be left completely dry and tactically useless as a direct result. Theoretical ROF therefore had nothing to do with actual ROF used in the field, because actually supplying ammo to the guns, not how fast they could throw it, was always the rate determining step.

    In reality you also did not have such juicy targets very often. I highly doubt that a HMG crew would restrict themself at such low ROF if they have a good target. Ammo preservation in the situation where i shot supression fire seems to be fine, but when the enemy is up and on the move i want him to fall quickly, i dont take potshots at them simply because it is exactly this moment where he is most vulnerable. I can spend hundrets of bullets in the time where i shot preservation fire without any effect while it is possible to bring a couple of enemies down in the moment he moves with maybe 100 shots. Training material i´ve read also suggest the use of longer bursts for long range shooting to get a good beaten zone for HMG fire, which apparently isnt doable with the current 5 shot bursts.

    0

    Need Sherman v Mark IV source material, pls...

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    And I maintain that the Sherman was slightly superior even to that. It wasn't until the Pz. IV received the L/48 gun that I think it deserves to be considered superior.

    Michael

    IIRC the difference in performance between L43 and L48 was marginal. The difference in muzzle velocity was only about 1% between the guns. The L43 uses ammonition with much higher chamber pressures compared to the L48. The design of the chamber, breech and so on was quit cumbersome for the L43 to deal with the high pressures. The L48 was much better suited for a tank turret.

    0

    accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    YHe may not be ranging it properly or taking time to line the bursts up well. He might not even be looking through the sight that much if he doesn't want to get his head up that high up.

    One dont realy have to raise the head, at least with the "Erdziellafette" u can stay with a very low profile.

    Just so show how exposed our CM2 gunners are.

    So realistically, you're probably looking at hit chances less than 1% at the listed effective range of the M4 in combat.

    In the last test they spend around 300 shots on the target. I would say that shooting with the tripod should at least mutiply this percentage. I expect at least some hits.

    Yes it helps, but what my point is I don't know how much difference that actually makes if the gunner is scared and not aiming properly

    My pov is that this should be simulated via the supression bar. I dont see a reason for a soldier, who is not beeing shot at, to shoot that bad like we currently see. I dont want him to shoot like beeing on the shooting lane either, but some form of usefullness against Infantry in the open would be nice.

    With the current situation the attacker dont even have to think about using covered approaches since he can almost always savely close distance to rifle distance without beeing punished. And if there is abstracted cover going on, how the hell someone using cover can advance cross country 850 Meters in about 4 minutes? Heck, i struggle to do that even without gear or beeing shot at.

    This is not inaccuracy due to stress, but intentional spreading of fire. MGs do not exhibit the same behavior when firing against vehicles. Rifles/SMGs don't seem to show this behavior against any target.

    Thats a nice hint. Watch this video, it realy makes a big difference. How much "bigger" is a jeep compared to a group of running soldiers?

    Watch for how much more efficient this shooting is. One sees much less spreading between the bursts but a bit more spread within the burst.

    0

    accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    From elsewhere we know that....

    From where do we know that exactly?

    I am kinda certain that there is a reason why the official allied documents name numbers for the effective ranges between 600-800 meters for LMG and up to 2000 Meters for for HMG configuration.

    Or they fell victim to propaganda?

    Here the documents: http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/search/searchterm/german/field/all/mode/all/conn/and/

    0

    accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    Missing while under fire is something completely different than what we see here. In game this should be/is represented via the supression bar. I cant imagine why a crew, which is not under fire at all, should shoot that bad.

    Just to give a dead horse a kick, this time a crack fanatic crew trying to stopp the american armada!

    Granted, they were finally were taken down at around 150 meters. (2 deads by MP40, 2 deads by MG42) BTW, the MP40 opened up at 258 Meters. Any news to this issue by BFC?

    0

    accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    Vinnart makes a good point. If arms are as deadly and as accurate as in reality, then in order to maintain realistic gameplay, the infantry AI needs to be as good as in reality....

    I'd love to see MGs being fixed and I expect I will. But there will always be abstractions. We will just nudge and tweak these abstractions so they portray reality more accurately.

    I dont have any problem with abstracted calculations. The point is that we have to look at it from the outcome perspective and i realy dont believe anybody wants/tries to argue that the outcome is a feasible one. Seeing 4 guys running in the open for several minutes without beeing supressed or shot is way beyond what i excect from a HMG capabilites. Let alone a gunner which cant hit a non moving target from 200 meters with a 8x magnification.

    And to remind: the test show the maximum capabilities! Now add some more cover/concealment, trees, bushes etc and the value of a mg gets next to nill.

    0

    accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    I always wondered about why it is so hard to efficiently use heavy machine guns in CM2. I recently made some quick test using a setup of HMG 42 against a platoon HQ. Both are regular troops with normal motivation. I setup a firing lane (standard ground in the editor) and let the HQ charge right into the barrel of a MG42 from a distance of 1000m.

    Without doing statistical analysis this is what the fire looks like (keep in mind that the HMG 42 is mounted an the "Erdziellafette" with 8x/4x magnification):

    I really wonder how such a shot placement should be possible. The gunner has to aim deliberately away from the target to miss that far:

    mgpic1.jpeg

    And this behavior is not realy range dependant, while the shooting gets in general nearer to the target, this flick shows the same situation some minutes later when the gunner tried to shot some people lying prone from 200 meters:

    What really puzzles me is the way the gunner seems to forget his aim each or nearly each burst. Sometimes the bursts seem to get closer to the target as if the gunner is correcting his shots. Then suddenly he completely screws up and shots literally somewhere.

    Besides all the mechanics behind it one serious question: Who thinks that a group of 4 people should be able to charge up 800 meters in front of a firing HMG before taking the first casualties?

    I also, at times, could charge the HQ in range to use the garants which in turn took out the HMG. Admitting that this was not the usual outcome thought.

    Often when it came to discussions about the efficiency of mg fire before, people argued that it is not the main purpose of a mg to kill but to suppress. What suppression are we talking about if a hmg is not capable to suppress 4 guys running in the open?

    0
×
×
  • Create New...