holoween

Soft body armour in the military is intended to protect against artillery shrapnell. Same with steel helmets. So in CM terms soldiers wearing them should be harder to kill or wound with artillery especially if they are outside of the blast area.

I might be wrong but i always felt like in cm vehicles simply have a reverse speed somewhre 30%-50% of their max forward speed. If that is the case it might actually need an engine upgrade to fix but would also be something quite worthwile doing as especially for tanks it can have a big effect.

You can playback. Depending on if youre attacker or defender after or before the new order phase.

40m bar+4 garands 3.75 vs 1lmg42 4.4 80m bar+4 garands 1.45 vs 1lmg42 1.45 120m bar+4 garands 0.8 vs 1lmg42 0.8 160m bar+4 garands 0.55 vs 1lmg 0.46 192m bar+4 garands 0.44 vs 1lmg 0.34 Note this is against foxholes which provide some of the best cover ingame. So at relevant small arms ranges its overall similar with the lmg doing better at shorter ranges. Note that supression isnt factored in here. 312m bar 32rpm vs Bren 44rpm vs lmg42 71rpm so assuming each supress as much per round youre still left with quite a bit higher supression. Supression reduces rate of fire so even a slight advantedge quickly compounds to give a massive one. So overall the lmg42 gives a german infantry squad the firepower advantedge. This wont matter much against ai which wont hold fire until targets are in effective range and let themselves get destroyed by heavy weapons but against human oponents that edge does matter massively.

How is 80-100% moe firepower compared to a normal lmg only slightly outperforming?

Small arms are only really usefull within 200m and even then only pick up much killing power below 100m Beyond 200m heavy weapons like hmgs, mortars, tank guns, arty matter and small arms fire only serves a purpose in the absnece of these. If they are available small arms fire beyond 200m simply makes the unit a target for larger weapons. Within the 200m though the lmg42 on its own has the same firepower as half an american infantry squad (1bar+4m1). And thats not counting supressive ability. Its one of the weapons that massively outperforms the allied counterparts. The issue is that all those weapons keep getting treated like magical superweapons. Once they are used with proper care and their inteded tactics they do show their potential. Id argue the plentiful radiaos and quick artillery calltime are the primary edge the us has. The mortar is nice but personally i find mortars at platoon level overkill and for company level 80mm mortars seem more useful to me. And splitting into 3 teams is only rarely usefull for at or scout puropses and at least at i find is better dealt with by an additional team for the platoon. The germans work differently but aside from scenarios putting them into the underdog role i cant see them as such.

Another thing for your list: GMGs that are mounted on vehicles are significantly less acurate than tripod mounted.

Looking at the CMFB qb points for german afvs it seems to me that they really arent priced based on actual performance. It goes from 241points for a pz4j early to 418points for a king tiger. Unless the battle is on tiny there will rarely be a reason outside of rarity to not go for the heaviest german tanks possible.

A few things to keep in mind for mp Anything except wego becomes practically impossible to controll past platoon level in real time (ive tried). An ingame automated pbem would certainly be nice to have though i think it would be fairly low priority overall since the majority of players interested in it will find their way to the forum or any of the fan forums to organize games.

THX for the reply. Yes i only got my first CM game then. How extensive are these features? What was in other engine upgrades for example?

This might be a stupid question but what does engine upgrade even mean in practical terms?

In Europe, by gpmgs/mmgs and assaultrifles, starting in the mid 30s and certainly being the case by the mid 40s. For what is essentially a mid 20s design thats very good. And i dont think the brits were making a bad decision when getting the bren since they were getting what was the best lmg in the world. That they ended up against one of the best gpmg designs was bad luck they couldnt have forseen. Also note that obsolete isnt useless. Bolt action rifles became obsolete in the mid 30s They still ended up being the most prominent weapons in ww2 due to several factors and they still worked but they got destroyed when up against selfloading rifles.

Obsolete in the sense that using it gives you a significant disadvantedge. For the rest of your post i really dont get your point tbh.

Where is the difference in usage to an mg42? That seems about as focused on the mg as the germans. A proper mg is simply a better weapon. Just like semiautomatic rifles completely obsoleted boltaction rifles as an infantry weapon and then the assaultrifle obsoleted it. The only place where you still find lmgs is when they are basically just a standard assault rifle with a heavier barrel and a bigger magazine. While the bren was quite possibly the best lmg it simply became obsolete just like the watercooled hmg.

At least for the mg3 that isnt the case. The barrel change mechanism simply doesnt allow thicker barrels. It also would contradict the idea of a general purpose mg. Incidently watercooled mgs have much thinner barrels precisely because they have water to cool them. I havent seen anyone loose them so far and even if they did you can simply let the hot barrel dropp out or use a stick to draw it out. You need 2 men to serve it in the HMG role mostly to be able to move it with the tripod. Everyone else is there to carry spare ammo, the tripod when marching and to give security to the mg. Heres a nice demonstration of the tactical use. Yes its an mg3 but aside from the caliber its the same gun and tripod. The mg42 has its sights on the reciever not the barrel. The bren on the other hand does. And aside from a bit of ammo wasted it isnt a big deal to accidentially hold down the trigger a bit longer for the mg42. It suggests 120 rounds because the standard belt length was 120 rounds so the idea was to change barrel while changing belt. As said in actual practice that is never actually adhered to and barrel changes are fare rarer since the gun can easily deal with it. First it doesnt exactly have a light barrel. Second if it did start to warp it would actually aim higher as it is supported at the front of the reciever aswell. Third the actual maximum range asssigned to it in the german army is 1200m. And fourth its a machinegun not a sniperrifle. I dont see that. If you have bad trigger discipline youll imediately have to reload with the bren. with the mg42 you can imediately continue as you waare only with a few rounds wasted. Ive personally never found belts to be a pain to carry. If you keep them the containers are just fine and if you dont you can simply sling the belts across your neck or put them into random bags and take them out when needed.

Id like to point something out that everyone seems to keep forgetting about high cyclic rate of fire. Its your maximum rate of fire not what you actually fire. Simply firing 3-5 round bursts with 2-3 second breaks in between lowers the strain on ammunition supply to no more than the watercooled mgs of the allies. But in situations where you need the higher rate of fire you can simply use longer bursts and shorter breaks. For Barrel wear and heating actual rounds fired per minute is also the only relevant metric. As for changing the barrel you keep acting as if its a disadvantedge while its the opposite. Its not the cas that you have to change the barrel constantly or the gun will break but its to allow it to keep up with water cooled hmgs in sustained fire. Just to illustrate with the mg3 by the book you should change barrel after each 120 round belt. In practice exceeding that by an order of magnitude isnt uncommon when using it as a coaxial tank mg because its somewhat awkward to do. This leads to glowing barrels and the oil literally buring of the guns but simply change the barrel and youre practically back to no rounds fired. This does degrade the overall service life of the barrels but not to the point that it would matter on the ww2 timescale.

ive only seen one test of it so far where someone kept track of all casualties during a scenario and there was no noticable effect. And at the ranges where i could see your point a possibility it isnt a big deal because then you do have time to salvage the mg.

Ive never expected small arms including lmgs to make hits passt 200m and simply supressing they do fine. For killing at range there are heavy weapoons. MG gunnerl like leaders arent really much more commonly hit they just get remembered more.

I dont see how the germans could be considered to be the underdog in quick battles. Their OOB is simply better than the americans. I rarely cut or add anything to german infantry units but find myself doctoring the americans around until im basiacally left with a german unit in american uniforms. Their infantry has more firepower and since a large chunk of it comes from the mg42 german infantry units tend to dropp far less firepower as they take casualties. They also have the best at weapons. Their tanks are as good as anyones and if youre buying panther and up youre completely dominating open ground to the point that more open maps are practically guaranteed wins for the germans. Their only real downsides are that arty is less responsive than the americans, they have fewer radios and rarity can limit your choices. I think its quite telling that in the scenarios and campaigns ive played so far the americans tend to bring a reinforced company to attack a platoon while the germans get a depleated company to attack a reinforced one with both scenarios carrying the expectation of winning.

You are.

To quote the actual report Im sorry but thats not pencil pushers having a field day on some gray area difficult situation.

If you have any lightly armoured or unarmoured vehicles aircraft will shred them with ease earning you several times its points back. And shooting at infantry a single basic infantry squad makes its cost back. At 30 points a piece its an auto include in every QB. Youre not sacrificing anything and get to invalidate any attempt at using mechanized troops.

Arty has a lot of utility that isnt directly measured in killcount. - it forces the enemy to spread out his troops making them far easier to beat. - its the fastest way to shift your focus on the map - it can supress massive areas you wouldnt otherwise be able to - it can cover dead ground And for actual killing the best rule of thumb is to target teams only if they are high value targets(atgm), squads only if they are in especially good positions. Otherwise targeting platoons and up is the way to go.

Not really. You never send tanks without infantry into cities so the additional meter of barrel length isnt a big problem. That the additional weight of it tends to overheat the electrical system used to stabilize it in heavy terrain on the other hand is a bigger issue. The leo2a7 new cooling system for the combat compartment isnt there for crew comfort. Its there to keep the electronics working with crew comfort simply being an incidental benefit.

Tbh the pz4 price is one of the more reasobable ones. If you want to go after the really problematic ones start with the 30points strafing aircraft.