holoween
-
Posts
291 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by holoween
-
-
3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:
If they're behind a hill and out of your sight Bulletpoint they might as well be on Venus. They're out of play.
Except if you have to take the area
-
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.
-
17 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
I would say "slightly" outperforms. In the game, at least. Maybe it was better in the real war, I don't know.
How is 80-100% moe firepower compared to a normal lmg only slightly outperforming?
-
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
My point is that while the LMG42 is theoretically better in a relative sense, (because it causes 40 percent mre casualties than the Bren at 312 metres), in absolute terms, we're still only talking 0.10 kills per minute for the Bren compared to 0.14 kills per minute for the LMG42.
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.
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:The only reason I brought up the LMG42 was as an example of a "mythical" German weapon that many people seem to have an exaggerated idea about. Yes, it's a little better, but no, it's not any gamechanger by any means.
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.
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:I don't mean to say the Germans are rubbish in CM, but I feel that they lack an edge compared to the US forces. Especially when you factor in the US 60mm mortars, ability to split squads into three teams, and fast artillery call times.
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.
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:So while the Germans are not true "underdogs", like the Italians for example, I still feel they are quite limited in many ways. Please note that this is not a complaint, but an observation.
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.
-
22 minutes ago, Artkin said:
A server browser where you can host or find lobbies to play scenarios or quick battles at least. I imagine it would be a lot of work.
Everyone talks about replayability.. well what do you think it would be like with real mp?
No need for dedicated servers, that's kind of a cherry on top.
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.
-
40 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:
When the original CMBN came out it, along with CMSF1, were built using Game Engine 1. When Fortress Italy was made more features were added to the game engine that CMBN did not have. That is when the 2.0 Upgrade was first created for CMBN. It Upgraded the game engine from Game Engine 1 to Game Engine 2. Making it so that CMBN's game engine did not become obsolete. Red Thunder added more features and that was created using Game Engine 3. 3.0 Upgrade's were created for CMBN and CMFI so they they use Game Engine 3. The current game engine is Game Engine 4. All new purchases use Game Engine 4. I see that you joined the forum in 2018. If that is when you purchased your first game then it was already using Game Engine 4.
A 5.0 Upgrade would mean more features being added and available for all titles.
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?
-
1 hour ago, SimpleSimon said:
Where? When? How?
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.
-
17 minutes ago, SimpleSimon said:
It didn't become obsolete, it became inappropriate. Tbh I often hear the word 'obsolete' a lot and it never fails to give me pause. What does it mean?
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.
-
1 hour ago, SimpleSimon said:
It's just that even looking at the Bren from MG42 Mountain paints a misleading picture. It leaves out that the British expected the Bren to work in tandem with a 2in mortar, sniper teams, engineers etc all under the cover of the battalion's mortars and HMGs.
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.
-
3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:
Coaxial machine guns are usually built with a thicker barrel than the infantry variants. Water cooled machine guns also usually have a thicker barrel than air cooled machine guns (which incidentally are still much larger than the barrel on an assault rifle).
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.
3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:I don't really think barrel changing is a disadvantage per se, it's just another thing the gunner has to fiddle with in action other than everything else he's got to do. He needs an assistant and the assistant needs asbestos gloves by the way-which i'm sure get lost a lot.
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.
3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:It's important to keep in mind that we're talking about rifle infantry's use of the MG42 per se though, the Weapons Company ie: the guys using it on a tripod, would have a whole crew who's job would be to service the weapon constantly. I imagine the MG42 was the least demanding "heavy" machine gun of all time but in return it seems that it wasn't quite heavy enough sometimes. The Vickers and M1917 were very stable platforms and very resistant to high operating temperatures of constant fire, but were also around 20lbs heavier (gun + water).
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.
3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:Other issue is that the front sight post is part of the barrel. It's just that i've read more than a few accounts of green or inexperienced gunners burning out MG42s and 34s because when startled or panicked they tend to hold the trigger down and at such high cyclic rates the MG42 is very punishing on mistakes like that.
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.
3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:The MG3 may suggest changes at 120 rounds, but with or without trigger discipline you'll get there very fast-hence as you say all the cases of overruns.
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.
3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:Biggest issue though is the lighter barrel warps or "droops"-there is no condition where it won't-and this leads to "wandering" of the aim point over great distance. I suspect this is why the graduations in the telescopic sight for the weapon end at around 1,600m.
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.
3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:It's not a major issue it's not really a design flaw, it's just the Bren is a bit less demanding on its user's trigger discipline although a limited-use 100 round pan mag existed for it.
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.
3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:The big advantage of its 30 round mags was that the whole squad could easily carry a few and even refill them from loose rounds. Belts are seriously a big pain, and the containers the Germans issued for them seem to have been lost a lot.
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.
-
9 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:
Ammunition consumption was a problem, but it sounds like a bigger one was the need to keep and carry around fresh barrels which got worn out fast by the high rate of fire.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
I believe MG gunners do get hit more. Because they fire more rounds and therefore get spotted more.
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.
-
11 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
The MG42 is not all that good. At least the way it's modelled in CM. The LMG can't really hit anything beyond 300m. While the LMG42 is the best LMG in the game, it's actually only slightly better than the Bren. I don't find it really means anything in a combined arms battle.
My experience is the opposite. The MG guy usually gets hit very fast, and then the rest of the squad is near useless, while the US squads keep most of their firepower.
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.
-
2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
I could be wrong.
You are.
-
9 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
The pen pushers and other do gooders have their field day. They have their opinion, but don't know the land, the people, or the troops. Already found guilty without their day in court.
Quotethe Inquiry has found that there is credible informationof23 incidents in which oneor more non-combatants or personshors-de-combatwere unlawfully killed by or at the direction ofmembers oftheSpecial Operations Task Groupin circumstances which,if accepted by a jury,would be the war crime of murder
QuoteNone of these are incidents of disputable decisions made under pressure in the heat of battle.The cases in which it has been found that there is credible information of a war crime are ones inwhich it was or should have been plain that the person killed was a non-combatant, or hors-de-combat.
Quotethe Inquiryhas found that there is credible information that junior soldiers were required by their patrolcommanders to shoot a prisoner, in order to achieve the soldier’s first kill, in a practice that wasknown as ‘blooding’. This would happen after the target compound had been secured, and localnationals had been secured as ‘persons under control’.
Im sorry but thats not pencil pushers having a field day on some gray area difficult situation.
-
3 hours ago, Bud Backer said:
Regarding strafing aircraft, they (I believe) are fairly inexpensive because they are simply not incredibly effective. I’m sure we have all lost a few men to them, but a strafer causing serious harm on a regular basis? I remain unconvinced that that is true.
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.
High casualty rates in CM games
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
There are a lot of reasons why the casualty rates are so high
Things that arent related directly to the mechanics:
Battles usually represent tip of the spear scenarios where high casualties are expected.
Players push their forces way too hard.
Low time limits lead to overly hasty attacks.
Directly related to the mechanics:
Infantry maintains too little spacing.
Infantry accuracy is too high while under fire (and too low when not).
Support weapons can only effectively supress one action square. All belt fed mgs are far less effective at supressing than they should be.
Hunt command doesnt work properly. Units shoudl stop when getting shot at rather than just when they see a target.
Entrenchments are underpowered. They are far too easy to spot and generally provide too little cover.
Tanks are far too good at spotting infantry close up especially on the flanks and rear.
Units giving first aid expose themselves unnecessarily.