accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[JasonC]

Furinkazan - useful analysis, thanks. I agree the ROF of specifically HMGs is too low. I think the truly crazy results being reported are more a function of infantry just not suppressing at all than the ROF issue, though certainly they interact. A unit of regular infantry that takes 75% physical causalties in an assault and continues the mission, successfully? That is just crazy as morale modeling - the kind of thing you'd expect from a game without a morale system at all.

[Fūrinkazan]

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

[slysniper]

I am home now and looking at my numbers I was pretty close to being right on. My loses were 116 to 33, with starting numbers of 164 to 39.

As to the set up, The americans are in a area centered on the map that has two rows of trenches and cover a area about 50 meters across the front, this is in a map that was about 250 meters wide. So no they did not have a flanking position.

But what I also saw was that they did not have problems with incoming fire much at all. All four gun crews were firing away pretty consistant untl I had enemy units at about 100 meters giving return fire. At the 250 to 200 range the italions were not doing much of anything as to pinning or hurting the Americans, problem was even at that range , the americans could not pin very many units for any given time.

As has been pointed out before, the moment a unit is not receiving fire, it starts to recover. pinning effects are not long lasting enough.

Once I had enough units at the approx 100 meter range, the Americans began taking losses and lossing important fire power and were seen beginning to cowered at a more regular basis.

Now when I made the infantry rushes to get close to the trenches, many units did go down and some retreated. But in the end, I had low morale status's on units (Broken) which should make them break again so easy. but they had control of the battlefield and so it was not a problem. It really was a close battle and could go either way.

but with the MG's fire on the adverage 500 -600 rouinds in this little conflict. With their supporting crew also firing their carbines, which was likely 2 men, since the leader was normally spotting and 2 were on the MG. Having my ammo bearers out preform my MG's just seems to show a flaw.

As for not running a test at greater ranges. I have tested MG's at greater ranges before and already knew I would not get much of anything in results.

I ran something similar to this test with 4 -50 cal mG's on jeeps and tried to see what impact they would have on the same size group of Italions, but the ranges were started at 500 meters and the jeeps would pull back and move and combine fire as i saw fit.

The problem with that test was lack of ammo, the jeeps had limited rounds.

Needless to say, they had a total of 18 kills, had retreated 400 meters and was lucky to have no one killed or wounded. but were not a impact at all at slowing down the enemy.

Now when I run these test, I play both sides in a hotseat mode. So both sides are being commanded to what I feel is the best practices available. These are not being done against a AI unit on one side.

[Childress]

You guys do realize that if BF:

1- Increased the lethality and suppressive powers of MGs.

2- Reduced the morale of infantry to porcelain fragility.

3- Cut back on the power and/or flexibility of mortars.

-they'd have to reconfigure all the scenarios that game with CMFI and CMBN. Because all three adjustments give a synergistic boost to the defending side.

Right?

[Paper Tiger]

I think that's possibly the least persuasive reason for maintaining the status quo though In most cases, these old missions could be fixed by adding 10+ minutes or so (whatever) to the game clock. And players would find that realistic tactics would work better in the game. Not to mention that every new scenario created forever after would be better balanced as well

[JasonC]

slysniper - I don't disagree, I just do want to point out that the result reported is such a bloodbath that the problem does not appear to be not enough fire to actually hit men and put them down. They are dropping like flies. The unaccountable thing is any of them still up and firing (or moving) after a short stretch of punishment like that. Higher ROF and more from the MGs rather than the small arms might be more realistic, but the basic problem has to be that the formation isn't breaking rapidly enough.

I mean, pushing the losses to 80-85% from 75% won't make the outcome more realistic. The problem in that close is not inability to hit and kill - it is that even been hit and killed with wild abandon doesn't scare the pixeltruppen half as much as it ought to.

At longer range we saw actually difficulty hitting and killing in the first place, and higher ROF for HMGs specifically (especially vs continuously exposed targets, rather than "snap shot", only occasionally exposed ones) would definitely help. But the more basic problem is morale - an HMG hammering one small unit continually at range won't send it to ground, and shifting among multiple units in close, may send each to ground after hits, but they get right back up long before the bullet stream can come back around to them.

In short, it is the insufficient suppression that is culprit number one. Insufficient suppression is what lets the forces get mashed together too hard, into bloodbath ranges, with everyone still happily firing away...

[slysniper]

Oh, I totally agree with you that suppression is likely the thing that needs tweeking and that My battle was nothing but a example to myself that without more suppression, the game just does not play realistically.

I mean lets face it. without any support with arty or smoke . I ran plain infantry which cannot be split (since italion) in full units at the enemy in open ground and overran them in a trenched defence with odds no greater than 4 to1.

The game is fun to play but as it plays presently. it does not protray things as accurate as many of us would hope it could to historical facts.

Like you have pointed out, it was easier for BF in the old system to tweek the numbers to get a realistic results. Now with all the effort in details and realism, they have a hard system to just be able to make some simple changes to make it protray a little more realistic.

I have to smile. the troops do not take cover like anyone would in real life and expose themselves way to much, but then I think they made the troops shoot so bad that it somewhat equals out.

But MG's in general are lacking, the only time they shine is when you ambush someone at close distances. that is just the opposite of how they were used in RL.

Of course there is many of us that still feel on board arty (mortars) is still too accurate, which again impacts the balence of play with any weapon they can take out in battle.

Then pistols are just too accurate. So out of small arms weapons, that is alot of What the ??????? as to how they went about designing what they can do.

Them tweeking these things are not impacting the scenarios all that much. Face it, do you really think they are balenced. balenced for who. For one player they might presently be too hard, for another too easy. When will people realize that there is no such thing as a balenced Scenario. Yes some of the scenario play pretty good if the players are about equal in skill and one of the two does not make a blunder. But many of the scenarios likely do not even play well if that is the case. This is not chess. And any scenario can be adjusted to make it play more even if the balence was to become too onesided.

[Killkess]

But out of approx.. 120 dead or wounded.

MG’s count was under 50 (approx. average 12 per unit)

Leaders had approx.. (15 dead or wounded)

That left 55 being taken out with the ammo bearers with the carbines.

So that was odd, don’t need too much science to know something is wrong.

I just wanted to repeat this snippet.

[Fizou]

You guys do realize that if BF:

1- Increased the lethality and suppressive powers of MGs.

2- Reduced the morale of infantry to porcelain fragility.

3- Cut back on the power and/or flexibility of mortars.

-they'd have to reconfigure all the scenarios that game with CMFI and CMBN. Because all three adjustments give a synergistic boost to the defending side.

Right?

Thats true, but it should not be an argument for not fixing something that is wrong. If it is wrong that is.

[altipueri]

I'm late to this thread and haven't read it all, but a hmg if properly set up (e.g. as in WW1 with interlinking fire zones) will kill or hit almost everything that passes through it (95%+).

There's a slightly chilling episode in Robert Graves's autobiography "Goodbye To All That" where an officer orders an advance and runs forward, looks back after a few seconds and sees nobody but his ADC - and so says to him "Where are they? Are they all cowards?" To which the ADC says "No Sir, willing enough. But they're all ****ing dead".

[altipueri]

Oh dear, aren't we allowed to use the F word in case children are looking? I think it was even printed with the F word when it was published in about 1929.

[LongLeftFlank]

.... because that would be.... Obscene.

[Childress]

Thats true, but it should not be an argument for not fixing something that is wrong. If it is wrong that is.

Of course not. But I doubt you see a wholesale rejiggerring of all the factors mentioned in this thread until CM 3.0. Too much work. Or the posters are wrong. Or BF is in denial (which I doubt). Or they want a more user friendly, less arduous simulation.

Bu the punitive morale system in CMBB didn't appear to inhibit sales. The scope of that game plus the sheer coolness of the setting and the vehicles overwhelmed the initial frustration.

At least no one's complaining about the armor model. They seem to have nailed that.

[Childress]

Oh dear, aren't we allowed to use the F word in case children are looking?

No. The joy of swearing depends on its social unacceptability. Cussing's fun 'cause it's taboo.

There's a brouhaha going on over the new Lincoln flic. The F words, it seems, makes several appearances though not from the mouth of the President. I believe the screenwriters confused swearing with blaspheming which was the preferred release valve in the 19 cent.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/lincoln-cussing-f-050000268.html

EDIT: Just got on Drudge and learned about the massacre. Good lord.

[76mm]

Or BF is in denial (which I doubt).

A 49 page thread about a serious game issue and without a single response from BF, and they're not in denial? Uh, OK...

But the punitive morale system in CMBB didn't appear to inhibit sales. The scope of that game plus the sheer coolness of the setting and the vehicles overwhelmed the initial frustration.

I would call CMBB's morale system realistic, not punitive, and sales were probably high because of it, not despite it (although I agree that the scope and setting helped as well).

[Childress]

I would call CMBB's morale system realistic, not punitive, and sales were probably high because of it, not despite it (although I agree that the scope and setting helped as well).

I think you're right. 'Punitive' was perhaps the wrong word, maybe 'challenging'. Actually, I seem to recall that CMBO sold the best of the three. CMBB, though superior, suffered from the absence of Americans.

[Apocal]

A 49 page thread about a serious game issue and without a single response from BF, and they're not in denial? Uh, OK...

They've been busy trying to push out 2.0 for Normandy, so I understand why they've been mute on the issue. Also because JonS and some other beta testers remain convinced what we have now is perfectly fine. Personally, I'd be more than willing to keep the G.I Joe morale system for most of the game and put realistic morale only on Iron difficulty if it's an issue of playability vs. realism.

That way both sides get to have it the way they like it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I doubt BFC would ever ramp up suppression to CMBB levels. When they made CMAK they actually dialed them down a little, although not to CMBO levels.

[John Kettler]

76mm,

I certainly found it credible when I was at Actor's house for a CMBB playtest. My recollection is that we (several of us on each side, but I commanded) had an attacking force of Conscript and Green early war Russians. Despite the inherent difficulties of operating with such brittle manpower and a T-34 which couldn't see at all when buttoned (no periscopes and vision slits modeled?), leaving the TC exposed, we not only clobbered the German force, but blew through it and began the exploitation phase. Mind, this was in broken, semi wooded ground, so might not've worked on the steppes.

I believe Michael Emrys was there. If so, he may well remember other details. I do remember the Germans were in light woods, had at least one PaK 36 and did have Molotov cocktails. This was H2H not vs AI, and we had the cool, immersive experience of playing CMBB on what effectively was a 5' wide screen (measured horizontally), thanks to a digital projector Actor had borrowed from work. Felt sorry for the other teams stuck playing on standard size monitors. Having that huge display projected on the wall made planning moves and watching the battle unfold a real treat.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Childress]

I doubt BFC would ever ramp up suppression to CMBB levels. When they made CMAK they actually dialed them down a little, although not to CMBO levels.

Once one grokked the dynamics CMBB could be very rewarding. Carrying a position with infantry felt like an accomplishment. But some of us could never go back to the bobble-heads.

[Redwolf]

But here is the point, there is some problem with the MG’s in general, we all know it, it’s just how we get BF to get into it and fix it. Why would I say this?

When the result were reviewed in this battle

The ammo bearers which were 3 man crews had more kills than the MG units.

Like I said, I have the data at home. But out of approx.. 120 dead or wounded.

MG’s count was under 50 (approx. average 12 per unit)

Leaders had approx.. (15 dead or wounded)

That left 55 being taken out with the ammo bearers with the carbines.

So that was odd, don’t need too much science to know something is wrong.

My emphasis.

[slysniper]

They've been busy trying to push out 2.0 for Normandy, so I understand why they've been mute on the issue. Also because JonS and some other beta testers remain convinced what we have now is perfectly fine. Personally, I'd be more than willing to keep the G.I Joe morale system for most of the game and put realistic morale only on Iron difficulty if it's an issue of playability vs. realism.

That way both sides get to have it the way they like it.

That is a point I agree with. For a long time I have wondered why they just dont give some adjustment bars within the game so we the player can create the level we would like things to function at.

I always play on elite, but even if the supression was better on Iron, I likely still would not play it. Just for the fact I hate some of its features.

But haveing the abilty to set your own adjustments that could modify aspects of the game would be great.

So supression could be adjusted as to how long it adv. would last before a team began to recover.

Rate of fire and ammo conserving to be a bar that could be adjusted.

routing could be a bar, accuracy of fire and so forth.

Then the skill levels should still have some preset ones, just for the fact that if running a tournament, you have a standard that is required and it is easy for everyone to have the exact same settings.

The range of the bars could be designed to alloe only adjustments that seem possible within real life. But instead of BF making that decision and we having to live by it. We could tweek the game to what we feel is accurate. Boy that would stop some whinning also.

I have seen games with these type of features but sometimes they allow you to set it to very unrealitic abilities. like FPS where you can get the AI to hit anything at any location, superhuman aiming skills. Now we would not want them to allow that type of adjustment.

But as JasonC has pointed out, Just doubling the time it takes to recover from pinning could make things seem much more realistic for some of us.

[c3k]

Anecdotally, I, too, have noticed in many of my battles that the machingunners (heavy or light) had far fewer kills credited to them than just about any other unit...of any size.

I could just be bad at using MG's. (Skew: play vs. AI means you're attacking. Less opportunity for good MG use.

Ken

[Paper Tiger]

They've been busy trying to push out 2.0 for Normandy, so I understand why they've been mute on the issue. Also because JonS and some other beta testers remain convinced what we have now is perfectly fine. Personally, I'd be more than willing to keep the G.I Joe morale system for most of the game and put realistic morale only on Iron difficulty if it's an issue of playability vs. realism.

That way both sides get to have it the way they like it.

(my emphasis) I'm not really aware of any other Beta testers who are happy with this behaviour other than JonS but I'm not going to plow through 40+ pages of posts to find out. I'm not at all certain that we are all in agreement about how it can be fixed though

[PzKfW]

The problem is that if you change the model for all shooting, then everything changes, not just the MG fire. And a lot of people think the current system is fine the way it is for squad firepower.

HMG effectiveness is the issue here. It blows.

But people who are seeing the effects of an HMG when it is shooting at less than 50-100m distance to target are impressed by the (realistic) results. And it just so happens that's the only situation in which the HMG shoots at a realistic (higher) ROF. In other words, closer to the 250rpm mark.

That says it all to me.

It is strange to me that the people who like to say suppression needs to be turned up are not considering what happened in the OP's test.

That is to say: There was suppression of the HMG team by the squad, but not vice versa.

You turn up suppression globally, and yes, there will be more suppression. You will see more effectiveness from the HMG. BUT BUT BUT(T), there will ALSO be more effectiveness globally. The relative effects between a squad and HMG will be the same - a squad will outsuppress a HMG, as in the test.

Now say suppression gets turned up for every unit. Perhaps you will say that in that case the squad will get suppressed from the HMG when it's running in from 800m out and we won't have a repeat of the OP's test. Yeah, maybe, in that extreme example. But then what happens if both a HMG and a squad open up on each other at the same time? Should the HMG position still get out suppressed? That's what would happen in this scenario, because the RELATIVE effects we are seeing here remain the same. This is because the SHEER VOLUME of fire being put out by the squad out-classes a crew-served, well-supplied, belt-fed machine gun team.

It is the relative strength of HMG effects, just as much as the absolute strength of the HMG effects, that needs addressing.

The single simplest, most effective, and (just so happens) most realistic way to do this is to turn up the ROF on only one unit, the HMG team.