accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[PzKfW]

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.

Yes, you had to pin the crap out of them with arty or MG fire, then get the inf in close. It was usually a massacre.

As long as they didn't have an unpinned squad covering the approach in ambush! Had that happen a few times! :eek:

[Apocal]

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.

If the HMG is within effective (250m or less) small arms range, especially SMG range (75-100m) of troops so equipped, opening up at the same time, with the riflemen established behind cover, it's entirely reasonable to expect the HMG will be pinned in place and destroyed. Getting a few men close enough to put effective fire on the HMG is the entire point of supporting elements like LMGs and mortars. This is countered by mortars and/or mines denying safe avenues of approach, mutually supporting positions, falling back once infantry approach effective range, etc.

I'm not trying to replace rifle dominance with HMG dominance, because that will be just as silly and ahistorical from a combined arms standpoint.

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.

As I said before, that will encourage more "gaming" of the morale system, since you can effectively make most rifle squads take twice or thrice the suppression by breaking them into teams. You could easily dump 300 rounds in two or three minutes at your desired RoF, with relatively little to show for it once the units weren't actually having rounds pass over their heads in the current morale system. You'd get hits, certainly, but if the effect isn't lasting, you will run dry, they will rally and we'll all be right back square one.

[Apocal]

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.

That's normal for CMx2. I'm not all certain of it's cause so I don't want to speculate in this thread, but it's definitely worthy of some theorycrafting and testing.

(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

JasonC's suggestion (2x increase in rally times) is probably best from a tweaking standpoint, it's just one variable.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I agree with PzKfW. I suspect that ramping up suppression from all causes will not make machine guns any more effective relative to other weapon systems. It will simply make infantry in general less effective vis a vis other branches of the army whos performance is less effected by suppression, i.e. armor and artillery. I don't think CMx2 suffers from too effective infantry.

As I said before, that will encourage more "gaming" of the morale system, since you can effectively make most rifle squads take twice or thrice the suppression by breaking them into teams. You could easily dump 300 rounds in two or three minutes at your desired RoF, with relatively little to show for it once the units weren't actually having rounds pass over their heads in the current morale system. You'd get hits, certainly, but if the effect isn't lasting, you will run dry, they will rally and we'll all be right back square one.

Accuracy needs to be looked at too, not just rate of fire. Remember the original post in this thread. Increasing rate of fire would indeed make little difference if the accuracy continued to be that bad.

[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

[LongLeftFlank]

One point: it appears some people here are using "suppression" to describe two different phenomena:

1. Fire on a moving unit that causes it to go to ground or seek cover. The unit may or may not be willing to fire, but will be reluctant to resume its advance until rallied (and if Rattled or Broken due to casualties, that's unlikely)

2. True suppressive fire on a fixed position (e.g. The HMG) that causes a reduction in volume of fire and enables rally and resumption of the advance to killing range.

I submit you can adjust 1 without messing too much with 2.

[Fūrinkazan]

LongLeftFlank

You are right and i would then change to :

1000 m or more = harrasment fire

400 1000 m = suppression (support an attack)

400 1000 m = pin, block an attack, don't know if there is another word (defending a position)

less than 400 m = emergency fire.

Don't know if it's possible to change 1 and note change 2 just like you submited . I think that in the game, in defense or attack, hmg use the same firing procedure and there is no difference when targeting a fixed target or a moving target concerning the rate of fire.

Now, we can imagine that on a fixed target, once the range is find there would be less need of range finding bursts.

So,when supporting the attack to suppress fixed position 1/2 range estimation bursts and then longer bursts 1.5/2 secs

On defense 2 range estimation one long burst etc... repeating 2/1 procedure, with just more estimation bursts due to moving target.

But certainly way to hard to put in the game.

Certainly some kind of balance should be made between the 2 systems.

I would see it just like another support weapon : mortars.

One sequence to prepare fire and then effective fire.

I think that programmers can change the length of bursts and choose a procedure for range finding bursts without changing too much the game and touching to other weapons.

Now, if someone has historical informations about the firing procedure at long range of hmgs in WW2 it would be interresting.

All i know is what i've found on soviet manual and the fact that it seems that German hmgs use one short burst to estimate the range and then one long of 50 bullets on target (that seems enough for them to eliminate target) and repeat the procedure until target is destroyed.

[JasonC]

PZKWf - the potential issue with just turning up HMG rate of fire and leaving everything else the same would be fire at long range running the HMG out of ammo completely before any significant morale damage is inflicted. If the fire at that range is weak enough that the target is recovering full morale rapidly, twice as many bursts would indeed put twice as many men actually down (though twice zero is zero) - but if they can continue to advance, we'd still have the problem.

Understand, to me CMx2 gives overall full battle results that are too bloody, not insufficiently bloody. The forces mash together too close, still up and firing. That (plus maybe some insufficient cover-seeking and maybe massed point targets on action spots) give more kills before the forces "give out", and one or the other gives way. Yes HMG fire is insufficiently bloody. But overall suppression is too low or morale too high, as well.

Now, if the HMG fire rate were fixed, I might be able to handle the suppression issue as a scenario designer, by just using green troops everywhere. So it would be progress. Alone I doubt it would be enough, but it would at least move the variable that is out of scenario-designer control.

[altipueri]

I agree with sly sniper post 497 that this is one of the things that could be made adjustable by sliders. Then at any one level BFC could have their defaults and individuals can up or down factors as they feel suits their idea of realism or playability.

[LongLeftFlank]

Don't know if it's possible to change 1 and not change 2 just like you submited . I think that in the game' date=' in defense or attack, hmg use the same firing procedure and there is no difference when targeting a fixed target or a moving target concerning the rate of fire. [/quote']

Well, as I've opined previously, I believe (2) -- effects of fire against infantry already down and in cover -- should be dialed way DOWN, not up.

But this should be a function of tweaking cover, spotting rules and infantry animations, not messing further with firepower.

Right now, shooters under fire but "in cover" spend too much time with their heads and upper bodies exposed and a bullet (or fragment) eventually finds them. Plus some cover (e.g. vegetation) is abstracted, so if you just pump in enough lead you'll kill the guys.

If a soldier behind a thick stone wall (or behind the root bole of a large tree in a forest tile) is behaving correctly, mostly keeping his head down under fire, prairie-dogging up to spot the enemy and again to take a snap shot, it doesn't matter how much lead the enemy throws at his position. Barring a ricochet, he's "safe".

He may not be overly inclined to leave that spot, of course, until (a) the incoming is suppressed or distracted, and ( if he's reached a Shaken or worse level, a leader shoos him along.

[Fūrinkazan]

PZKWf - the potential issue with just turning up HMG rate of fire and leaving everything else the same would be fire at long range running the HMG out of ammo completely before any significant morale damage is inflicted. If the fire at that range is weak enough that the target is recovering full morale rapidly, twice as many bursts would indeed put twice as many men actually down (though twice zero is zero) - but if they can continue to advance, we'd still have the problem.

Understand, to me CMx2 gives overall full battle results that are too bloody, not insufficiently bloody. The forces mash together too close, still up and firing. That (plus maybe some insufficient cover-seeking and maybe massed point targets on action spots) give more kills before the forces "give out", and one or the other gives way. Yes HMG fire is insufficiently bloody. But overall suppression is too low or morale too high, as well.

Now, if the HMG fire rate were fixed, I might be able to handle the suppression issue as a scenario designer, by just using green troops everywhere. So it would be progress. Alone I doubt it would be enough, but it would at least move the variable that is out of scenario-designer control.

Very difficult to say if both things should be changed, but i think that changing rate of fire would have very different effect on morale than what we have now.

For exemple : hmgs are devastating at 100/50 m. The rate of fire is something like 180 to 300/350 rpm and sometime more than 400 rpm.

Now if, in the efficiency range of hmgs (400 1000 m) the rate of fire is increased to let's say 250 rpm it's around 2 to 5 x what we have in game ( at 400 m aroud 80 bullets at 600 or up 50 bullets in game).

If effect on the morale (better word than suppression ) on the attacker is x 2 or 5 i guess infantry would be pinned down much more easily. according to manual, bullets do not need to hit a target to affect moral but just pass near it, so the more incoming fire, the more hit on morale.

For ammo, if the effect on morale is high, no need to fire continously on target.

If 50 bullet burst can pin down infantry for exemple no need to fire for hours and if the target briefly order is used then 15 sec of fire then stop would give for exemple 7+50 bullets then stop. It's quiet managable for player with target briefly and maybe not so much ammo demanding since target moral is affected faster.

[Fūrinkazan]

Well, as I've opined previously, I believe (2) -- effects of fire against infantry already down and in cover -- should be dialed way DOWN, not up.

But this should be a function of tweaking cover, spotting rules and infantry animations, not messing further with firepower.

Right now, shooters under fire but "in cover" spend too much time with their heads and upper bodies exposed and a bullet (or fragment) eventually finds them. Plus some cover (e.g. vegetation) is abstracted, so if you just pump in enough lead you'll kill the guys.

If a soldier behind a thick stone wall (or behind the root bole of a large tree in a forest tile) is behaving correctly, mostly keeping his head down under fire, prairie-dogging up to spot the enemy and again to take a snap shot, it doesn't matter how much lead the enemy throws at his position. Barring a ricochet, he's "safe".

He may not be overly inclined to leave that spot, of course, until (a) the incoming is suppressed or distracted, and ( if he's reached a Shaken or worse level, a leader shoos him along.

Seems that the only way to be safe is to be in thick wall building with hide order. I think someone made tests that shows that hiding in building makes infantry pretty safe from small weapons fire.

There were also changes made in a patch that made infantry more resistant in buildings (there was a bug if i remember well).

So maybe, infantry under cover should be more protected, especially in buildings. Don't know for forest or trees. I have seen tests that shows than a bullet can go straight through a medium tree. Now if the soldier is down i guess he should be quiet safe. Maybe they expose too much time to ennemy fire but i must admit i did not test this. Most of the time i think the one who has the best cover wins if firepower and experience is equal.

Now, yesterday i had 2 hmgs at 250 m of British attacking on a flat field.

They were behind a bocage and suffer no losses from incoming fire from attacker and managed to inflict 40 losses. I had 2 other hmgs on the left flank, one in bulding and one behind a bocage that also inflicted around 40 losses without any loss for them. During the battle, attacker lost 121 men and 83 were due to 4 hmgs.But, the range was 200/300 m max, i used a lot of area fire and the attacker was in bocage and there were only a few path to go were infantry was very grouped + some of the losses were inflicted by riflemen and smgs of the hmgs team.

[Fūrinkazan]

I agree with sly sniper post 497 that this is one of the things that could be made adjustable by sliders. Then at any one level BFC could have their defaults and individuals can up or down factors as they feel suits their idea of realism or playability.

the idea of slider is certainly good but i doubt it would be done because too much time programing and certainly a new interface to make so that the player can adjust things like he wants.

Maybe : at iron level : more realistic model and effect on morale high,

and level under, reduced effect and less realism for beginners or those who just want to have fun. This could also affect the command line for exemple with less rules for command and control at lower level of realism.

But i don't know how many players would like this. I guess that most of us want a realistic representation of battlefield with moral, weapons, command portayed realistically.

That's why i loved CMX1 compared to other games. Much more challenging than an rts game for exemple, but more rewarding.

Has many players, all i want is that if you use proper tactics you win, and if not you're punished.

If the representation of reality si correct, real life tactics should work and that's all i'm looking for.

When i started wargaming when i was a kid, wargames were representing one battle or campaign and the challenge was to do better than the historical result so a realistic simulation system was what i was looking for, from boardgame to computer games.

[LongLeftFlank]

Just to level set here, the original thesis of (the latter part of) this thread was: infantry should not routinely be able to advance across a pooltable flat surface against a MG in cover, rapidly shrugging off casualties/Pin effects and then closing to a range where their small arms can then pin the MG and eliminate it.

The bulk of the responses have been something like: yeah, a HMG, especially those badass MG42s, should just mow these guys all down WWI style. Why isn't that happening? Because the MGs don't fire nearly enough bullets, that's why! So dial up the rooty toot!

And others have said, sure there are probably some adjustments needed in terms of burst frequency/length, dispersion around distant targets, FPF "rock and roll" fire, etc., but the critical issue driving the Extremely Non-Historical Result is what's happening at the target end:

The attackers don't go to ground fast enough when shot at, and then rally too quickly. So in the time it takes for the MG to shoot an accurate burst that forces Team A to ground, Team B has gotten up and is moving forward again, etc. And then at a certain range the MG starts getting pinned itself and things go downhill from there.

The objection has then been raised: well isn't making MGs more lethal and moving infantry more brittle going to create very static, undramatic battlefields, with nobody except AFVs able to move much at all? And won't that make the game frustrating and unfun as your troops constantly dump their movement orders, leaving those few who do obey sitting ducks for the rest of the WeGo minute?

Answer: not necessarily. In the Pooltable scenario, yeah, that advance is pretty much going to stop cold (unless the men are Fanatics, in which case they just wither away). Nothing really to do but pull back to cover and call in supporting fire, and Smoke.

But on less barren battlefields, the attacking troops go to ground and find cover quickly. And assuming the first "bump" didn't debilitate the team, and accelerated by the direction of a strong (unbroken) leader, they will recover and be willing to resume their advance -- but slowly and more cautiously, seeking blind zones, calling in their own support weapons to reduce incoming, etc. The playability issues are soluble, using adjustments to the existing mechanisms. And I too would support a level of troop response tied to Difficulty level, for those who like their battles Nasty Brutish and Short.

[PzKfW]

Nearly everyone in this thread believes the overall situation presented by the OP in his test needs fixing. The outcome is glaringly, obviously wrong.

However, in this ensuing discussion, we have been dealing with three phenomenon, which are variously being postulated as the cause of the outcome in the OP (depending on the particular person, and their particular axe):

1. HMG effectiveness (suppression and lethality of HMG on target)

----

2. Cover effectiveness (reduction of incoming fire effects)

----

3. Rally effectiveness (how fast troops recover from incoming fire)

It would be helpful to examine the bearing these have on the original issue in the OP.

The mortar effectiveness thread shows that #2 certainly needs tweaking. However, that does not enter into our discussion here on HMG effectiveness. That issue, if it does not have one already, needs its own thread and its own discussion.

Now, it has been postulated that #1, the HMG effectiveness issue, does not need tweaking, and that suppression/morale levels do, because suppression levels and morale bounce back too easily among squads/teams (#3).

The assumptions behind this train of thought need examining.

First, suppression/morale effects appear to be based on the volume of incoming fire per unit time. You can expend all 2000rds of mg fire on a squad, but if it comes in slowly enough (as current), the squad will not get pinned/suppressed. Turn up the RATE of fire, and you will get more pinning and suppression, and dramatically so.

Second, spreading out teams is a viable and realistic way to reduce the impact of area denial fire. Decreasing the density of targets is always a good idea on a battlefield. In fact, MG gunners were trained to look for infantrymen who were bunched up as "preferred targets". I see no issue with the game's reduction of the effects of suppressive fire on several fragmented teams, versus one bunched-up squad. Splitting teams has its own, inherent, disadvantages. The only real advantage is to decrease the target density.

Third, suppression levels do bounce back quickly. But morale decreases DO NOT. They are much more permanent than in CMBB/AK. If you have enough suppression for long enough, you get morale decreases... "rattled", etc. Increase the suppressive fire of HMGs, and you increase the (more or less) permanent effects on the squad, regardless of if casualties are taken.

Again, #1 is the single biggest and most realistic way to more closely correlate CM with reality in this regard.

And I think we are all looking to correlate CM with reality. If some individuals want to have "easier" CM gaming, that's what the difficulty slider can do. But I think that we all, at some level, want to be able to turn it up to the "this is as real as it gets, guys" notch.

[Childress]

And I think we are all looking to correlate CM with reality. If some individuals want to have "easier" CM gaming, that's what the difficulty slider can do. But I think that we all, at some level, want to be able to turn it up to the "this is as real as it gets, guys" notch.

Don't think that's BF's M.O. All the difficulty levels except Basic Training correlate with spotting and the treating of wounded . 'Suppression sliders' sound like something hellishly difficult to get right. Also, nobody on this forum wants to play with training wheels.

CMFI and CMBN, including modules and 'packs', come out to, what, eight+ releases? They're at #3. If they're going to make significant adjustments now's the time to start. Is it a question of plugging variables onto a master spreadsheet? Or is it more organic? Who knows? You may have noted that Steve hasn't debated game mechanics in years. He's wised up.

[PzKfW]

Absolutely agree, a bunch of different sliders is really just sidetracking the discussion. I just wanted to point out that we already have a slider for that sort of thing.

[JasonC]

"hmgs are devastating at 100/50 m. The rate of fire is something like 180 to 300/350 rpm"

But that isn't remotely the only difference between fire at 75 meters and fire at 750 meters. Each bullet fired is also much more likely to pass into or through the specific action spot where the target is located. Angular misses being roughly equal, the dispersion of the shots around the target action spot is 10 times as wide at 750 meters as it is at 75 meters (for all these small angles, sine x is about equal to x, etc).

Yes the ROF may have risen 3-5 times, but the underlying accuracy is also rising about 10 times. If you need 30-50 times the achieved accuracy times bullets fired, to get "break 'em" suppression, just increasing the ROF at range a tad isn't going to make much of a difference. And that is also the same as requiring that the men take huge actual hit casualties before they will break.

But the requirement that the men take huge actual hit casualties before they break is the entire essence of the problem - *not* how close they need to be for that to start happening. If everything fired 5 times as effectively at range, but rally were unchanged, you'd get the bloody mess end result at 375 meters distance instead of 75 meters distance, but you'd still get the result, that the men advanced shrugging off everything until close enough to be shot to rags, or to shoot the MG defenders to rags, or both.

That is not the historical result we are after. What actually happens when unsupported infantry tries to cross a full kilometer of open ground under HMG fire, is they *pin* and go to ground and do not succeed in completing the movement. They never get to a range at which their own rifle fire is effective. We say, HMGs *outrange* rifle infantry, when there is no cover. The only way to have that result is for the rifle infantry to *stop advancing*, and to do so *before* they are shot down nearly to a man.

The angular accuracy stuff may be somewhat low at range (hits per shot might need to be higher), but appear to be within a factor of 2 of correct. But the men just do not go down.

Of your 3 effects, I claim that the first is largely a result of the third. Even continual HMG fire at one unit does not keep adding suppression until that unit goes prone and gives up trying to move (at range, understood). Because the unit recovers any morale impact from the previous hits, at least as fast as the suppression is piled onto it, by inaccurate long range shots.

I can see a unit recovering morale enough to get back up, if going prone leads to the MG shifting targets to some other unit, and the first unit then has 2 solid minutes to recover its nerve. I can even see a large and well spread infantry formation successfully creeping to rifle range that way, if there are enough separate targets for the defending MGs, and not enough of those, and plenty of time. But one unit - and that a small team - under continually HMG fire, should only make it 100-200 meters at most before it goes to ground permanently. I say "permanently", because if nothing happens to shift the MG fire off of it, and it truly has no cover, they should never be able to rally and get up again (baring an MG jam or similar, which would count as something "shifting" the fire off of that unit).

As for the comment that suppression levels would be really hard to get right, I don't see why. Posters here have already been able to ascertain that with units 2 full morale levels below the "regular" defaults, considerably more realistic results are obtained. Now, if firepower at range and ROF adapting to target exposure raised fire effects some, maybe the morale adjustment required would only be 1 level - but there is a requirement for some such adjustment. I don't particularly want literal sliders, but we can easily determine a more accurate level for morale, as a default.

The default men are superhuman and killing each other to 75% casualties without abandoning the mission, and that just does not happen in real armies.

[JonS]

The default men are superhuman and killing each other to 75% casualties without abandoning the mission, and that just does not happen in real armies.

I know this is one of your favourite themes, but you're barking up the wrong tree there, Jason. You might even be in the wrong forest. You're talking about a meta-level effect, which it is up to the player to reproduce.

Players push things too hard too fast, because there's no world outside the current scenario, and 'success' is only assessed on how well you do in THIS battle. As a result forces in CM regularly get ground to extinction. Exactly the same thing happens at NTC, for approximately the same reasons.

[Apocal]

I know this is one of your favourite themes, but you're barking up the wrong tree there, Jason. You might even be in the wrong forest. You're talking about a meta-level effect, which it is up to the player to reproduce.

Why is that?

Plenty of officers throughout history tried to push their men as fast and as hard as CM players. The men still refused to push up past around a quarter or one-third casualties on the attack before breaking off. On the defense they didn't die in place nearly as often (and usually then it was unintentional, the result of smart blocking moves pinning them there) as higher ups demanded. In real life, when it gets too be too much, real troops shy away, they don't allow their lives to be spent freely like so much change rattling around a battalion commander's pocket.

Players push things too hard too fast, because there's no world outside the current scenario, and 'success' is only assessed on how well you do in THIS battle. As a result forces in CM regularly get ground to extinction. Exactly the same thing happens at NTC, for approximately the same reasons.

Nobody is afraid of dying at NTC so people do incredibly stupid **** all the time. Nobody tries half the crazy ideas they have at NTC in Iraq or Afghanistan because you can actually be killed or maimed there.

[JonS]

Nobody is afraid of dying at NTC so people do incredibly stupid **** all the time. Nobody tries half the crazy ideas they have at NTC in Iraq or Afghanistan because you can actually be killed or maimed there.

No kidding. That's my point. Paraphrasing: "Nobody is afraid of dying in CM so people do incredibly stupid **** all the time. Nobody tried half the crazy ideas they have in CM in France or Italy because you could actually be killed or maimed there."

[Apocal]

No kidding. That's my point.

In-game, that would have nothing to do with the players and everything to do with pixeltruppen. You implied that it was officers pursuing missions to wipeout levels of casualties. But in-game you can easily hit 50% casualties even playing relatively conservatively and (more importantly) your men will still be functioning and responsive to orders.

[Fūrinkazan]

Just tested troops with low motivation.

Regular 125 men with -2 motivation against 4 hmgs.

Map 2000 m

It took approximatly 10 mn to cross the field and a little more to destroy hmgs.

I only got 2 infantry squads broken. but as soon as they get at 300 m or less and return fire it's finished for hmgs. i did not give any other order than move fast to infantry and no order to hmgs.

results :

13 dead and 6 wounded for US

13 dead 12 wounded 2 missing for germans

Maybe the best solution is a mix between rising a little firepower and lowering morale motivation and higher time to recover when pinned.

Now we are far from the results in CMBB or CMAK.

Also, is it correct to see an lmg team shooting has many bullets as an hmg at the same range. If i remember well as soon as we get at around 300 m, the number length of burst is the quiet the same for both weapons.

For accuracy, as i mentionned before, what i've seen in a documentary is that, at least the vickers is not very accurate and especially when targeting a line of infantry charging, even with an experience shooter. Most bullets will go between the ranks.

So, in the game, if to get pinned down, you need to have a least one casualty in the squad you're targeting, and if they recover fast, it can be difficult to stop an attacker.

Now, a good flanking position would have give certainly different results, with more casualties and then more squads pinned down.

[John Kettler]

Here's how a .50 cal M2 HMG's supposed to be used.

http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/p600-4.pdf

TRADOC Pam 600-4 (2008) Initial Entry Training Soldier's Handbook

p.181

"Single Shot

: Place gun in single shot mode and engage target with well aimed shots. The .50 caliber machine gun is extremely accurate and can effectively engage targets out to 2,000 yards (1,829m). Change the barrel at end of firing day or if the barrel is damaged.

Slow Fire

: Slow fire is less than 40 rounds per minute, fired in bursts of 6 to 9 rounds, at 10-15 second intervals. Change the barrel at the end of the firing day or if the barrel is damaged.

Rapid Fire

: Rapid fire is greater than 40 rounds per minute, fired in bursts of 6 to 9 rounds, at 5-10 second intervals. Change the barrel at the end of the firing day or if the barrel is damaged.

Cyclic Fire

: This rate represents the maximum amount of ammunition that can be expended by a gun without a break in firing. The cyclic rate of this .50 caliber machine gun is 450 to 600 rounds per minute. Change the barrel at the end of the firing day or if the barrel is damaged."

Is there any way to easily model this in the code?

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

You implied that it was officers pursuing missions to wipeout levels of casualties.

That too.

{padding}