accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[JasonC]

"The old methodology of spreading fire (which is what started this thread) has been abandoned and new "smarter" behavior created...Suppression effects have been increased"

Sounds great, can't wait to see it...

[Lanzfeld]

After watching a few of JK's videos on the .50 cal I am of the opinion that in CMBN they need to do more damage against walls and bulidings.

[stikkypixie]

So what have we fixed so far?

1. The old methodology of spreading fire (which is what started this thread) has been abandoned and new "smarter" behavior created. Early tests indicate this largely fixes the problems most of you have been discussing throughout this discussion. This, actually, is where the Pool Table test helped out. NOT because of the results, but because it was easier to notice the targeting logic and understand why it needed to be adjusted.

2. Suppression effects have been increased. Not just for MGs but for small arms in general. The increases are proportional to the amount of lead being shot, which means MGs will cause proportionally more suppression than they used to.

Steve

Is this change already implemented or will it be included in an upcoming patch?

[dieseltaylor]

I am very glad that the machine guns are being looked at or even fixed?.

Just for information purposes what the UK War Office thought about the matter and how they pulled their case together. The way it is presented takes some getting used to when it comes to the figures however if I give an example in written form it might help decipher the rest.

The first group of figures. On a frontage of 100 yards [at a range of 100-200 yards] the number of bullets to neutralise per minute would be 1000 and this on infantry in slit trenches.

From the second group. A section is sufficient to do heavy neutralisation on a frontage of 20 yards on enemy in slit trenches. This is roughly 200 rounds per minute.

WO 291/471 Weight of small-arms fire needed for various targets.

"These figures are exceedingly tentative, and it should be realised that even if correct, they may have little value in the Infantry battle, where the weight of fire needed is in general decided more by what is available, and then corrected empirically."

Targets are considered to be in slit trenches, exposing an area of ½ sq ft to fire, or pillboxes, exposing an area of ¼ sq ft to fire from an embrasure. Two levels of neutralisation are recognised.

"Light neutralisation" is defined as the minimum weight of fire to appreciably effect the accuracy of enemy fire. The enemy will suffer casualties at a rate of 2½% per minute, or one man per platoon per minute, if they stay in a firing position for more than a third of the time they are fired on.

"Heavy neutralisation" is defined as the weight of fire needed effectively to stop any retaliatory measures on the part of the enemy, with a casualty rate of 10% per minute, or one man per section per minute.

It is estimated that a bullet passing within 3 yards sounded near enough to be dangerous. Sections are assumed to be at full strength, 1+9, with Bren, Sten and 8 rifles, although it is acknowledged that rarely in battle will section strength exceed 1+6. Brens are assumed to fire 120 rds/min, rifles 18 rds/min. The range of engagement is assumed to be 100 to 200 yards. The effect of 2-in mortars is neglected.

Rounds per minute required to achieve neutralisation on target frontages in yards are:

Cover ..................Slit trenches ......................................Pillboxes

Frontage .............100....... 20........ 4 .............................100...... 20...... .4

Light neut ............250 ......50 .......10 .............................500.... 100 ......20

Heavy neut......... 1000 ....200 .......40 ............................2000... 400 ......80

Force required to give covering fire:

Cover........................Slit trenches................................... Pillboxes

Frontage ....100.......... 20................. 4 ...........|100.......... 20.................... 4

Light neut ..1 sect ...1 Bren gp/......1 rifleman ... | 2 sects.... Bren gp/......Bren gp or

.............................or rifle gp........................................or rifle gp.......2 riflemen

Heavy neut.. 1 pl ....... 1 sect ....1 Bren gp/........1 coy........ 2 sect. ......... 1Bren grp

...................+ 1 sec...................3 riflemen ............................................or rifle gp

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are some points that are raised by reading this.

1] The rate of fire is very heavy so the implication seems to be that the focus is on suppressing the enemy for an assault. The amount of ammo being a consideration.

2] The Sten is ignored I assume because of inaccuracy at the range specified means they would be worthless.

3] Is the amount of fire to suppress the same at 200 metres as at 1000metres and the casualty rate anywhere near right.

In any event this was the thinking in the War Office in WW2 so despite all the caveats it seems useful. I still hope that the US, German and Russians did similar, and if possible better documented work at the time. Thanks to Mr. Salt for extracting the info.

[Wodin]

Like the planners of the Dieppe landings for example I've also been led to believe that the Omaha landings were a bit difficult too.

If you remove the combined arms from the equation, a well-sited, dug-in MG team should dominate a force of infantry advancing across a pool table. With no cover, real-life infantry would feel very vulnerable and be very frightened having a MG firing in their general direction. The whole point of combined arms was to avoid this silliness.

The Omaha beach landings certainly show how devastating a well placed dug in MG fire can be with good LOS and little cover..

[Battlefront.com]

Killkess,

My source is Saving Private Ryan. One Squad, with a frontal assault, took out an entrenched HMG42 with only one casualty.

Hehe

Seriously, like JonS, my statement comes from roughly 20 years of cumulative research. After a while you cease thinking of things in terms of specific sources but basic knowledge and contextual common sense. Read any low level infantry combat account and I think you'll get a feel for why MGs have serious limitations.

But this isn't really necessary. Get 30 friends together and arm yourself with a rapid fire paint ball (Airsoft) gun and an ample supply of ammo. Have your friends all armed with semi-auto or manual load paint ball (Airsoft) guns. See how long you last without superior cover. Not long, I'm sure.

After watching a few of JK's videos on the .50 cal I am of the opinion that in CMBN they need to do more damage against walls and bulidings.

Quite possibly. With so many different things to simulate in so many different circumstances, I'm sure there are many specific circumstances where one could argue there is room for improvement. How much it actually matters, in terms of tangible gameplay value, is a separate issue.

Is this change already implemented or will it be included in an upcoming patch?

Already implemented in what I have on my desktop, but not what you have on yours. Yet

I am very glad that the machine guns are being looked at or even fixed?.

I would say "certainly improved" rather than "fixed". As I have said, MGs are really feak'n difficult to simulate. Probably more difficult to simulate than anything other single weapon system.

If I understand the UK report you quoted, I think this demonstrates why Sections/Squads wound up with LMGs as standard weaponry. The rounds per minute requirement against a dug in enemy is theoretically achievable by a fairly modest infantry only force. Against a point target... even a pillbox... it only takes a few men to effectively suppress and/or neutralize.

Steve

[Killkess]

But this isn't really necessary. Get 30 friends together and arm yourself with a rapid fire paint ball (Airsoft) gun and an ample supply of ammo. Have your friends all armed with semi-auto or manual load paint ball (Airsoft) guns. See how long you last without superior cover. Not long, I'm sure.

With this setup u would "ignore" one of the important parts of the whole thread. It seems u talk about "short" distances again at which the 30 guys can actually deliver effective fire. This is more comparable to testing LMGs within the squad. This was about HMG fire against an enemy who is, for the most part, out of his effective fire range.

Anyways lets see what the current changes will bring.

[Apocal]

But this isn't really necessary. Get 30 friends together and arm yourself with a rapid fire paint ball (Airsoft) gun and an ample supply of ammo. Have your friends all armed with semi-auto or manual load paint ball (Airsoft) guns. See how long you last without superior cover. Not long, I'm sure.

This doesn't really show RL relationship between rifles and (H)MGs very well, since airsoft guns have similar ranges and none of them reach out past "point and shoot" distance.

[JonS]

LMGs and HMGs shoot rounds to the same distance as a rifle.

[Apocal]

LMGs and HMGs shoot rounds to the same distance as a rifle.

Only on paper.

[akaariai]

Probably talking past each other, but at least for me the big problem in the initial tests was the "run at full speed from 1000m to 300m and succeed" behavior. That *is* (was?) broken.

So, in paintball terms you should ask your friends to run for a minute or two in range without shooting back.

If a platoon attacks a MG using proper tactics then, yes, the platoon should most likely win. If it just runs from 1000m to 300m I am pretty sure it should be shredded to pieces.

[RockinHarry]

I´m really getting sick of reading about "balancing" this or that. If certain similar type bolt action rifles are treated the same, then ok, but when it´s about sophisticated weapon systems, like is MG34/42 on tripods with optics and halfway trained crew, handled like "any" machine gun type weapon dumped on piece of wood with a no brainer crew; I feel like I´ll skip any further modules (like I did with CMFI already) and see if BFC comes up with something better researched. Merry Xmas

[Childress]

LOL, lighten up, RH. It's Christmas.

[Battlefront.com]

This doesn't really show RL relationship between rifles and (H)MGs very well, since airsoft guns have similar ranges and none of them reach out past "point and shoot" distance.

You're missing the point. 30 individuals firing at a single target have a serious advantage vs. a single weapon firing at 30 individual targets. Anybody here good with math want to calculate the odds of the single shooter taking out all 30 shooters without getting taken out itself? I know that's really abstract, but to understand the basics of this matchup one must understand this critical concept before lumping in variable and conditional factors.

Fact is that on a weapon per weapon basis the HMG has a chance, but ONLY a chance, of doing more per second of combat than any one of those others. But over the course of a pitched battle between the two groups? All else being equal, the MG should lose every time because the law of averages says the 30 shooters will prevail. The MG has to hit every single one of the 30 targets to be completely safe. The others only have to hit 1 target to be completely safe. I'm not sure why that sort of basic math isn't registering with some in this discussion.

Probably talking past each other, but at least for me the big problem in the initial tests was the "run at full speed from 1000m to 300m and succeed" behavior. That *is* (was?) broken.

Absolutely, but one must assess exactly why that was happening. The MG aim behavior meant that roughly 2/3rds of the outgoing fire was ineffective provided the targets weren't bunched together. This was definitely a problem and it has been addressed. On top of that when a target is grazed by fire it is now more likely to be suppressed.

What I'm discussing here is unrealistic, unsupportable theories about what a HMG should be able to do. It should be able to do more than what happens in the game now, but far less than what some think.

If a platoon attacks a MG using proper tactics then, yes, the platoon should most likely win. If it just runs from 1000m to 300m I am pretty sure it should be shredded to pieces.

Sorta depends on the conditions, but generally speaking yes to both.

I´m really getting sick of reading about "balancing" this or that.

So you don't really care about this issue?

If certain similar type bolt action rifles are treated the same, then ok, but when it´s about sophisticated weapon systems, like is MG34/42 on tripods with optics and halfway trained crew, handled like "any" machine gun type weapon dumped on piece of wood with a no brainer crew; I feel like I´ll skip any further modules (like I did with CMFI already) and see if BFC comes up with something better researched. Merry Xmas

I have *no* idea what you are talking about. Hmmm... wait, maybe I got something to work with after my 10th read. Are you saying that a German HMG should be better than other MMG/HMGs on less sophisticated mounts? If so, the CM already simulates this. Always has, in fact. What we're talking about is HMG capabilities on the whole. While a MG42 on a tripod with optics (I have a 1960s version for the MG1, BTW) is definitely a better system, it's not wildly better in terms of affecting overall outcome. Or at least an artificial test like the Pool Table test.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Only on paper.

Correct. In reality a rifle is a more accurate, longer range weapon than a MG on a per shot basis. This is why snipers still use bolt action rifles and not machineguns to take out targets at long distances.

Steve

[Redwolf]

In an open firefight with lots of shots quicker than what a sniper does the HMG has longer effective range. Because you can walk it into the target.

And the enemy can see it walked toward him. And the enemy can observe current beaten zones. And he can observe which zones are potential beaten zones by a given HMG. That's when the "don't go there" kicks in for which a solution needs to be found. A working HMG denies some of the terrain to the enemy and it's not because it's an instant death laser lobster beam.

[Paper Tiger]

Read any low level infantry combat account and I think you'll get a feel for why MGs have serious limitations.

Probably because units trained and developed tactics for handling them. You can use these tactics in the game too. Split the squad up into two or three teams and use two of them to cover a third which rushes from position to position taking full advantage of any cover available (and in NW Europe, there was usually a LOT of this), outflanking the enemy's position, etc, etc. It gets even better when you have a 50mm or 60mm mortar in support as well.

However, tactics like that are completely unnecessary in the game as the MG has already been nerfed so badly so that it is ineffective even in the best possible circumstance imaginable for it: a rush across a long stretch of completely open ground towards its position. This is what people have been complaining about and what JonS has been defending in this thread. The average western squad leader wasn't trained to order his squad to perform a Banzai charge across open ground against a MG position. Why? Because it was suicide, that's why. Not so in the present version of the game as demonstrated by the video at the start of this thread where it is shown to be completely and utterly ineffective.

You and JonS might have twenty more years of experience and reseach under your belts here than me, and I'm happy to admit to it, but you're not going to convince me that MGs were that bad in real life.

[JonS]

what JonS has been defending in this thread.

It would probably be useful if you learnt to read beofre the next attempt to mischaracterise my position and posts.

Either that or ACTUALLY stop reading my posts, like you keep telling the world you have.

Merry Christmas.

[Battlefront.com]

In an open firefight with lots of shots quicker than what a sniper does the HMG has longer effective range. Because you can walk it into the target.

1 on 1? Sure, but the situation is 30 on 1. Or are you saying that 1 HMG is more likely to suppress/kill 30 dispersed targets before 27 guys with rifles and 3 guys with LMGs will suppress/kill 1 target?

And the enemy can see it walked toward him. And the enemy can observe current beaten zones. And he can observe which zones are potential beaten zones by a given HMG.

Yup, and also in doing so advertises to anybody within range exactly where the threat is coming from. Which is another aspect of this discussion. 3 Rifle Squads are more likely to all spot the 1 HMG than the 1 HMG is to spot all 3 Rifle Squads. At least in a test more realistic than the Pool Table test. Can't target what you don't know about.

That's when the "don't go there" kicks in for which a solution needs to be found. A working HMG denies some of the terrain to the enemy and it's not because it's an instant death laser lobster beam.

Correct. Which is again a classic failure of most people's understanding of what a MG does. It isn't designed to cause massive casualties, though it can. It's primary role is "area denial". Something which, we can all agree, is not as strongly portrayed in CM as it should be (and is in our test version).

However, tactics like that are completely unnecessary in the game as the MG has already been nerfed so badly so that it is ineffective even in the best possible circumstance imaginable for it: a rush across a long stretch of completely open ground towards its position. This is what people have been complaining about and what JonS has been defending in this thread.

If you have been reading what I've said then you'd understand the technical flaws in this line of reasoning. Pool Table tests aren't a valid tool for assessing how the game plays because the game was never designed for Pool Table tests since those conditions never exist in a CM battle.

Not so in the present version of the game as demonstrated by the video at the start of this thread where it is shown to be completely and utterly ineffective.

The video shows an aiming logic problem, and that was useful to see. Other than that it shows nothing of interest.

You and JonS might have twenty more years of experience and reseach under your belts here than me, and I'm happy to admit to it, but you're not going to convince me that MGs were that bad in real life.

Because a Pool Table situation doesn't exist in real life, and CM wasn't designed to simulate such nonsense, it really isn't relevant. Plus, neither JonS nor I argued anything of the sort. Both of us have said, extensively, that the existing system needs changing. The issue is not to swing things so far that we now have a game which is unrealistic in the other direction.

Steve

[Killkess]

1 on 1? Sure, but the situation is 30 on 1. Or are you saying that 1 HMG is more likely to suppress/kill 30 dispersed targets before 27 guys with rifles and 3 guys with LMGs will suppress/kill 1 target?

If the range is 200m i am with you, if we speak about 500m+ i am not since 500m+ is well within perfect range for tripod HMG with optics while beeing out of effective range for the 30 guys. Expecially, like in my tests, the HMG is placed within heavy woods with lots of trees meaning cover+concealment.

Do i expect that the 30 guys should getting killed instantly when they stay low and hugh the ground? No, and I havent read any single reply suggesting this. But i expect that bad tactics be punished and that is simply not the case in the current situation.

And sorry to say again, but we dont talk about 30 guys capable to overcome a HMG using brilliant tactics, we talk about 10 beeing perfectly able to do and even 4 guys have a chance to do with bold tactics.

Can't target what you don't know about.

Exactly, and this is why the 30 guys have a very very hard time to deliver effective counter fire at long range, while the HMG has the means to effectively deliver its fire.

BTW if those Pooltable situation doesnt exist we wouldnt have this conversation. They do exist with CMFI and its potentialy much longer fields of fire and will be seen regularly in the eastern theater. But i have to confess that the situations in game are often even worse since the attacker doesnt have to cross open ground but has enoug cover/concealment available.

Now lets lean back and see what´s coming.

[Paper Tiger]

<Ahem.> The pool table test reveals the flaw in the aiming logic, a flaw that most of us all recognise and think should be changed.

The video shows an aiming logic problem, and that was useful to see.

Further, JonS has defended this behaviour earlier in this thread.

Post #41 in this thread

IMO, the shooting in that video seems ok. The angular error is not that great, although it does look really bad because of the zoom and the range GT. Furthermore MGs are area weapons and are supposed to beat the area around a designated point.

What does look a bit off is the apparent lack of suppression.

and a bit further in.

I think the accuracy of MGs is ok

He's said it both here in this thread and on the Beta boards

Further, he said this...

Go **** yourself. Don't misrepresent my position.

Link to the actual post can't be posted here but is available if you want to take some sort of action on it.

[wolf66]

<Ahem.> The pool table test reveals the flaw in the aiming logic, a flaw that most of us all recognise and think should be changed.

Further, JonS has defended this behaviour earlier in this thread.

Post #41 in this thread

and a bit further in.

He's said it both here in this thread and on the Beta boards

Further, he said this...

Link to the actual post can't be posted here but is available if you want to take some sort of action on it.

Well he could be awarded the "FANBOY OF THE YEAR" award for postings above and beyond the call of duty and complete disregard for others' opinions and real life .........

[Fizou]

+1 to PT and Killkess.

[Fūrinkazan]

Steve, thanks for the answer.

The futur improvement sounds very promising and i can't wait to play with it.

I agree that it's hard to find a balance in a so complicated game.

when i started testing i realised that, when it comes to the battlefield, things can be very different than expected.

I thought that a squad with 2 lmgs could suppress an hmg with more firepower and with equal cover behind a wall the hmg won most of the time even at 300 m.

For the pooltable test, i tested with 4 hmgs bunkers against 120 men charging in the open. I've been reading that germans during WW1 used 4 hmg to cover 250m of frontline and that's what i did. I had poor result, not because of casualties but because there was no need of tactic, just run for 1000 m or more.

I also tested this week with a WW1 battlefield. I had a long trench, 300m, covered with barbwire.

first i had 2 hmgs in the trench, facing enemy, and 2 covered with sandbangs on the flank. After 400 m of running and despite the fire of 4 hmgs, with two in a perfect flanking position, the infantry went to the barbwire line and eliminated the 2 hmgs in the trench.

I also tested with 4 hmgs in the flank, protected also by sandbags.

After taking 25 to 30 % loss in about 4 minutes the attacker reached the trench again. The 4 hmgs were not suppressed by the attacker, because of flanking position, and could fire in the mass of the infantry at about 300 m, 2 on the left flank and 2 on the right, with crossfire. I only tested 3 times and each hmg took out an average of 10 men each time.

Now, i'm not saying that it is impossible, but certainly not by charging. Only maybe with short runs of a few meters, and it should be harder to do than it is right now in the game. Taking 30 % loss in a few minutes and still keep cohesion doesn't seem realistic to me.

I trust the BFC team, as always, when it comes to improve the game, and i'm sure you'll find a good solution, like you did in the past for other problems.

Keep the good work.

I wish you all a Merry Christmas.

Regards

[slysniper]

Some of you really turn into childish pricks when you find the game is not perfect to your concept of R.L.

As was mentioned, it really is a art to get the game to imitate R.L. at all. As steve mentioned, you make a adjusted in one area and find it throws something else even more unbalenced.

So Mg's have flaws, what in the game doesn't. All of it comes short and will always come short of what happens in R.L.

And likely that is a good thing because if it didnt, the game might be really boring, since we be watching troops for 3 hours doing not much but trying to keep alive.

I on the other hand have been messing a little more with my scenario and found that placing heavy conc. Mg bunkers in my defence, just 2 of them, They did a much better job of keeping the enemy pinned and causing causualties. So for 20 minutes of combat they have lost only 7 men. 4 to a light 45 Mortar I gave the italians, three to direct fire rifle fire directed at them. Which is plenty with 160+ men with MG's and rifle.

Almost through the whole time, the two bunkers have never coward. they have been putting out a steady stream of fire and causing losses.

So without getting all caught up with how things should be. The best way presenty to getting a mg' position that is truly dangerous. It must be in a bunker, and you must design the scenario where there is not enough enemy support weapons to take out all the bunkers. If you can manage to have a few bunkers left in a battle where all the enemy has left is small arms fire. Then you have that focal point that becomes the nightmare to clear.

Learn to use what you have, I appreciate all the work that has been placed in the game and what it does provide. I am glad steve continues to look for ways to improve it, and somehows puts up with the childish attitudes that show up so often on the forum. I just hope he never gets tired of it and just decides that it enough and moves on to other things. Because then you all will find out how good we had it and that there is nothing else coming to replace it.

Because the last time I checked, no one else is even trying to make something that even comes fractionally close to what is here. For those that think abstract games are better. then go to them and dont let the door hit you in the ass as you leave. Tis the season to remember what life is all about and from what I see, many of you have not figured that out, so spend your time on that instead of wasting it here.