accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[Paper Tiger]

When you put everything together and play a normal game, MGs are about as lethal as you'd expect them to be. But this is entirely by accident and as a result of another deficiency in the game, namely that the Tac AI has no ability to react to a small arms threat until that fire either hits one of the squad's soldiers or the terrain it is taking cover in. Bullets whizzing past do not cause any suppression and that's not realistic either. Therefore we find that these troops running in the open take very few hits from MGs and so the MG's kill ratio is about right when compared to history even if their historical ability to intimidate and suppress is not. So what we see here are two wrongs making a right.

Paradoxically, the more infantry you throw at a MG position, the more effective the MG's fire will be. The smaller force you advance in the open with, the less effective the MG's fire will be because when the MG starts firing randomly off to the left or right away from its intended target's position, it might strike a squad/unit in another action spot by accident. Or it might not.

I think it's pretty safe to say that we all agree that the current behaviour is wrong and we'd like to see it changed. But I doubt that it is something that can be fixed quickly.

[Killkess]

When you put everything together and play a normal game, MGs are about as lethal as you'd expect them to be.

Again, this largely depends on the terrain and on which reactions on the receiving end we talk about. In reality it was impossible to charge right into MG positions across open ground as we see in CM2. Those attacks would either have been called off or faltered due to supression, if not enough cover/concealment is available, or one would have to call for support fire from heavier weapons. So in reality the cassualty numbers were lower because, as i see it, it was not SOP to charge a HMG position with a squad or with a three man team. So comparing RL numbers with the numbers we get from "unrealistic" actions within the game is problematic at least.

Therefore we find that these troops running in the open take very few hits from MGs and so the MG's kill ratio is about right when compared to history even if their historical ability to intimidate and suppress is not.

Yes, the ratio cassualies vs.time might be in the realistic ballpark. But like i said cassualties vs. crossed distance, distance crossed over time and cassualties vs type of movement is way way off.

[Paper Tiger]

Killkess

I'm actually very much in favour of changing this behaviour and I have petitioned for it to be changed on the Beta boards as well. However, there are one or two people who think that MGs are working just fine thank you and don't want BFC to waste valuable coding time changing what ain't broken (in their opinion, NOT mine). That MGs produce about the expected number of casualties is just an accident.

[Killkess]

I recognized that you were not suggesting that Mgs do work fine.

But still: "That MGs produce about the expected number of casualties is just an accident."

I dont agree on this one. They might produce the expected numbers of casualties under certain very unfavorable conditions for HMG deployment (short range, much cover/concealment). In many other circumstance they simply dont. And looking at FI or even Easter Front these favorable conditions will become much more common compared to fighting in confined spaces of hedgerow country.

[Paper Tiger]

I said that MGs producing the historically expected casualties was an accident and was not justifying it in any way. TBH, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever if MGs do in fact produce the expected range of casualties in the game. However, opponents of change to the existing behaviour argue that they do. You're completely wasting your time debating the point with me Perhaps you would be better advised to take issue with those who advance this argument instead.

[PzKfW]

What about game balance guys. If the German doctrine was to have a belt fed weapon or two in every squad (from what I understand not something the Amis, Ivan, or Tommy did), and you turned up the lethality of all mgs, it would really favor the Germans versus the other nationalities. Don't you think that's the issue at stake? And not purely the hmgs (assuming the engine treats both the light mg and heavy mg similarly).

Now if you just boosted the output of fire from a hmg rather than the modeling of its behavior I'd say you were onto something. As it stands they fire only a little faster than the light bipod variants. Heck the vehicle mgs are firing as fast, and those guys have a whole crapload more to do than six guys with one gun, however über sticky that tripod elevation wheel was, or how many schnapps shots Fritz had earlier that morning...

[Killkess]

It might only be my pov but the whole CM-series is not about balancing units against each other. How u want to balance a Italien unit comparable to a US one? There will always be differences in firepower/manpower/equipment between the units and it is the goal of BFC to simulate the advantages and shortcoming of it.

And if the game dont treat HMG and LMG differently that would be a design failure since their tactical use is very different.

[Paper Tiger]

What about game balance guys.... Don't you think that's the issue at stake?

No, because it is up to the scenario designer to balance his missions. Yes, it would definitely make the German side more effective in every existing scenario crafted to date but that's not a strong enough argument to maintain this behaviour. I'd rather play newer missions with the behaviour modelled more accurately, as would you I suspect.

Now if you just boosted the output of fire from a hmg rather than the modeling of its behavior I'd say you were onto something.

Not really. It just means that the MG will waste more ammo firing deliberately away from its intended target. And since that's most of the time, I don't see how that helps anything.

[PzKfW]

Yessir, don't tell me that thing is only going to fire 2 ten round bursts a minute.

[PzKfW]

No, because it is up to the scenario designer to balance his missions. Yes, it would definitely make the German side more effective in every existing scenario crafted to date but that's not a strong enough argument to maintain this behaviour. I'd rather play newer missions with the behaviour modelled more accurately, as would you I suspect.

Not really. It just means that the MG will waste more ammo firing deliberately away from its intended target. And since that's most of the time, I don't see how that helps anything.

To the first paragraph. Well, yes... of course.

To the second paragraph.

It will also make it hit more things, since more bullets are going out. I am just saying, what is more likely to happen? The coders rewrite behaviour that is likely put into all sorts of small arms fire, and possibly whack out all sorts of previously written scenarios, etc. Or that they simply adjust the firing rate up for one type of unit.

I can honestly see a HMG spraying an area rather than pinpoint targets. So the mal-aiming is not so bothersome to me.... PROVIDED that the damn gun actually uses its 2k plus rounds of ammo in something like a reasonable rate of fire. I mean, these things had quick-changeable barrels so that WHEN A BARREL MELTED FROM FIRING, they could change it quickly and get the gun back in action...

JUST SAYIN....

[Apocal]

That MGs produce about the expected number of casualties is just an accident.

They actually don't; in my testing with an American 50cal, somewhere between a third and half the casualties were caused by rifles of the ammo bearer team. If you keep that team out of the fight, the HMG loses the baseline scenario often as not.

What about game balance guys. If the German doctrine was to have a belt fed weapon or two in every squad (from what I understand not something the Amis, Ivan, or Tommy did), and you turned up the lethality of all mgs, it would really favor the Germans versus the other nationalities. Don't you think that's the issue at stake? And not purely the hmgs (assuming the engine treats both the light mg and heavy mg similarly).

You'd have a point if I only tested using German HMGs. But I did test the other side of the equation; American HMGs filled the combined arms role IRL and they also fail to do so in-game, for much the same reason. Intimidated infantry don't stay down long enough, unless you're actively killing them.

This is also the "gameplay vs. realism" argument. Honestly, with combined arms available and accurately protrayed, there is a balance already. It's not the razor-sharp balance of something like League of Legends or Starcraft, but it's there. We all know the German MGs were nasty, nasty things and with one or two in every rifle squad, plus a pair of heavies at the company level, they were a buzzsaw of belt-fed firepower. So how did the Allies beat them? Well, they had counters, and the Allies employed them appropriately and skillfully.

Right now, you don't need to employ them skillfully or even have them at all. That has knock-on effects when it comes to other combined arms relationships, with the cliff notes version of things being something like Player A is trying to defend against a tank and infantry assault from Player B, so he places HMGs in position to repulse infantry and force tanks forward into the keyhole LoS of his ATGs, in a place of his choosing. But his HMGs can't actually hold off an infantry assault, so the tanks never come forward.

Now if you just boosted the output of fire from a hmg rather than the modeling of its behavior I'd say you were onto something. As it stands they fire only a little faster than the light bipod variants. Heck the vehicle mgs are firing as fast, and those guys have a whole crapload more to do than six guys with one gun, however über sticky that tripod elevation wheel was, or how many schnapps shots Fritz had earlier that morning...

If infantry were more intimidated by machine guns, the majority of the issues would resolve themselves.

[womble]

What about game balance guys. If the German doctrine was to have a belt fed weapon or two in every squad (from what I understand not something the Amis, Ivan, or Tommy did), and you turned up the lethality of all mgs, it would really favor the Germans versus the other nationalities. Don't you think that's the issue at stake? And not purely the hmgs (assuming the engine treats both the light mg and heavy mg similarly).

Now if you just boosted the output of fire from a hmg rather than the modeling of its behavior I'd say you were onto something. As it stands they fire only a little faster than the light bipod variants. Heck the vehicle mgs are firing as fast, and those guys have a whole crapload more to do than six guys with one gun, however über sticky that tripod elevation wheel was, or how many schnapps shots Fritz had earlier that morning...

I don't think it'd be as bad as you fear. The most important thing to dial up is probably the suppression effects, and squad LMGs don't carry as much ammo as tripod-mounted ones, so will tend to be used for "speculative" fire less. I think desires along the lines of eviscerating entire squads inside a minute at 500m are somewhat overblown, even on a flat map. Stopping them closing, sure, and eventually breaking the pinned unit. If they're Fanatic motivation and don't go to ground when they start getting nailed, then they should get knocked down in fairly short order, but "normal" troops should be hitting the dirt, and they simply don't.

As to balance between sides, perhaps a German squad's point value might have to be increased a bit if their weapon systems got a "buff". One thing that's not modelled (as has been mentioned in threads about mortars) is that the assistant gunner for each MG42/34 should be at the very least less effective in using their own personal weapon (should be using it less often), since they're busy linking belts, clearing stoppages from barrels and helping to spot the fall of shot for the gunner, rather than working the bolt on their Kar98. At least in '43 squads, the assistant gunner tends to get a pistol instead of a rifle. With 2 MG per squad, that starts to cut the number of rifles significantly, possibly to as low as 3 rifles firing at any time (10 man squad, 2 LMG, shreck, 2 SMG, 2 AsstGun all not firing rifles), compared to the US squad where there's probably at least 9 Garands (12 minus 1 Thompson, 1 BAR and one zook, and that not always) banging away at semiauto rates.

[Killkess]

WHEN A BARREL MELTED FROM FIRING, they could change it quickly and get the gun back in action...

The barrel is to be changed regularly before melting point. :eek:

I think desires along the lines of eviscerating entire squads inside a minute at 500m are somewhat overblown

And noone asked for this.... "but "normal" troops should be hitting the dirt, and they simply don't." There u are.

@ PaperT

Pls look in your PM folder

[PzKfW]

For the Germans and their mauser 98Ks, it really don't matter much. Those darn things get maybe one shot off per minute per rifle.

It is frustrating as a German player to see the keynote weapon of their infantry, really the focal point of the entire squad and sometimes company (for HMGs) get neutered so much...

I agree with you womble and would love to see rectumfication. However, I am also a realist and the developers/coders of this game are very, very keen on their time spent vs. benefit gained.......

[PzKfW]

I agree Killkess, when that sucker is glowing orange, time to change it. That's why there was an issued asbestos mitt to go with the buzzsaw.

Hm. Yessir, 20 rounds a minute, 2 bursts. Yup, I can fire no more...

(don't look at the casings sir)

From an allied soldier: "I remember my first reaction, was one of amazement at the crushing fire power of those guns. It seemed to me that the German soldier seldom used his rifle. He was a carrier of boxes of light machine-gun ammunition of which they seemed to have an endless supply!"

[PzKfW]

They actually don't; in my testing with an American 50cal, somewhere between a third and half the casualties were caused by rifles of the ammo bearer team. If you keep that team out of the fight, the HMG loses the baseline scenario often as not.

You'd have a point if I only tested using German HMGs. But I did test the other side of the equation; American HMGs filled the combined arms role IRL and they also fail to do so in-game, for much the same reason. Intimidated infantry don't stay down long enough, unless you're actively killing them.

This is also the "gameplay vs. realism" argument. Honestly, with combined arms available and accurately protrayed, there is a balance already. It's not the razor-sharp balance of something like League of Legends or Starcraft, but it's there. We all know the German MGs were nasty, nasty things and with one or two in every rifle squad, plus a pair of heavies at the company level, they were a buzzsaw of belt-fed firepower. So how did the Allies beat them? Well, they had counters, and the Allies employed them appropriately and skillfully.

Right now, you don't need to employ them skillfully or even have them at all. That has knock-on effects when it comes to other combined arms relationships, with the cliff notes version of things being something like Player A is trying to defend against a tank and infantry assault from Player B, so he places HMGs in position to repulse infantry and force tanks forward into the keyhole LoS of his ATGs, in a place of his choosing. But his HMGs can't actually hold off an infantry assault, so the tanks never come forward.

If infantry were more intimidated by machine guns, most of the issues would resolve themselves.

Hey, I like your update.

And I agree with you. MGs are the reason why combined arms were invented... lets not forget Verdun, etc...

IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, I would gladly see an increase in suppression and/or killing power from MGs in general. (BARs etc Dont Count ) If that comes from a ROF increase (as I suspect it should) then great. If it comes from an accuracy increase (as I suspect it also should) then also great. If it comes from pixelamis realizing that many many bullets just went by their helmet, and they crap their pants and hit the dirt, then I am also happy. See how many easy solutions there are?

[Apocal]

I think desires along the lines of eviscerating entire squads inside a minute at 500m are somewhat overblown, even on a flat map. Stopping them closing, sure, and eventually breaking the pinned unit. If they're Fanatic motivation and don't go to ground when they start getting nailed, then they should get knocked down in fairly short order, but "normal" troops should be hitting the dirt, and they simply don't.

I'm not arguing for evisceration and I don't see anyone else as well. Or rather, I'm not arguing for evisceration except in circumstances that would realistically lead to it. Attacking a HMG in an all-up skirmish line without supporting fire should be a painful, bloody affair.

I agree on the morale/suppression issue, infantry just aren't intimidated enough by machine guns at range. Part of it is the accuracy issue, with shots wildly off the mark even after previous bursts, so the hits never get a chance to "add up." Another part of it is troops rallying too fast. A side issue is the split squads getting "free rallies" and effectively creating two or three times as many units that need to be individually serviced to keep the whole pinned.

Of course, any sort of machine gun change should be concurrent with a mortar bugfix and some other artillery changes, but if not, the narrative of "machine guns pinning, mortars and arty killing" would be more reasonable what we have now.

[cool breeze]

How are tripod MGs aimed? A left-right and up-down knob or tapping it around or what?

Ive also read most of this thread, but only pieces at a time, and read several accounts of different test, but I'm not entirely sure what it all meant. I also have the flu and my minds not 100 percent today for it. I think the main test results were 1) That a single squad on flat open ground can charge straight at a HMG from 1 km and run all the way to rifle range where it will win. 2) If you put the HMG on a slight rise to give it clear LOS, and give it a TRP for the enemy to cross, and give the HMG a slight motivation advantage, then the HMG wins. 3) But if you replace the squad with a platoon, split the platoon into a bunch of teams, and give the teams a bunch of short diagonal fast orders and apply maximum suppressive fire, the platoon wins.

I assume the tests uncovered more that just that, and Id like to know what I missed or got wrong.

[Killkess]

How are tripod MGs aimed? A left-right and up-down knob or tapping it around or what?

That largely depends on the tripod but generaly speaking they had knobs for finer adjustments. While i dont have much knowledge about the allied tripods i was always under the impression that they were not as elaborated as the german once.

But if you replace the squad with a platoon, split the platoon into a bunch of teams, and give the teams a bunch of short diagonal fast orders and apply maximum suppressive fire, the platoon wins.

In the tests i´ve made (without height advantage and without TRPs) a platoon was virtualy always capable to overcome a HMG. Since the HMG cant effectively even pinn a single squad reliably u have always at least 2 functional elements for firing or moving. I see no need to split into teams, albeit the poster has not shared the testscenario.

[cool breeze]

I'd like if HMGs could reliably chop up a platoon of infantry that isn't able to wiggle close enough OR provide enough firepower (HE or belt-fed) of their own. This would present a reasonable combined arms dilemma in which you have to use indirect or direct fire HE to clear well-positioned HMGs. In one case, you're using up mortar and arty ammo, which doesn't come back. In the other case, you're (potentially) exposing your armor to unspotted ATGs.

For the basic combined arms relationships to function, given some advantage, defending HMGs should reliably win against infantry. They only do so now if given virtually advantage I can think of short of making the attacking pixeltroops outright incompetent (Conscript or Green infantry, Vet or better HMG). And even then, I'm starting to win as the attacker, since I've learned to split further back in the assault.

I realize now I forgot one very important variable to control for: Axis vs. Allied equipment.

mea culpa

Anyway, I've now run another five tests featuring an Axis dismounted Panzergrenadier platoon. This is a pretty powerful beast and having 2x MGs per squad makes it trivial to overwhelm even 2x foxholed American HMGs (either 30cal or 50cal variety). Against my baseline setup (single foxholed 50cal MG* with 3 TRPs, slightly elevated to maintain full LoS, regular/normal motivation for the MG, regular/poor motivation for the infantry platoon) any losses you take are purely the result of luck as AI troops will open fire at 700 meters with a MG rather than 500 meters for Garands and 600 meters for a BAR.

The suppression they get is more hit or miss, as fewer men shooting means that there is more opportunity for gaps in the fire, a bad string of shots to give the HMG time to collect it's wits, etc. But you apply it from further out and once it 'holds' you don't lose men to lucky hits nearly as often as with the Allied setup using Garands. The end result is that it takes longer as the 50cal has more effective range than the tripod-mounted MG34/42 so you spend more assaulting in split elements, but you still win.

There is basically one fairly clear-cut method to win as the defender: push your TRPs out a bit further than you'd normally fire, something around 600-800 meters. TARGET big enemy squads as soon as possible around these "long" TRP(s) in hopes of causing a casualty, any you cause here are going to be useful later as morale state "hits" accumulate. Preferably, TARGET *one* unit and don't just break a unit, *shatter* it. Once that squad is *shattered* the TacAI's normal spread of fire should suffice to force poorly motivated troops to ground now that they are closer, as well as diminishing the quantity of incoming.

You honestly aren't making too many decisions in this case, just emplacing TRPs and hoping for one or two early hits to work down morale. Obviously, this does not work against anything but poorly motivated troops. If you have not ground their morale down by around 300 meters for Garands (400 against a human player) or 500 meters against MG34/42, their incoming fire will degrade your own and it will slide downhill from there.

If you try to ambush them from close (300 meters or less) in hopes of shattering the whole platoon via 5-6 quick casualties, it won't work due to the lack of suppression to anything outside the specific unit being hit and any global morale state takes time to propagate. They will simply return effective fire, potentially with HE as well and they effectively recover faster, due to same lack of effective cross-unit suppression and simply having more weapons.

Assaulting this setup is standard drill. QUICK your whole platoon to around 600-800 meters, depending on threat. Break off assault teams and FAST them in short 30-60m, *diagonal* movements. Diagonal is important, rounds flying over the team's head shouldn't have the opportunity to take out multiple men in one burst (which can happen if you're running across the TRPs) and they shouldn't be potentially impacting anyone behind or in front of them either. As the assault teams reach the 500 meter mark, have them TARGET the HMG and begin FAST moving one base of fire team up to around the 500m mark as well. Move the rest in sequence, never have more than one moving at once or your effective suppression will drop and you'll possibly take losses.

Once the base of fire teams have wiggled a bit closer, the fight is basically over; the HMG should be solid pinned or near enough to it and you simply have to advance your assault teams forward (possibly base of fire teams as well). The HMG team normally evacuates before you reach the 200m mark.

* I chose a 50cal rather than water-cooled 30cal because the 50cal offers a very tangible range advantage over the MG34/42 which the 30cal does not.

EDIT:

Are you asking this in game terms or RL?

In-game: Spotting targets is accomplished via the team leader's binoculars. They *can* get spots out to around 1km that I've seen, but will only reliably spot moving infantry at around 800m or so. I don't know what it's like when they lose the glass, but given that infantry reliably fire MGs at 700 w/o binos, it's a reasonable guess.

The range at which you can reasonably drop rounds amidst a squad is approximately 600 meters w/ TRP for the MG34/42. It won't be super reliable, but enough to make them think twice about getting up and probably bag one or two men out of squad if they hang around for two minutes.

As for RL stuff, I'm not really the dude to ask about in-depth WW2 minutia. But in broad terms, it shouldn't be difficult for a gunner to be "talked onto" a target at 900 meters with something like the MG34/42.

Wow that was harder to find than I though, this sure is a long thread. Didn't manage to read anything else either just found this. Its the test I was talking about in my point #3. Im not sure why I quoted the whole thing but I have the flu. Edit to add some original content. I wonder how the water cooled 30.cal would fair in theses tests. For some reason they tend to get me more kills than the 50.cals even though I prefer the 50. This stuff also brings another thought to mind. For me one of the challenges in playing this game is trying to get a sense of what kind of real world terrain the game is trying to portray with its visuals. Like when I'm driving around I'll occasionally look at a piece of beautiful scenery and wonder what it would look like in CM terms. And I think this disparity I'm talking about between the visuals, and what the engine is trying to actually represent, might be at least 10 percent of what inspired the thread to go on for 30 pages. From the tests we see that, being up on a light rise clears the view over the open terrain. In game it doesn't look like there is anything to clear the view of. it looks totally flat and open. It looks like a perfectly smooth cement parking lot with no drainage but green and dirt. But I think in game its trying to represent a more natural relatively flat open area. One that's not totally flat and smooth, the kind that does have micro terrain that would help. I think a way to test it where you get the visuals more in line with what the game is trying to represent would be to have the whole thing on a giant freeway. I'm not trying to say the game has machine guns right or anything, but I am scared of enemy machine guns and they do kill my guys. Edit 2: But it might be nice if they would make MY mg's spew a little more lead or somefink My 3rd edit: Another thought just crossed my mind. The games cant really simulate fire for when just one gun is shooting at the target and when many are firing. It's gotta be a lot harder to spot the fall of YOUR shots when a ton of people are shooting into the area as when its just you shooting. And everyone is all hopped up on adrenaline while trying to use their fine motor skills and vision. Yet the enemy mgs sure were hard in school of hard knocks.

[JonS]

Originally Posted by Apocal

I realize now I forgot one very important variable to control for: Axis vs. Allied equipment.

mea culpa

Anyway, I've now run another five tests featuring an Axis dismounted Panzergrenadier platoon [vs. US MG].

On a technical note; you didn't control for a variable here. By changing both the shooter AND the target you've added a variable.

[Apocal]

That largely depends on the tripod but generaly speaking they had knobs for finer adjustments. While i dont have much knowledge about the allied tripods i was always under the impression that they were not as elaborated as the german once.

How are tripod MGs aimed? A left-right and up-down knob or tapping it around or what?

Traverse and elevation knobs.

http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=358&page=2 --- The M1917, picture located in the middle, description in caption.

I can't find a picture showing the T&E mechanism on the MG42's Lafette tripod, but a bunch of references describing such a thing.

Ive also read most of this thread, but only pieces at a time, and read several accounts of different test, but I'm not entirely sure what it all meant. I also have the flu and my minds not 100 percent today for it. I think the main test results were 1) That a single squad on flat open ground can charge straight at a HMG from 1 km and run all the way to rifle range where it will win. 2) If you put the HMG on a slight rise to give it clear LOS, and give it a TRP for the enemy to cross, and give the HMG a slight motivation advantage, then the HMG wins. 3) But if you replace the squad with a platoon, split the platoon into a bunch of teams, and give the teams a bunch of short diagonal fast orders and apply maximum suppressive fire, the platoon wins.

1) I never actually tested only a single squad. If I wrote that, I misspoke and I'll go back and edit my post.

2) That's the jist, but the HMG also needs a foxhole.

3) Yes.

In the tests i´ve made (without height advantage and without TRPs) a platoon was virtualy always capable to overcome a HMG. Since the HMG cant effectively even pinn a single squad reliably u have always at least 2 functional elements for firing or moving. I see no need to split into teams, albeit the poster has not shared the testscenario.

Whoops! Just shoot me an email if you want it. Just a warning though, it's exactly what it says on the tin. A platoon of infantry and 1km of open ground before you reach a HMG in a foxhole.

[cool breeze]

Wait but then in #2 the squad is a platoon and the hmg wins since the platoon doesn't do all the fancy stuff? And that's a cool link thanks for it and the answers.

[Apocal]

Wait but then in #2 the squad is a platoon and the hmg wins since the platoon doesnt do all the fancy stuff?

Generally speaking, yes. If anyone is having a different experience, I'd like to hear about it, there is always the possibility I'm doing something wrong.

[JonS]

Paradoxically, the more infantry you throw at a MG position, the more effective the MG's fire will be.

What on earth is paradoxical about that? Do you not realise that this is basic reason why infantry don't still advance shoulder to shoulder in three ranks, why infantry tactics underwent an absolute revolution between 1914 and 1918, and is the genesis of the phrase "the empty battlefield"?