accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[LukeFF]

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...

Umm, no. The point of the quick-change barrel was to change it out when it got too hot, not when it was melted and thus useless to the MG crew. Changing out the barrel in this manner allowed it to cool and thus be swapped back in when the circumstances demanded it.

JUST SAYIN....

Ok.

[PzKfW]

And your point is?

[dieseltaylor]

Apocal - I suddenly realised that I cannot recall a time being specified for the platoon to successfully put paid to the HMG. Not that it has an immediate relevance to the point being made but it may be of interest when looking at RL accounts or RL test reports.

CM tends to be a bit bloodier/compressed than RL.

[Killkess]

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.

Do u speak about that test with the height advantage and TRPs?

If not, look at my vids, a SQUAD (which is split into teams) is enough to take care of the HMG. A whole Platoon has no problem overcoming the position.

Or do we mess up Squads/Platoon?

[Killkess]

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.

Do u speak about that test with the height advantage and TRPs?

If not, look at my vids again, a SQUAD (which is split into teams) is enough to take care of the HMG. A whole Platoon has no problem overcoming the position.

[Apocal]

Do u speak about that test with the height advantage and TRPs?

If not, look at my vids again, a SQUAD (which is split into teams) is enough to take care of the HMG. A whole Platoon has no problem overcoming the position.

Ah, I see. I missed your posts earlier in this thread. Sorry about that. I was referring only to my tests.

[JasonC]

Killkess - it is a horrible video. By my count the HMG fires 12 bursts before receiving reply fire (after a minute and a half of just watching the enemy advance), then gets off all of 6 more shots before it is broken itself and runs away.

In "Panzer" the odds of that happening in the same situation are about 350 to 1 against...

[ArgusEye]

In cases like this I find it instructive to look through unit reports. How often don't we see 'the company was held up by a heavy machine gun until mortars could root them out'? Platoons suffer heavy casualties, companies are stopped dead, in Italy sometimes entire batallions get blocked by a single machine gun nest. And this is not limited to the Allies, either. Heavy machine guns were a force to be reckoned with. In commendations and to accompany medals, one often reads the heroics of a small team attacking machine gun nests. This was not considered trivial at all.

The kill numbers I read seem to match more what a platoon in good cover would suffer whilst trying to stay down and finding a way around the MG nest, than a platoon sauntering over a billiard table toward the same.

[siffo998]

well i think its pretty obvious (given the videos in this thread and personal experience with the game) that the heavy mgs ingame are represented too weak. for example imagine what WWI MGs did to much larger formations of infantry advancing over open ground. ultimatively it led to trench warfare...

but we also have to ask ourselfs what happens when bfc changes the effectiveness of MGs to a more realistic level? will the game still be playable? i think it will radically effect gameplay and you have to rethink all your till now used strategies...

dont get me wrong i would totally welcome the change... but it also means a lot of change regarding the whole game system...

the whole gameplay will be slowed down even more.

for example APOS seems to simulate MG effectiveness pretty well but each tactical battlefield is normally at least 3x3km big so theres a lot of room to manuever, probe etc.

in CM you normally face maps which are 2x2km at best... (most are much smaller)...

[Childress]

but we also have to ask ourselfs what happens when bfc changes the effectiveness of MGs to a more realistic level?

Good question. In the past BF has made tweaks that drastically alter the balance in some scenarios, notably CMSF (they say). Their philosophy appears to be let the chips lie...

If they're even listening.

Re: enhancing MG effectiveness: some find the Kill tally- the carnage- in CM2 is already over the top. Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps more suppression and fewer casualties are needed?

[siffo998]

Good question. In the past BF has made tweaks that drastically alter the balance in some scenarios, notably CMSF (they say). Their philosophy appears to be let the chips lie...

If they're even listening.

Re: enhancing MG effectiveness: some find the Kill tally- the carnage- in CM2 is already over the top. Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps more suppression and fewer casualties are needed?

well in my opinion there is really a lot of carnage in CM2 but this does not mean that the whole simulation system is flawed. i think it stems from the fact that CM has no operational layer. the player is not forced to think about casualties on a operational level. therefore the player also risks a lot more than in games with a operational level.

for example in John Tiller Panzer Campaings you would never attack a enemy formation unless your own forces are

a) superior (also numerically)

the enemy formation was disrupted or broken by long range fire before the attack

in CM most scenarios are made to be "balanced". so there`s no wonder that there`s a lot of carnage.

I`ve red that russians only considered a attack when at least superior 4:1...

imagine a similar scenario in CM on a tactical level:

a) at least 2:1 superiority for the attacker

all/most defending units are shaken or even broken

you would experience a lot less carnage and a much more realistic scenario but also much more boring because its simply mopping up whats left...

[PzKfW]

well in my opinion there is really a lot of carnage in CM2 but this does not mean that the whole simulation system is flawed. i think it stems from the fact that CM has no operational layer. the player is not forced to think about casualties on a operational level. therefore the player also risks a lot more than in games with a operational level.

for example in John Tiller Panzer Campaings you would never attack a enemy formation unless your own forces are

a) superior (also numerically)

the enemy formation was disrupted or broken by long range fire before the attack

in CM most scenarios are made to be "balanced". so there`s no wonder that there`s a lot of carnage.

I`ve red that russians only considered a attack when at least superior 4:1...

imagine a similar scenario in CM on a tactical level:

a) at least 2:1 superiority for the attacker

all/most defending units are shaken or even broken

you would experience a lot less carnage and a much more realistic scenario but also much more boring because its simply mopping up whats left...

I think the increased casualty rate in CMx2 is more realistic. I particularly like the increased effectiveness of all kinds of HE, especially plunging fire HE (mortars, arty). You guys should know that arty was the main killer in WWI and II...

So yes, I agree that we see a lot of carnage. But that is also because we don't really care about survival of the pixelmen except in what they can accomplish for this limited scenario.

I wonder what the pixelmen think of us, their overlords. Perhaps they are upset that we are incompetent. And we subconsciously know this and want an environment that is less lethal to cover our mistakes.

That said, HMGs are the real key to infantry defense against infantry attacks. They NEED to be effective for a real simulation of combined arms battle...

All the battles that had matched forces were bloody as hell. El Alamein, Kursk, Stalingrad, Bulge, Market Garden... etc. If we are playing with matched forces, and the game simulates reality as it should, then a high casuality rate is to be expected. I would expect an HMG that ambushes a squad of guys in the open at less than 300m to cut them all down within a few minutes... at most. At 600m, I would expect 50% casualties within a few minutes, and immediate suppression/pinning. Unless there was cover nearby, those guys were up $### creek without a paddle.

Thus, recon's (also known as "hey you newguy") importance.

This opinion is based on my personal firing of full-caliber weapons, as well as experiences observing random individuals firing these weapons, at man sized (and smaller) targets at these ranges. Hits are very easy even with no magnification and over iron sights.

[Cpl Steiner]

Coming late to this (very long) thread, so forgive me if I go over old ground due to not having the time nor inclination to read all 32 pages of it.

I too think that MGs in all of the CMx2 games seem underpowered. Now that we have casualty counts for all units in the Debriefing phase of a scenario it is very apparent that MGs tend to cause relatively few casualties compared to other weapons - sometimes as few as one or two after sustained fire over many turns. BFC has even admitted that German HMG gunners are shooting like they are wearing a blindfold, their accuracy is so low.

If the accuracy of MG gunners was tightened up I think we would naturally see a more realistic casualty level for MG gunners, seeing as CMx2 apparently uses a "collision-detection" model for direct fire rather than abstracting the results. If MG bullets are more accurate and therefore intersect enemy infantry models more frequently, we should see greater MG casualties occurring in the game.

Regarding the point about how much carnage there is already in a typical scenario, and the assumption by some that this is not borne out by historical statistics for casualties amongst frontline units - I think this ignores the fact that a CMx2 scenario portrays only the "tip of the spear" elements of a military unit. I think historically such units did suffer horrendous casualties, especially in WWII due to the lack of body armour, the use of more powerful rifle ammunition, and the abundance of HE ordnance on both sides.

I would hope in a future patch, MG accuracy is addressed, as I think this would satisfy most critics of MG lethality in the game at present.

[Apocal]

well in my opinion there is really a lot of carnage in CM2 but this does not mean that the whole simulation system is flawed. i think it stems from the fact that CM has no operational layer. the player is not forced to think about casualties on a operational level. therefore the player also risks a lot more than in games with a operational level.

Respectfully, I disagree. If it's possible to get players to care about land they don't have the deed for, it's possible to make them care about casualties. We have victory conditions for friendly casualties, most scenario designers use them (some better, some worse), the ability to influence player behavior is there. This isn't me arguing against an operational layer by the way, because I think it would much to CMx3 if a player could act in the role of regiment or brigade CO, dealing with higher-level "operational" concerns that would influence the tactical decisions. Too much of the flavor of real war is lost when you're starting off every firefight with an arbitrary allotment of forces that may or may not be tailored to what you're trying to accomplish.

in CM most scenarios are made to be "balanced". so there`s no wonder that there`s a lot of carnage.

I`ve red that russians only considered a attack when at least superior 4:1...

imagine a similar scenario in CM on a tactical level:

a) at least 2:1 superiority for the attacker

all/most defending units are shaken or even broken

you would experience a lot less carnage and a much more realistic scenario but also much more boring because its simply mopping up whats left...

I draw two separate issues with this statement. First being that in CM, it's entirely expected for the attackers to have a considerable (3:1 or more) advantage in combat power; not always raw numbers, but often augmented by more fire support, higher quality units, vehicles, etc. There are more meeting engagement scenarios then is realistically proportionate (and I wouldn't presume to tell scenario designers what to make in any case) to real combat, but they certainly aren't the majority by any stretch of the imagination.

The second issue is that there were times when attackers misjudged the defender's strength or advanced into approaching reserves or had reinforcements show up at an inopportune time. It wasn't automatically bloody just because sides were evenly matched. Often as not, both sides would gamely make a play for it, realize the outcome was a crapshoot and slink away from each other.

I think the increased casualty rate in CMx2 is more realistic. I particularly like the increased effectiveness of all kinds of HE, especially plunging fire HE (mortars, arty). You guys should know that arty was the main killer in WWI and II...

Mortars and arty (especially mortars) weren't nearly as effective in real life. For a variety of reasons, less accuracy, less precision, less likely to actually wound/kill, fired at larger targets for longer periods at lower rates, supply more often a concern, etc.

This opinion is based on my personal firing of full-caliber weapons, as well as experiences observing random individuals firing these weapons, at man sized (and smaller) targets at these ranges. Hits are very easy even with no magnification and over iron sights.

The two way range has a much higher difficulty setting, my friend.

[PzKfW]

The two way range has a much higher difficulty setting, my friend.

This is true. But utterly meaningless in the discussion at hand...

Unless you aren't talking about unsuppressed HMG units, that cannot hit targets at 600m with a fully automatic weapon, with magnified optics, over many minutes.

Because I think that's the topic here...

Regarding mortars, I respectfully disagree about the HE round lethality. Plunging fire in general is highly effective, and plunging HE is deadly. Although casualties 100m away from a 8.1cm mortar round are a bit rediculous.

I further disagree with you on the casualty rate of breakthrough operations. A look at the surviving German units' strength 3/4 of the way through Kursk will give you an idea of what I mean...

And back to the HMG discussion..........

[JasonC]

On whether it would slow down the game, we saw a similar change from CMBO to CMBB. It did slow down the game, and at first some players thought infantry had become useless. But then decent players figured out how to work under the more realistic levels of suppression and the dread "cover panic" crawling, and proper infantry attacks became possible again. You could not group select a couple platoons and just trot them right onto an enemy up and firing - but that was all to the good, as a change.

On the comment that "two way range", hits are much harder, I agree entirely. But that is because fire suppression is real and hits early and stays high. Two suppressed forces don't range-shoot at each other. They also don't manage to mash into each other nearly as far, as fast, and in the full engagement that can lower not raise total losses.

I think the hits from range MG fire are a bit low but only a bit, while the suppression effects are *way* low. Like, rally needs to be half the speed it is now, and morale impact of any effective hit much higher (1-2 levels deeper suppression). When people are reporting far more realistic results with -2 morale infantry, it shows the scale of the problem and the main "dial" that needs adjusting.

Also please keep in mind that this discrepancy, the whole engagement, is in large part about cover differentials. The reply fire from the split up squad, some reduced by losses or suppression, in Killkess's video, suffices to break the HMG team in woods cover in about a minute. On its face that is not a sign of insufficient firepower effects generally, or especially robust unit morale. But it is nuts that the team in cover bugs out in a minute, after the squad shrugged off several minutes of HMG fire while moving in the open with no cover whatsoever.

Cover should have a big effect on both direct hits and suppression, in other words. I realize CMBB "cover panic" was annoying, and seemed green-conscript-ee, against the "keep moving" advice of veterans. But the resulting overall effect on advances over open ground (that they needed microcover like shellholes or patches of rocky to rest, and hiding in tall grass = steppe, and moving only intermittently, etc) was much more accurate than the videos in this thread.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think the increased casualty rate in CMx2 is more realistic. I particularly like the increased effectiveness of all kinds of HE, especially plunging fire HE (mortars, arty). You guys should know that arty was the main killer in WWI and II...

I have the exact opposite view. Tests I did in the mortar effectiveness thread showed casualties nearly an order of magnitude greater than what would be expected. Related to that, small to medium caliber direct fire HE is so lethal in the game that I have realized there is no need for 105mm assault guns. In reality these weapons were widely praised for their usefulness.

[akaariai]

One problem with the HE fire is that it is too easy to fire at the exact location of the enemy. Part of the problem is that squads are grouped too tightly, another part is that area fire isn't.

I fully support the idea that area fire should be restricted to minimum radius based on such variables as distance to target, are there known enemies (? icons) in the area, troop quality and so on.

One way to see this problem is usage of heavy direct fire guns in unrealistic ways. Place a self propelled artillery piece on your end of the map on a hill and then "area fire" at enemy targets the unit has no idea are there. Very effective and totally unrealistic response time from the direct fire piece.

As for MG fire - To me it seems there is need for more suppression in general, somewhat more casualties against moving targets, but hitting covering infantry with small arms fire should be even harder than it is now.

[John Kettler]

akaariai,

Welcome aboard!

While soldiers do tend to herd, having 10 guys in a line over 8 meters (1 AS) (.8 meters per man) is ridiculous, so 2 AS as the squad frontage, or depth if in file, makes far better sense--on every level. Still, that's only 1.6 meters per man, with nothing allowed for the width if the soldiers. Frankly, I don't understand why fitting an entire squad into 1 AS was ever deemed a good idea. Such concentration in space does indeed create juicier targets. And don't get me started on the nightmare of siting guns!

Vanir Ausf B,

Regarding your mortar effectiveness tests, have you seen what I came up with in LF's Fortification Durability thread and in My Thoughts on DBP over at CMBN Mods? He's getting casualty rates as high as 50% against entrenched troops, when the WO studies predict a high rate of 16% and a low of 5.3% for a 20 round shoot. In My Thoughts, I present a separate set of cover factor numbers which seem to be closer to the WO calculations than what LLF was getting. His tests show mortars are simply murderous. A 20 round shoot will clear a trench section of effective resistance.

I believe part of this problem is that trenches are modeled as being much wider and shallower than the trenches were, creating a bigger target. Then there's how the engine treats fortifications. "What can be seen can be hit." And oh, can these fortifications be seen! "What can be hit can be killed." Again, borne out by his tests. While obviously exceedingly clever now in protecting his bunkers, I'm not sure he can do anything about those trenches.

Regards,

John Kettler

[LukeFF]

And your point is?

That what you wrote was wrong.

[PzKfW]

So says you. Design intentions are one thing, reality another.

[Apocal]

So says you. Design intentions are one thing, reality another.

IRL, I've never seen anyone let their barrel get hot enough to melt before changing it. It's pointless since you could just change it a bit sooner and still get to keep using the barrel once it cools.

[PzKfW]

Oh, so you've seen a human wave attack before, have you?

[JonS]

Are you saying you have?

[PzKfW]

I thought the point was quite clearly made, but let me spell it out for you.

If the gunner panics, with a 1400rpm fire rate, the mg42 will very easily melt the barrel from over firing. As will any air cooled MG.

"IRL", as you say, barrels DO melt. Just not from two or three 10 round bursts.