accuracy/efficiency of machine gun fire

[PzKfW]

"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).

Correct, however, we are not simply talking about accuracy, either. We are talking about both. Both contribute. That is why I've continually tried to bring both into the discussion. Of the two, however, I consider the ROF issue to be more critical and germane to the issue at hand. Nobody's pinned by shots that don't get fired, if you get my double negative.

"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.

I don't think it's clear exactly how much accuracy improves. That is abstracted to some degree in the game itself. Action squares and all. And increasing HMG ROF a tad is actually far from the truth of what is being advocated here. 0-100m = 400rpm. 100-500=250rpm. 500+ 100rpm. Make it a nice decreasing non-linear function if you want. That is a far cry from the current situation of:

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

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.

I don't know what you're seeing, but from the games I've played, especially in the more open areas in CMFI, there IS a lot of pinning, and sneaking away, and withdrawals. There ISN'T a huge amount of lethality at 300+m range, especially if you cease firing with cover arcs, and sneak away. That is, unless you choose to duke it out and continue to present a target in the face of superior firepower/cover. If you're talking about CMBN, well, close fighting is always extremely lethal.

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.

Agreed, there needs to be a different effect here. Ultimately we are talking about increasing the effects of HMG fire here. You want to do it through suppression effects globally. But that will not make HMGs more effective relative to other units. It will also, as another person pointed out, make everything else more effective vis-a-vis infantry. You are upset about how long infantry will continue to advance in the face of fire IN GENERAL, but that is a different issue altogether.

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.

And here I thought you were discussing how lethality is rediculously high and doesn't need to be upscaled. Perhaps increasing the ROF will likely increase some casualties. But more likely it will cause earlier pinning and thus less or equal casualties. If you increase accuracy, however, you increase casualties, and not necessarily suppression.

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 agree, but it's not from inaccuracy. It's from a very low ROF. Infantry won't be pinned by non-existent bullets.

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).

Well, there are many accounts of infantry "wiggling out of the dispersion zone" and finding cover. However, in general I agree with you here... but again, decreasing morale is not a SPECIFIC fix. It's a global one that will have far-reaching consequences. It's like opening a stuck pickle jar by using a sledgehammer.

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.

Again, not a specific fix. This is a global change.

[LongLeftFlank]

Pzkw, dialing the MGs up to Eleven will just make them another kind of death star if there are no other adjustments to behaviour made at the target end. So you "solve" the pooltable problem, sure, but then introduce a bunch of other issues.

Also, I have no problem at all with an infantry platoon going to ground after a series of well aimed shots at range by a single sniper, not an HMG. That happened frequently and is also realistic.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I like the idea of both dialing up the "rooty toot" of HMGs and upping cover values.

[PzKfW]

I do not agree that HMGs with a higher, realistic rate of fire would be "death stars". Wasn't that the problem with the accuracy issue? Low accuracy x low rof = low suppression. MGs are not sniper rifles. Neither are they semi-automatics. They are area denial weapons that operate on the basis of throwing a lot of lead.

Suppression increases simply make everybody more fragile. They do not address the relative, and ahistorical, imbalance between a squad and HMG at 200m plus distance.

Adjusting global levels of morale is not fixing particular weapon systems. It is changing the entire nature of the game. I am not necessarily disagreeing that morale needs to change. I liked CMBB. I am disagreeing that any morale changes are germane to the lack of effectiveness of an HMG unit, as compared to a infantry squad.

As to sniper fire, it is just one or two more bullets on a battlefield with thousands flying around. It is not convincing to me that in the middle of combat, sniper fire would be recognized and pin an entire squad. Casualties might be recognized, and promote suppression, but that is already modelled in the game. Using such an extreme example of "a few shots should suppress", as a reason why suppression should be up-modeled is a bit disingenuous.

[Apocal]

Adjusting global levels of morale is not fixing particular weapon systems. It is changing the entire nature of the game. I am not necessarily disagreeing that morale needs to change. I liked CMBB. I am disagreeing that any morale changes are germane to the lack of effectiveness of an HMG unit, as compared to a infantry squad.

To make it an extreme example, if one solid burst effectively pinned an infantry unit forever and one hit rendered them totally useless for the duration of a CM battle, HMGs would reliably defeat rifle squads past about 400-500 meters (without "gaming" the morale system, though I suppose that should be accounted for). Infantry would never be able to walk-through effective HMG fire without supporting arms. That would be a more accurate depiction of the correct combined arms relationship than we have now.

Now, if you have some evidence or testing to indicate that rifle squads are still reliably able to pin or even get three bar (or higher) suppression from long (beyond 400-500 meters), then I'd agree that a simple universal morale shift wouldn't produce the desired result.

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

It is already modeled, except the single shot part.

I like the idea of both dialing up the "rooty toot" of HMGs and upping cover values.

That involves fiddling with the TacAI a bit, the actual "cover values" are pretty much OK, it's just the pixeltroops fail to utilize much of it.

[LongLeftFlank]

I do not agree that HMGs with a higher, realistic rate of fire would be "death stars". Wasn't that the problem with the accuracy issue? Low accuracy x low rof = low suppression. MGs are not sniper rifles. Neither are they semi-automatics. They are area denial weapons that operate on the basis of throwing a lot of lead.

But with no other changes, blazingly accurate HMGs, especially MG42s can basically shred any unit that isn't Hiding behind solid cover (and that doesn't include Forest, Buildings or Foxholes btw) simply by applying enough lead.

Listen, like you, I'd definitely like to see the wacky dispersion go away, MGs able to "walk" bursts onto target, and the TacAI to utilize intense Final Protective Fire when appropriate (not controllable by the player). I'd like to see the dialing up of MG accuracy and volume of fire to realistic levels.

But to obtain realistic results (i.e. squads not chopped down to a man within seconds, or cut to ribbons once pinned over a longer period), the targets need to seek cover instantly and promptly. And obtain it, such that they can't readily be hit as long as they keep their heads down.

In the theoretical pooltable example of course, they're kind of screwed since there is no cover. Their only tactical recourse upon being ordered to cross such ground is to form a broad skirmish line (a formation not yet available in the game) so one burst can't kill multiple guys, then run like hell.

Suppression increases simply make everybody more fragile. They do not address the relative, and ahistorical, imbalance between a squad and HMG at 200m plus distance.

Adjusting global levels of morale is not fixing particular weapon systems. It is changing the entire nature of the game. I am not necessarily disagreeing that morale needs to change. I liked CMBB. I am disagreeing that any morale changes are germane to the lack of effectiveness of an HMG unit, as compared to a infantry squad.

I for one am *not* talking about morale. Nor am I talking about permanently impairing a unit combat-wise unless it's either very green or has taken a lot of casualties.

I'm just talking about it responding to the incoming -- especially the New Improved Intense Machine Gun Fire We All Want -- more intelligently.

1. Remember, pinned men can still fire; they just don't move. So actually the MG team isn't necessarily worse off from being more easily Pinned, if you weren't planning to have it move anyway..

2. But men in cover but still under fire should not be sticking their pixelheads and upper torsos out into that fire for extended periods to Spot, unless it be to suppress that fire with a MG. That is suicide even with the old lame machine guns.

As to sniper fire, it is just one or two more bullets on a battlefield with thousands flying around. It is not convincing to me that in the middle of combat, sniper fire would be recognized and pin an entire squad. Casualties might be recognized, and promote suppression, but that is already modelled in the game.

You're assuming of course, that sniper fire is part of a much larger firefight. But yes, with snipers, it is casualties -- especially leaders -- that matter most. And experienced units recover from a casualty too fast in my view.

the actual "cover values" are pretty much OK, it's just the pixeltroops fail to utilize much of it.

Yup.

[PzKfW]

This is with v2.0 and commonwealth module.

I set up a test with one squad of regular US infantry, advancing from 1000m out, over level ground with no cover, vs. a HMG42. I split the US squad into three teams about 30m apart and told them to "move" to the other end of the map.

I then left the HMG42 to do it's thing. It immediately spotted them at 1km, but did not open fire until the US troopers were approximately 650m out.

One casualty was inflicted at about 550m distance, on the BAR team. This was after one minute of firing. But very little suppression arose from that. Before the burst that got the team member, suppression was identical to the photo.

Also, I noted that suppresion increased about one bar per near burst for each team.

Incidentally, the HMG fire was reasonably accurate, once the first few bursts had occurred. These missed horribly, but were more elevation misses than windage. The burst frequency at this range was about one every five seconds (x6rds = 72rpm). The fire was shifted between the BAR team and right most team by the HMG TacAI.

After 3 minutes of being fired on by the HMG, the rightmost rifle team had no casualties and was midway on the suppression meter. The midmost rifle team had not taken any bursts and was completely fine. The BAR team had taken one casualty but was only midway suppressed.

The rifle squad had not fired at the HMG team spontaneously (they were jogging under fire). They had reached 400m from the HMG42, so I ordered them to halt, and ordered the HMG team to cover arc so that they would not return fire. I had the teams all open up on the area of HMG crew (not directly targeting). After 1.5 minutes of so this, the HMG team had taken a casualty and were suppressed midway.

After 2 minutes they had another wounded and were 3/4 up on the suppression. At this point I stopped the test, convinced that my point had been proven.

Conclusions:

1. Suppression as a mechanism works. There just isn't enough being generated by the HMG. For the HMG, it appears suppression is increased on the target "per burst", about one bar per.

2. A US rifle squad outsuppresses an HMG team, from 400m at least. I suspect this is true all the way out to 600m.

3. If HMG ROF is increased even by a factor of two, we will get more realistic results. The teams do not begin to cower or hit the deck until about 3/4 the way up the suppression meter, but they will cower and/or hit the deck. There just needs to be more bursts.

[PzKfW]

I ran this test again with the hmg not firing and the us infantry firing, advancing from 1km. I did not break up the squad.

Only the sniper would fire until about 450m, when the rest of the squad (minus the thompson) opened up. I then had the HMG open up on the squad, and left both in the open firing at each other for 25min or so.

Results: 4 casualties on the HMG, 6 on the squad (the BAR ate it at about minute 10). The HMG broke right at minute 2, but it was never pinned (3/4 max suppression at a few points). I would consider this a draw... at 450m with stationary targets...

Impressions: The squad will have no problem advancing to within 300m where they will decimate the HMG. The HMG certainly has the advantage at >500m, as the squad will not have any firepower at that range. Regardless of this, it is largely meaningless, as the effects of HMG fire at that range generally have no effect to stop advancing infantry.

I would agree with the super fast repeated rally that someone mentioned. It happens at the end of every minute it seems. That really allows the suppression levels to be minimized, unless a continuous lot of fire is building up. That being said, the HMG would sometimes hit the target, sometimes not, and it only fired very infrequently (every 3-4 seconds). Suppression only really went up into the pinned region when a casualty occurred, and the unit was still taking fire. This happened once, on the infantry.

I have the screenshots, if anyone is really interested.

[JasonC]

"lethality is rediculously high"

My claim is that over the entire fight, not one shot, lethality is too high, *precisely because the men continue firing for far too long*. Lasting suppression effects greatly reduce total delivered fire, in real fights. They also increase the average range at which it is delivered. Men in the open breaking rapidly also means most units spend most of the battle in cover.

The combination of half or more of the men not shooting because they are recovering from suppression, the ranges still being long, and men mostly being in cover or breaking and running clear of open areas - all reduce total casualties over the whole fight.

That whole effect is what I am calling, inability to mash the two forces together too strongly. And it is a clear effect of morale.

As for the comments in the latest tests (which are useful, thanks for running them) that suppression as a mechanism is "working", because units build up to half suppression levels after taking minutes of continuous fire in the open - um, if that is working, what does broken look like? Because a unit with half suppression still responds to orders, moves, and fires.

We don't need to guess what counts as superior realism on the outcome. As I stated right at the beginning, contemporary board wargames get this entirely right and do so effortlessly. If a single "turn" of fire by one HMG unit against one infantry unit at long range, results in something like a 1/3 chance the target is cut in half, and a 1/3 chance it is pinned to the ground for 2 minutes (if left alone) to forever (if it stays under fire), then the chance of a single squad advancing over a kilometer of open to fire at and suppress an HMG in cover, is about 150 to 1 against.

In CMx2 it is apparently normal. I say in CMx2 because in CMBB this was better. Panzer is simpler and more accurate than either. But even CMBB didn't have this completely stuffed up. And the big difference was it was normal for a burst or three of HMG fire even at range, to send a target squad in the open to ground, "sideways sneaking", in "cover panic".

[Vanir Ausf B]

In my experience the very large majority of causalities in CMx2 games are already caused by artillery and armor, not infantry firing personal weapons. I still contend that uber-infantry is not a problem in CMx2.

[PzKfW]

"lethality is rediculously high"

My claim is that over the entire fight, not one shot, lethality is too high, *precisely because the men continue firing for far too long*. Lasting suppression effects greatly reduce total delivered fire, in real fights. They also increase the average range at which it is delivered. Men in the open breaking rapidly also means most units spend most of the battle in cover.

The combination of half or more of the men not shooting because they are recovering from suppression, the ranges still being long, and men mostly being in cover or breaking and running clear of open areas - all reduce total casualties over the whole fight.

That whole effect is what I am calling, inability to mash the two forces together too strongly. And it is a clear effect of morale.

As for the comments in the latest tests (which are useful, thanks for running them) that suppression as a mechanism is "working", because units build up to half suppression levels after taking minutes of continuous fire in the open - um, if that is working, what does broken look like? Because a unit with half suppression still responds to orders, moves, and fires.

We don't need to guess what counts as superior realism on the outcome. As I stated right at the beginning, contemporary board wargames get this entirely right and do so effortlessly. If a single "turn" of fire by one HMG unit against one infantry unit at long range, results in something like a 1/3 chance the target is cut in half, and a 1/3 chance it is pinned to the ground for 2 minutes (if left alone) to forever (if it stays under fire), then the chance of a single squad advancing over a kilometer of open to fire at and suppress an HMG in cover, is about 150 to 1 against.

In CMx2 it is apparently normal. I say in CMx2 because in CMBB this was better. Panzer is simpler and more accurate than either. But even CMBB didn't have this completely stuffed up. And the big difference was it was normal for a burst or three of HMG fire even at range, to send a target squad in the open to ground, "sideways sneaking", in "cover panic".

It's a fallacious premise you use. You say, "if suppression were working, then this HMG would either chew up this squad or stop it cold". You assume the HMG is working right. It is not. Fix the HMG and you get your correct result. The end. If you increase the effects of fire, you will get increased suppression.

The rapid rally is the only thing I see really strange about the morale situation. *EDIT - I do agree with you about what is a realistic outcome on this matchup. But you just aren't really understanding that a burst or three in Panzer is likely close to a couple hundred rounds. In CMx2, it is 15-20. To my mind, half suppression is like going from a casual walking pose to a fast ducking pose, looking for cover, and keeping your head down as much as possible. Full suppression/pinning is pissing your pants in terror at the likelihood of imminent demise.

[Apocal]

That being said, the HMG would sometimes hit the target, sometimes not, and it only fired very infrequently (every 3-4 seconds).

That isn't an exceptionally long time between bursts.

[slysniper]

In my experience the very large majority of causalities in CMx2 games are already caused by artillery and armor, not infantry firing personal weapons. I still contend that uber-infantry is not a problem in CMx2.

You are correct, in that in a combined arms battle, the flaw does not show up as badly because infantry is the pawns on the board.

But every good chess player understands, evan the pawn , just one can give you the advantage if played well, a one pawn advantage will win the match. In CM, there is still plenty of times when after the arty, tanks and AT Guns have their fun. There is still plenty of conflicts where its Infantry vs. infantry and where these flaws in how the game function can reflect in unrealistic results.

[PzKfW]

That isn't an exceptionally long time between bursts.

Well, there has been a wealth of information both historical and technical posted in this thread that flatly contradicts your statement.

[Apocal]

Well, there has been a wealth of information both historical and technical posted in this thread that flatly contradicts your statement.

If you're referring to your source, it stated 22 aimed bursts a minute but explicitly said 50 round bursts for an HMG. Surely you realize something is amiss if those figures are placed together.

Anyway, I'm currently trying to get a workable RoF increase test by adding 3x HMGs together, stripping them of men and ammo and, finally, placing them in the next to each other (to share ammo, creating a realistic basic load, around 1800 rounds). Regular experience, standard morale, standard leadership, still slightly elevated, in foxholes, etc.

TRPs haven't been as much a factor, they are running out of ammo too fast. I still have more testing to do to get a decent sample size, but preliminary results are not good. I'm taking more losses doing it and using more time, but I'm still able to rally and force troops to within rifle range and it's downhill from there. Split squads, if a unit takes a hit, I give it a one or two minute timeout, then send them back forward as long as they have nothing significant on their suppression bar. The morale status doesn't seem to actually have a practical effect at all to be honest. Two of the teams are actually "broken" but as long as they don't take a hit, they hold. The panicked unit you see is on it's third casualty, just a BAR gunner there now.

[Fūrinkazan]

I did a firepower test today.

First, by firepower i mean the amount of bullets that a team/squad can shoot at the enemy.

I counted every bullets from smgs to rifles assault rifles lmg an hmgs in each team/squad.

I tested at range from 50 up to 800 m.

I used target area for 1 mn restarting the scenario each time so the soldiers start with all ammos.

I'm trying to find a way to show all the results but for now here is what i can show :

---------------------------300---400---500---600---700---800

- US riflemen (12 men)------103----68----55-----0-----0-----0

- British squad (10 men)------84----77----54----20----22----0

- Germ riflemen(9 men)-------79----74----50----42----41----0

- Pzr gren (8 men 2 stg)------142--105---91-----85----85----0

- Pzr gren (8men no stg)-----117--105---96-----91-----80---0

- Mg42 hmg (7 men)-----------89---98---70-----48-----45---47

- Vickers hmg (3men)----------54---45---44-----27-----30---26

Notice that the Bren and lmg 42 can fire up to 700 m while the bar is limited to about 500 m

The first Panzergrenadier team had 2 stg44 assault rifles while the second had none. this explains the difference of firpower (25 bullets).

Notice how lmgs can have superior firepower against hmgs. German riflemen have at 600 m almost the same firepower than an hmg42 and 1.5 x the firepower of a vickers hmg.

Now panzergrenadier (2 lmgs)have almost twice the firepower of an hmg 42 at 600 up to 700 m and more than 3 x a vickers hmg.

Now let's compare to CMX1 datas :

------------40 m----100 m ----250 m----500 m-----1000 m

Hmg 42-------155------125-------77-------52--------27

Hmg 34-------120-------95-------63-------47--------26

12.7 dshk-----100-------82-------58-------45--------28

Maxim--------100-------78-------48-------33--------11

Mg42 lmg------50-------45-------30-------18

Dp lmg---------30-------28-------18-------11

Bar------------34-------26-------15-------07

if we take 500 m for exemple :

in CMX1

hmg 42 is 52 lmg 18 = hmg42 = 2.88 x lmg4

hmg 42 is 52 bar 07 = hmg42 = 7.42 x bar

one lmg42 is 18 one bar is 7 = lmg42 =2.57 bar

now with the maxim :

1 maxim =1.83 lmg 42

1 maxim = 4.71 bar

in cmx 2 at 500 m

1 hmg42 = 70 one lmg42 =50 so hmg42 = 1.4 lmg42

1 hmg42 = 70 one bar =55 so hmg42=1.27 bar

1 lmg42 = 50 bar = 55 so lmg42 =0.90 bar

to keep the same ratio in two games in cmx 2 hmg42 should shoot :

70 x 2.88 bullets for lmg42 = 201 bullets

70 x 7.42 bullets for bar = 519 bullets

55 x 2.57 bullets for lmg42 against bar =141 bullets

Notice that at 500 m, no riflemen is shooting only lmgs/hmgs.

We can see that in one game an hmg is 2 to 3 lmg42 and 4 to 7 bar and in the other game lmgs are equal to lmgs. Notice also the difference in firpower between two games for lmg42 and bar.

In cmx 2 one lmg42 = 1 bar

In cmx 1 one lmg42 = 2.57 bar

If someone has an explanation for this i would like to hear it.

The fact is that from 600 to 700 m panzergrenadier have more firepower than everybody.

Is it logical that an lmg can fire has many bullets as an hmg ?

I will publish all results from 50 to 800 when ready.

Hope i did not make any mistake, but again, i think it shows that hmgs may not shoot has many bullet as they should.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You are correct, in that in a combined arms battle, the flaw does not show up as badly because infantry is the pawns on the board.

But every good chess player understands, evan the pawn , just one can give you the advantage if played well, a one pawn advantage will win the match. In CM, there is still plenty of times when after the arty, tanks and AT Guns have their fun. There is still plenty of conflicts where its Infantry vs. infantry and where these flaws in how the game function can reflect in unrealistic results.

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with me or not. I don't think infantry is useless by any means. My point is just that while I'm fine with machine guns and especially HMGs being made more effective I'm not enamored with the idea of making infantry more fragile against everything. IMO infantry on the CMx2 battlefield already has the short end of the stick to an unrealistic degree.

[LongLeftFlank]

Well most of the reason for that "fragility" is that infantry makes improper use of cover. So it takes inordinate casualties, with commensurate morale impact. Also, it can presently be shot out of its emplacements at range.

[Fūrinkazan]

I completed my firepower test and had a few squads and hmgs for more comparison

Range---------------50m-100m--200m--300m--400m--500m--600m--700m--800m

Panzergrenadier

(2 stg44) 8 men-----431--355--235----142----105-----91-----85----85-----0

Panzergrenadier

8 men --------------348--287--189----117----114-----96-----91----80-----0

German riflemen

9 men --------------317--261--172-----79-----74 ----50-----42----41------0

US riflemen

12 men-------------285--230---162---103------68----55------0------0-----0

British Riflmen

10 men-------------194--197---127----84------77----54 ----20-----22-----0

Hmg42 7 men-------424--290---193----89------98----70-----48-----45----47

Vickers hmg 3 men--230--153----87----54------45----44-----27-----30----26

M1917 A1 5 men----292--189---105----70------57----40-----32-----30----27

M2 HB 5+3 men-----237--195---121----93------83----31-----34-----23----23

The "firepower" described here is including all weapons from a squad/team.

It shows how many bullets a unit is firing for one mn at a particular range.

For the M2 HB, i included the 3 ammo carriers. For panzergrenadier 1 group had 2 stg44 + 1 mp40 and the other only 1 mp40.

The M1 carbin stopped firing around 200 m,The Sturmgewehr 44 around 300 m, while smgs can fire up to 200/250 m.

I hope this can be helpful, from a tactical point of view and for this thread.

regards

[JasonC]

"you just aren't really understanding that a burst or three in Panzer is likely close to a couple hundred rounds"

On the contrary, I already specifically discussed the larger unit of time and thus fire represented by a single Panzer turn, compared to a CM burst. I gave examples of the required effect per burst for a minute or so of CM fire to approximate the Panzer outcomes in expectation, while noting it is harder to tune the large binomial tree and especially the interaction with a continuous rate of rally. Harder but not impossible.

In Panzer, a squad moves 2 hexes (200 meters) closer to the MG in one game turn. That specifies the period of fire in CM that needs to match the fire effect of one shot in Panzer. In the time it takes a squad to get from 1000 meters to 800 meters, or from 800 meters to 600 meters, there should be about a 1/3 chance of it getting cut in half and another 1/3 chance of it being forced to ground. Then requiring on average twice that period of time to recover it left alone. And if left under fire, having a very low chance of getting up again (roughly 1/8 per minute).

As for "half suppression" as crouching advance, I claim that is not suppression in any effective sense. If the unit is continuing to follow orders, continuing to move, and fires back if order to, then it is not suppressed in any effective sense. The game may track how wet the men's socks are and how loud their dogtags jangle, and it won't have any operational effect, until it begins to interfere with response to orders and ability to move and fire. If it does not eliminate those abilities, it does not count as effective suppression.

(In Panzer, a suppressed unit can move half speed and fire with greatly diminished effect, in both cases at a large cost to its rally chances. But it isn't going to actually hit anything at range and in cover, once suppressed. Its best option is to go to full cover = prone and try to rally).

[JasonC]

There really isn't much reason for a Bren to have 200 meters longer range than a BAR. The Brit .303 round and the US 30-06 round are entirely comparable, and the difference between a 30 round mag and a 20 round mag is not significant. The only thing I can think of that might be meant by it is bipod stabilization for the LMGs. BARs could have bipods too, but didn't always use them, in the field. If it had one, there should be no appreciable difference in effective range, between a Bren and a BAR.

[Fūrinkazan]

After making firepower tests i made a little battle to see if that was right in game situation.

So i put 2 walls and behind on one side a panzergrenadier squad against an M2 HB and after an M1917 A1.

After a few tests at different range from 500 to 300 m i must say that it's impossible to predict who will suppress who. More, most of the time, the german squad lost the firefight.

For exemple i tested at 500 m against M1917.

so it should be around 96 firepower for germans against 40 for the hmg.

With equal cover, the germans should have almost twice the firepower of the hmg and suppress them first.

On the last test i've done, they lost the fight.

I tried with veterans, and changed the motivation without much success.

I saw that rifle fire at 400 m is very ineffective. Not surprising for me. I had the chance to shoot with rifles and watch other soldiers at range and hitting something at 200 m was not easy for the average guy, targeting only with ironsight.

Now, here is what i think of all this.

It's impossible for me to say if something sould be changed in the game, too much things to analyse for conclusion.

winning a firefight is a mix of luck, shooting first, cover, motivation, experience, command etc..

for exemple, i lost 2 times one of my lmg gunner reducing a lot my firepower. Now the 2 times i could inflict casulaties, i won the game.

More, during a firefight, some soldiers don't shoot, because they don't see target or they take cover.

So, in a fair fight with equal cover, impossible to say that hmgs are inferior to a squad. Now, i think that 2 squads or a platoon by using assault order or one squad to suppress, other to attack will take the hmg down, because the hmg squad will not be able to affect enough moral to stop 2 attackers.

Now these are not statistics, it would need a lot much tests, but i think it gives an idea.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Well most of the reason for that "fragility" is that infantry makes improper use of cover. So it takes inordinate casualties, with commensurate morale impact. Also, it can presently be shot out of its emplacements at range.

It could well be a cover issue, but after my testing of 60mm mortar effectiveness against prone infantry I don't think it's just that they make improper use of it. I think there may not be enough of it to use. It's either that or the lethality of explosives is much too high.

[LongLeftFlank]

Agreed. The problem with abstracted microcover is that if it reduces chance to hit of an otherwise accurate bullet or fragment by half, you can defeat that by pumping in 2 rounds.

The "pinned" troops then sticking their heads and shoulders up to spot for extended periods compounds this problem. Thus, Troops in cover rapidly melt away under intense fire no matter what your or their intent may be unless you can enforce a Hide order behind a suitable stretch of bullet-defeating cover like a crestline.

Which is why simply upping the firepower of MGs with no orher changes is going to make things much worse, not better, for infantry. Even if it "solves" the pooltable problem.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Which is why simply upping the firepower of MGs with no orher changes is going to make things much worse, not better, for infantry. Even if it "solves" the pooltable problem.

Agreed........