Thomm Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 I am looking for a reasonable setup for testing, like: n HMGs in foxholes versus m platoons of infantry, starting distance x, plus desired outcome. Any suggestions? Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 I am looking for a reasonable setup for testing, like: n HMGs in foxholes versus m platoons of infantry, starting distance x, plus desired outcome. Any suggestions? Best regards, Thomm I think you are probably pulling our legs since this was posted so often already. But I have to cover the case that you are not. One HMG. 800m open field in front. One enemy platoon trying to overrun it with no cover. Spread out the platoon but keep in command range. You should really try with and without foxholes and whatever else fortifications you think might be effective, because the effectivity of same is also a point of contention. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 We've tested a range of artificial (pool table) tests against various different HMG configurations (including bunkers) as mentioned here and internally. We're quite satisfied with the results from those "lab tests", so to speak. Obviously we're also testing existing scenarios and liking the effects there, which could be considered the opposite extreme ("real world" tests). I think Thomm is looking for something sorta inbetween. Not sure what exactly that might accomplish, but I do think it's a good idea to test a variety of situations. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 I think Thomm is looking for something sorta inbetween. Well put. My current test bed are tiny Assault QBs for which I defend with a whole or parts of a heavy weapons company (mortars excluded) against up two companies of AI infantry (also without mortars). If I use all HMGs then the setting has a distinct WW I feel to it, with the corresponding outcome. How many HMGs should be sufficient to stop two companies of infantry, e.g.? Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 If I use all HMGs then the setting has a distinct WW I feel to it, with the corresponding outcome. How many HMGs should be sufficient to stop two companies of infantry, e.g.? You are still trying to change the subject. Who was talking about multiple companies? Overrunning one CMx2 HMG (without it jamming) works with a single platoon, the same way it did in CMBO before that was considered inappropriate and fixed in CMBB. There's also the "stop" issue. "Stop" would probably work on very large forces because nobody outside the russian steppes likes to step into an open field covered by a HMG, much less a MG42 (which has enormous burst power against overruns, in real life). If you want to do on-topic testing then a platoon ordered to run up to the HMG will do fine, and you will reproduce what some of us object to when the HMG does not go into very long bursts or any other kind of emergency mode when it is threatened with being overrun right now and can stop caring about ammo and barrel. As a separate issue some of us think that the available fortifications, namely those with FoW, do not improve the safety of the defending HMG crew by much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 If you want to do on-topic testing then a platoon ordered to run up to the HMG will do fine, and you will reproduce what some of us object to when the HMG does not go into very long bursts or any other kind of emergency mode when it is threatened with being overrun right now and can stop caring about ammo and barrel. I took the time to read the whole thread again to find out what should happen to a platoon that is attacking a single HMG. JasonC describes what happens in a board game. JonS says that a platoon should suffice (in real life, not on a pool table), Steve is also leaning in this direction. Other than that, there was no data to be found, except for numerous tests showing what does not work correctly in CM. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 If you want to do on-topic testing then a platoon ordered to run up to the HMG will do fine ... Zero US survivors, one German (Elite/Fanatic/foxholes) wounded. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Overrunning one CMx2 HMG (without it jamming) works with a single platoon, the same way it did in CMBO before that was considered inappropriate and fixed in CMBB. In the completely artificial pool table test, I can assure you this is no longer possible. So Thomm isn't interested in this sort of test because we already know how the adjusted code behaves compared to the code you have access to. There's also the "stop" issue. "Stop" would probably work on very large forces because nobody outside the russian steppes likes to step into an open field covered by a HMG, much less a MG42 (which has enormous burst power against overruns, in real life). Right. That's the pool table test and, again, we already have that settled. We've "moved on" and Thomm was asking for something different to test. If you want to do on-topic testing then a platoon ordered to run up to the HMG will do fine, and you will reproduce what some of us object to when the HMG does not go into very long bursts or any other kind of emergency mode when it is threatened with being overrun right now and can stop caring about ammo and barrel. What was happening in the pool table tests is the infantry was getting close enough, with good LOS, to suppress the HMG before getting to within the HMG's "final defensive fire" logic. Which is to say the logic is there, it's just that in the test it wasn't showing up because of the unfavorable conditions. We have tweaked many elements to avoid this happening. As a separate issue some of us think that the available fortifications, namely those with FoW, do not improve the safety of the defending HMG crew by much. We actually adjusted bunker survivability downward by fixing how units attack them. See other thread where a Sherman is 15m away and still not doing squat to the bunker. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Speaking of 'stops' is there any chance of reimplementing gun jams? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Zero US survivors, one German (Elite/Fanatic/foxholes) wounded. Best regards, Thomm As in, in the new code in beta? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 As with real life, specialized crews should be withdrawn from battle when they are threatened or otherwise useless, not used as cannon fodder. Steve I use them for mine clearence. If i dont have engineers, i take like a bunch of bailed out AFV crews or empty mortar teams an run them through the minefield until its mines are all detonated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I use them for mine clearence. If i dont have engineers, i take like a bunch of bailed out AFV crews or empty mortar teams an run them through the minefield until its mines are all detonated. Do you often find your units' general morale state is a bit poor? And your opponents' "destroy unit" scores are quite high? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Do you often find your units' general morale state is a bit poor? And your opponents' "destroy unit" scores are quite high? Yes, those are indeed issues that i have encountered numerous times. I really cant tell why this is so, though. I only use the most tactically sound formations for my infantry, like square or testudo, and have them take on the enemy employing a tactic called "Human Wave" wich i read about on Wikipedia . I also always try to get the leaders killed first, so they can inspire their subordinate units with their bravery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 haha. Well played 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I am looking for a reasonable setup for testing, like: n HMGs in foxholes versus m platoons of infantry, starting distance x, plus desired outcome. Any suggestions? Best regards, Thomm Terrain consists of few gentle folds (not more than +/- 3m) and light woods, enough to provide "shadows" of broken LOS, but not enough to conceal the force entirely. For the defenders, 2x HMGs, approximately 300-500m apart from each other, foxholes, interlocking and supporting fields of fire. They should be situated in such a way that on can not be assaulted without being exposed to fire from the other. Regular experience, leadership and morale. For the attackers, two platoons of infantry without mortars or company-level MG support. Regular experience, leadership and morale. They should not reliably break this position. I can probably make a map once I'm done with my stuff for the day and run tests myself, if you'd like additional data points. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Apocal, thank you for taking the time. What you suggest sounds much like the one platoon/HMG formula, which can lead to annihilation of the attacker in 2.01 beta code, at least on a flat, open map. I want to tip the ratio more in favor of the attacker, but then - as I have been correctly advised - support weapons of the attacker should also come into play. Perhaps JasonC could replay his "Panzer" benchmark with two attacking platoons? Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 2.01 beta code? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 CM:BN 2.01. ... because we already know how the adjusted code behaves compared to the code you have access to. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Ah. It made me wonder if you had some knowledge of the new MG behavior. Still I hope for the best, any improvement will be welcomed as far as I'm concerned, just hopefully they don't overdo it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I want to tip the ratio more in favor of the attacker, but then - as I have been correctly advised - support weapons of the attacker should also come into play. Oh OK, I see what you're trying to accomplish now. Add a bit more tree cover, something to shield a squad or two within about 150-200m of one of the HMG positions. Then add the third platoon and the attached MGs, but not mortars. It *should* allow the attacking force to cut things fairly evenly, with the distribution being slightly biased towards defending HMGs, but often the result being a stalemate; attackers sitting on one knocked out HMG, but unable to press the attack on the second HMG position. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I agree with Apocal. They might even shake up the other HMG pretty well, but find themselves beat up enough that they won't do much good against the 2nd HMG. At least from a numbers standpoint. Remember, because this is a game and a Human player is calling the shots without real physical danger, the attacker always has an unrealistic advantage over a real world commander. Unless the real world commander has a squad of NKVD with him Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 You know it just occurred to me that this thread illustrates why BFC is one of the best game companies out there. We debated, gnawed, gnashed our teeth and wailed, and they've now stated they looked at MGs and adjusted them for the patch.. The continuous dialogue and consideration taken from your customers is very honorable and impressive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 ...even if it took thirty-some-odd pages to do it. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Plus 1 to what Sublime said... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidFields Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 +1 also Though I will be hiding in the WW1 era until this is all worked out-though buying any CM2 expansion, because I am hopeful the mortar/mg issue will be resolved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.