Test range: The Maxim generates the similar firepower per minute like the heavy MG42

[AttorneyAtWar]

CMRT is having to deal with the two extremes in the way infantry squad firepower was delivered in World War 2

On the one hand theres the German squads with 1 or 2 lmgs and on the other the russian ppsh squads which from 200m in are the real uber killers in this game. The german lmg 's represent 90 plus % of the squads organic firepower and if this isnt correctly represented for all the ranges and ways it might be used german squads may not only be in for a raw deal but will have to use gamey tactics like split squads etc to achieve anything close to real life results. The other gamey tactic of suppress with mg then cause casualties with mortars is to my mind an acknowledgement that mg fire is not weighted for causing casualties when sustaining fire on a target.

Where I have most problems with how CMRT plays at the moment is what happens when russian ppsh squads get 500 m in and closer. German machine guns may be able to suppress 1 or 2 squads a turn and may cause a few casualties at the start before the target squads ducks to cover, but repeated rounds of mg fire do not seem to do much else other than keep the unit suppressed - If you now turn to what happens when a ppsh squad fires from 200m at german squads you can watch the kills or wounded light up every few seconds, and most squads evaporate after 1 rounds fire - definately in 2. A german mg squad would have to fire at a suppressed unit for a large chunk of the game to get the same results.

We ve heard plenty about sustained rate of fire, realistic ammunition loads etc. Where I think the MG 42 is not being realistically weighted in the game is that it had a flexibility in extremis that lower rpm machine guns did not have. Sustained rate for an MG 42 in light configuration might well be between 100 and 200 rpm, but in real life and in the game a german squad with 2 mg 42s with its back to the wall, and looking an overrun in the face is going to burn through barrels and ammo loads and it ought to generate just as much firepower as a ppsh squad if not more (after all we are talking rifle rounds as opposed to pistol rounds so cover should affect the mg fire less)- and it ought to do more damage than the odd kill and a suppression. With this sustained mg fire Im not suggesting that there should be infinite ammo, this fire for effect ought to go through the available ammo at at least 2 or 3 times usual rate, and green units particularly might be expected to have a problem where they shoot off most of their available ammo in their first action.

How is splitting squads gamey...?

[fatehunter]

The point is that the AI does not use the machine gun like it would be used in real life. If a cluster of troops was seen, the MG gunner would fire everything he had at that beautiful target until it was destroyed. Bursts are fine for suppressive fire, but for a nice rich target, he would likely go beyond the 'doctine' of bursts to hose down the enemy group.

[Sailor Malan2]

The point is that the AI does not use the machine gun like it would be used in real life. If a cluster of troops was seen, the MG gunner would fire everything he had at that beautiful target until it was destroyed. Bursts are fine for suppressive fire, but for a nice rich target, he would likely go beyond the 'doctine' of bursts to hose down the enemy group.

What is this based on?

I had hoped this thread had died.

[fatehunter]

What is this based on?

I had hoped this thread had died.

Sailor,

People just can't get it that CM is a game, a simulation, limited by the programing. People want everything in the game to function as it would in real life. Good luck to them, but until each and every soldier in CM functions with a real human brain behind it is not going to happen.

As it is CM rocks. I love it. I was just clarifying what I think the poster was trying to get at.

[womble]

Sailor,

People just can't get it that CM is a game, a simulation, limited by the programing. People want everything in the game to function as it would in real life. Good luck to them, but until each and every soldier in CM functions with a real human brain behind it is not going to happen.

As it is CM rocks. I love it. I was just clarifying what I think the poster was trying to get at.

While I don't disagree with your sentiment, it's worse than that. People want everything in the game to function how they think it would in real life, without considering all the factors and assuming that because one factor doesn't behave, in-game, how they imagine it would, that the whole model is broken, when, in fact, their whole assumed modality for the system is pretty much hokum.

[A Canadian Cat]

in fact, their whole assumed modality for the system is pretty much hokum.

This is by no means restricted to this thread either. Many threads, especially the ones that get into heated discussions, are a result of this.

But @womble knows this.

I predict we are about to be told we are wrong about this too:D

[sburke]

This is by no means restricted to this thread either. Many threads, especially the ones that get into heated discussions, are a result of this.

But @womble knows this.

I predict we are about to be told we are wrong about this too:D

You are wrong about this too

Didn't want you to be disappointed.

[A Canadian Cat]

Gee thanks.

Still laughing - everyone is looking at me funny...

[crowbar2k]

wow ok some world class condescension

Cards down on the table. To me the wargame par excellence is the original Tobruk by avalon hill. I wish it had been bettered since, but what dissappoints is when a wargame looks as if it could gets close to that level of perfection then crashes and burns. I am deeply suspiscious of any abstraction in a wargame but if there is going to be any abstraction the math behind it needs putting up as well or you are simply saying - these are my prejudices - you are going to have to eat them to play the game.

So how to judge if you have a simulation of combat in the east; viz infantry combat on the russian front. Lets take a couple of german 1942 squads, minimal artillery backup, confronting human waves - a regiment or more of green russian infantry - play through enough times and you know how good your in-game abstractions are (and I love how this is also a nod to Tobruks programmed approach to scenario complexity). If the human wave steamrollers through the mg 34s fire with almost no casualties 9 times out of 10 we have a game but a simulation? hardly

Before someone posts its not that I am a pro-nazi who thinks the MG 42 is gods gift, to me its the idea that the suffering of all those poor sods who knew they'd get shot if they lagged behind and equally shot if they went forward is belittled and minimised. With these infantry rules as they are the russians would have finished the war in 1942 with about 20 million less deaths.

[JonS]

Haha, well ok. I think womble said it best: your whole assumed modality for the system is pretty much hokum.

[Andrew H.]

wow ok some world class condescension

Cards down on the table. To me the wargame par excellence is the original Tobruk by avalon hill. I wish it had been bettered since, but what dissappoints is when a wargame looks as if it could gets close to that level of perfection then crashes and burns. I am deeply suspiscious of any abstraction in a wargame but if there is going to be any abstraction the math behind it needs putting up as well or you are simply saying - these are my prejudices - you are going to have to eat them to play the game.

CMRT is *vastly* more detailed and has far, far fewer abstractions than Tobruk (a game I also like) or *any* board game.

[Apocal]

How is splitting squads gamey...?

I wouldn't call it gamey, but there is an advantage, insofar as suppression is shared across infantry units, even those that occupy two or three action spots. Taking a single casualty can "spike" the suppression bar of a entire squad, right? But when you split the squads into teams and spread them around action spots -- even adjacent action spots as if they were still part of the squad -- the shared suppression effect is lessened or eliminated. You're basically making it harder for your opponent to suppress your forces, in exchange for more work giving units orders. Obviously in WEGO you have all the time in the world to command your forces so it just makes sense to use split squads the majority of the time. In real-time it is a bit more of a tradeoff and most guys don't bother, except for dedicated AT teams.

CMRT is having to deal with the two extremes in the way infantry squad firepower was delivered in World War 2

On the one hand theres the German squads with 1 or 2 lmgs and on the other the russian ppsh squads which from 200m in are the real uber killers in this game. The german lmg 's represent 90 plus % of the squads organic firepower and if this isnt correctly represented for all the ranges and ways it might be used german squads may not only be in for a raw deal but will have to use gamey tactics like split squads etc to achieve anything close to real life results. The other gamey tactic of suppress with mg then cause casualties with mortars is to my mind an acknowledgement that mg fire is not weighted for causing casualties when sustaining fire on a target.

How is suppressing with machine guns and then killing with mortars/arty even remotely gamey? Those are explicitly their functions within the infantry company's sphere. The infantry's machine guns force the enemy to use covered routes not exposed to direct fire. The infantry have mortars to handle those areas so sheltered. The game relationship is a bit rough due the line-of-sight requirement on calling down fires, but it is completely consistent with reality for an attacking force to find itself "hung up" by a couple of machine guns and then hit with mortars as they hunker down.

Where I have most problems with how CMRT plays at the moment is what happens when russian ppsh squads get 500 m in and closer. German machine guns may be able to suppress 1 or 2 squads a turn and may cause a few casualties at the start before the target squads ducks to cover, but repeated rounds of mg fire do not seem to do much else other than keep the unit suppressed - If you now turn to what happens when a ppsh squad fires from 200m at german squads you can watch the kills or wounded light up every few seconds, and most squads evaporate after 1 rounds fire - definately in 2. A german mg squad would have to fire at a suppressed unit for a large chunk of the game to get the same results.

You're complaining that (much more numerous) automatic weapons kill and suppress better at short range than (a smaller number of) automatic weapons at long range. I... I don't see a problem with this at all on its face. Small arms are more lethal the closer you go. Also, I have a different experience regarding the effectiveness of the MG42 when it comes to inflicting casualties and causing suppression of (unsupported) infantry attacks in CMRT. It's generally capable of stopping SMG-equipped troops as long as you don't allow them too close, <250m or so. Below 200m, you might as well just break it off though.

[A Canadian Cat]

wow ok some world class condescension

OK, well I am sorry for my part if you did not deserve it. However in my defense you did add a post onto one of the worst examples of "the game is broken because it does not match my perception of the way things should be in my opinion, but I will offer no real evidence that my perception is correct" threads in this forums history. (Yes there was a little sarcasm there).

And you also just declared the game broken and offered no real evidence. Heck I don't even understand what it was you observed in game that seemed wrong - I mean specifically.

When the performance of MGs first came up - way back now - I tried rushing infantry across the open against MGs and the pretty much always overran the MG's position. Not good.

Then the effects of MGs were tweaked and now in my same tests I could pretty much never overrun the MGs position. Nice!

I forget the exact troop soft factor specifications but it was not tuned down to a low level. So, unless someone can recreate something that shows things are not working as expected my experience and testing shows that things are. If you have an example that seems off by all means create some tests and share some saved games. But I recommend two things:

1. Start a new thread - and also start from the position that you think something might be wrong and that you have done some investigation.
   
2. Be open to the possibility that your testing, tactics or assumptions are not quite right.
   

[crowbar2k]

How is suppressing with machine guns and then killing with mortars/arty even remotely gamey? Those are explicitly their functions within the infantry company's sphere. The infantry's machine guns force the enemy to use covered routes not exposed to direct fire. The infantry have mortars to handle those areas so sheltered. The game relationship is a bit rough due the line-of-sight requirement on calling down fires, but it is completely consistent with reality for an attacking force to find itself "hung up" by a couple of machine guns and then hit with mortars as they hunker down.

arent you answering your own question already? in this game as it is mgs on an open terrain (I am not talking open ground 750m away but 400m and closer where mg fire really has effect) dont cause much attrition to squads (or force them to use dead ground on approach - in game an mg 32 or 42 can fire at a supressed squad for most of a game and still not do much). Units can more or less waltz through open ground at this 300-400 m range with a lot less penalty than they should. You talk about using mortars to fire on unsighted dead ground but here in CMRT we have to use them to cause casualties in open ground because the mgs arent doing it.
 

 

You're complaining that (much more numerous) automatic weapons kill and suppress better at short range than (a smaller number of) automatic weapons at long range. I... I don't see a problem with this at all on its face. Small arms are more lethal the closer you go. Also, I have a different experience regarding the effectiveness of the MG42 when it comes to inflicting casualties and causing suppression of (unsupported) infantry attacks in CMRT. It's generally capable of stopping SMG-equipped troops as long as you don't allow them too close, <250m or so. Below 200m, you might as well just break it off though.


I dont have a problem with the results of long distance speculative fire - at 750m the probability of causing casualties even with 2 lmg 34 is low. According to Tobruk rules it ought to be anywhere from 0 - 50 % of 1 in the target squad injured if stationary - 60 % of 1 casualty if running - but none if in cover. Whether the cost of ammunition justifies such results is debatable, but Id be surprised if squads opened fire often at this range. I think CMBN or CMRT is on the low side and these chances should be double the probability compared to a non-german squad but the chances are low anyway and the game is in the range of the possible. As the range closes though there ought to be increasing effect of the mg fire.

 I'll use the tobruk rules as an example - if there are more detailed infantry weapon rules anywhere else that should supercede these Id be interested to see them. I havent seen any that go into more or better detail. In Tobruk rules german infantry squads had 1 mg 34 not 2.

The fire power 1 squad mg 34 generates from 225m and less should mean that any assaulting squad trying to take an mg 34 position should take anywhere from 2 minimum to 4 max casualties (standing) to 2 minimum to 5 max casualties (running/assault) casualties and if in cover between 0 casualties (a small chance) but more likely 1 or 2.

Extrapolate for 2 mg 34s in a squad at this range and casualties would be 4 minimum to 6 max casualties (standing) / to 6 minimum to 8 max casualties (running/assault) casualties and if in cover between 2 and 4 casualties.

In the final 75m with a 2 lmg squad stationary targets take a minimum 7 casualties / assault or running targets take 9 minimum casualties and good cover still takes  between 2 and 6 and even if it is reduced by casualties down to 2 it still has more or less the firepower listed for 225m 1 lmg as functioning squad members are always assumed to pick up and use the lmg.

This final fire from the mgs compared to a ppsh squad ought to be almost mutually destructive both ways, but I dont see it happening in CMRT at the moment. German squads go out with a whimper, doing little damage which is the opposite of what I was expecting from Tobruk gameplay.

Edited December 17, 2014 by crowbar2k

[Vanir Ausf B]

arent you answering your own question already? in this game as it is mgs on an open terrain (I am not talking open ground 750m away but 400m and closer where mg fire really has effect) dont cause much attrition to squads (or force them to use dead ground on approach - in game an mg 32 or 42 can fire at a supressed squad for most of a game and still not do much). Units can more or less waltz through open ground at this 300-400 m range with a lot less penalty than they should. You talk about using mortars to fire on unsighted dead ground but here in CMRT we have to use them to cause casualties in open ground because the mgs arent doing it.

This is not even remotely true. Seriously, have you even played the game?

[crowbar2k]

up until last night I had always been generating quick battles - so last night I tried some of the infantry scale missions and you are right - in those the german mgs do serious damage. So should I expect units in quick battles to perform less well? or is it that I havent been making use of the baked ai in the maps? Is positioning so critical to how well units will perform?.

[snarre]

Quick battle dosent make difrense to unit perform. Skill level , leader ship and placing on the map make difrenses how they perform.

[76mm]

I never played Tobruk and am sure that it is a fine game and all, but I always find it strange when people base criticisms of how "realistic" CMRT is based on some other game's rules rather than real-life data. I am sure that tobruk's rules feature more abstractions than CMRT and suspect that you are (not necessarily correctly) equating to ruk's rule so with reality.

[Apocal]

up until last night I had always been generating quick battles - so last night I tried some of the infantry scale missions and you are right - in those the german mgs do serious damage. So should I expect units in quick battles to perform less well? or is it that I havent been making use of the baked ai in the maps? Is positioning so critical to how well units will perform?.

 

It generally shouldn't matter in terms of performance: plenty of times in QBs my forces have been ripped the hell up by machine guns. And yes, positioning is extremely critical to how units perform. For MGs specifically, you generally don't want a wide field of fire; it just invites your opponent to pile more firepower opposite the MG to silence it. Instead, you want a keyhole -- a narrow strip of coverage that the enemy is forced to cross -- with overlapping coverage from a second, third, fourth, etc. MG to cover the first, mutually supporting. That's when MGs become absolute murder to attacking forces.