Has this happened to you?

[superwoz]

A skirmish with the Germans vs. the Brits; I have a 3 man team in a house consisting of an MP40, MG42 and a Kar98. During the firefight my Kar98 and MP40 solders and killed. Shortly thereafter there is a lull in the fighting so the 42 gunner had time to buddy aid and retrieve some ammo (but not all weapons). He then burns up the rest of the 7.92mm ammo leaving him 165rds of 9mm but no MP40?! Yeah I know he has a P38 but it’s not the same.

This glaring deficiency in SMG and assault rifle retrieval has been posted on the forum many times yet the problem persists. Yes I understand that it is theoretically possible that the SMG was damaged somehow but we’ll never know because the game currently won’t allow the collection of SMG’s or assault rifles (unless it is a soldier who is caring only a pistol). Because solders that only have side arms will collect SMG’s and assault rifles we know that it is physically possible for this to process to happen, consequently, this is nothing more than a settings issue.

A MG solider will use his MG for long and medium distance and switch to a pistol for short range. There isn’t a good reason why a rifle solider can’t retrieve an SMG or assault rifle and use them in tandem based on range and ammo content. This issue affects all armies so everyone should be on board with a settings correction.

Discussing this issue on the forum has become palling. Will someone on the BFCM staff PLEASE correct the weapon priority parameters on the 3.0 engine and next 3.0 patch so this issue will be fixed once and for all!

Then I can finally go back to worshiping the CM God again.

[YankeeDog]

You must play with very high quality, high morale troops; I don't think I have ever seen the last man standing of a 3-man team do much more than run in a panic for the rear and and then surrender once the enemy closed the distance.

[JasonC]

Yet again we have someone confusing CM with a first person shooter. Next people will ask for power ups and extra lives when they shoot an enemy tank...

[Holman]

This glaring deficiency in SMG and assault rifle retrieval has been posted on the forum many times yet the problem persists. Yes I understand that it is theoretically possible that the SMG was damaged somehow but we’ll never know because the game currently won’t allow the collection of SMG’s or assault rifles (unless it is a soldier who is caring only a pistol). Because solders that only have side arms will collect SMG’s and assault rifles we know that it is physically possible for this to process to happen, consequently, this is nothing more than a settings issue.

Historically, it has been shown that apparently easy things can actually be very difficult at the level of code.

[Pete Wenman]

There isn’t a good reason why a rifle solider can’t retrieve an SMG or assault rifle and use them in tandem based on range and ammo content

You mean there isn't a good reason, other than it being historically inaccurate to do so ?

P

[Nidan1]

Germans vs. Brits....which game are you talking about, this is the Red Thunder forum, no Brits here...in the game I mean.

[sburke]

Germans vs. Brits....which game are you talking about, this is the Red Thunder forum, no Brits here...in the game I mean.

He posted in all 3 just to make sure he got your attention. I didn't look at CMSF . . .

[Pelican Pal]

This glaring deficiency in SMG and assault rifle retrieval has been posted on the forum many times yet the problem persists. Yes I understand that it is theoretically possible that the SMG was damaged somehow but we’ll never know because the game currently won’t allow the collection of SMG’s or assault rifles (unless it is a soldier who is caring only a pistol). Because solders that only have side arms will collect SMG’s and assault rifles we know that it is physically possible for this to process to happen, consequently, this is nothing more than a settings issue.

A MG solider will use his MG for long and medium distance and switch to a pistol for short range. There isn’t a good reason why a rifle solider can’t retrieve an SMG or assault rifle and use them in tandem based on range and ammo content. This issue affects all armies so everyone should be on board with a settings correction.

I will say that I would like men to pickup SMGs, semi-auto rifles, and assault rifles more often when they are buddy-aiding someone. It is frustrating to have the G43, SVT, MP40, or PPSH in a squad go down and a soldier keep is bolt action rifle.

However, only in very rare circumstances would a solider acquire two primary weapons and switch between them. This is especially true of relatively heavy weapons like a light machine gun.

An MG34 weighs 26.7 lb while an MP40 weighs 8.75 lb. This is in addition to ammo and other equipment that is needed. The soldier then has to deal with holding onto both weapons at the same time. These are heavy weapons and these are generally very bulky weapons. It is one thing to have a pistol in your holster and another to have an MP40 (or other rifle) slung on you.

[DavidFields]

You mean there isn't a good reason, other than it being historically inaccurate to do so ?

P

This, plus the FPS comment. My understanding is that most soldiers become somewhat attached to their particular weapon--which they have maintained and know how to use it. The idea of picking up another's gun, much less of a different type than one usually uses....I am sure it happened, but my guess is that it would be an outlier. Maybe for the heavy weapon in the squad.....maybe....but to take an SMG off of a dead body and immediately use it effectively....would take a "presence of mind" which might not be common.

And the tone of the OP? Even if there were a CM2 problem, I am not a fan of the approach. (and think the responders have been admirably polite)

[YankeeDog]

Sure; buried under all of the OP's histrionics, there are some valid (albeit minor) points.

At least in the case of units in good order with good morale, it would be nice if the individual soldier AI was smart enough that a soldier with an MG42, but no 7.92mm ammo, might have the presence of mind to pick up to an MP40 nearby with ammo and start using it.

As I mentioned above, though, every time I've seen a unit get into a situation like this it's usually taken so many casualties and in such a poor morale state that I don't really expect much in the way of rational behavior from it anyway. So this is not an issue I consider very important.

Another time issues like this sometimes crop up is if one of the squad types with only one SMG takes an unlucky solo casualty early in the fight, and this casualty happens to be the SMG. In this case, the squad is usually still in pretty good order (probably only "Cautious" or at worst "Nervous"), and theoretically, it would be nice if the AI was "smart" enough to recognize that it's important for a squad to keep a variety of weapons in its loadout, so dropping one of the (many) rifles and having someone pick up the only SMG might be a good idea.

But again, it's not something I lose sleep over. If my whole tactical plan falls apart because one soldier is using a rifle or a pistol rather than an SMG, I really don't think the majority of the blame for my defeat lies with that soldier.

[JasonC]

YD - why do you think he even knows how?

I also love the notion that a K98 isn't really any real weapon, even for a person who has used one continually. Um, care stand in front of me at anything under about 200 yards and repeat that, when I have one?

All the infantry small arms are deadly weapons in the hands of anyone who actually knows how to use them, and is brave enough to actually do so under fire. None of them are so useless they need to be just chucked aside for something else. And if any of them are useless, it would be the SMGs, if the range is long enough. Or a pistol, I suppose.

Sure, an actual belt fed MG is a cut above all the personal arms. But that's really about it.

Any of the others, the guy sees you, knows what he is doing with that specific weapon, and is brave enough to fire calmly - he can hit you.

You know what the actual most important factors are if we stipulate that the shooter knows his weapon and is brave enough to fire calmly? Just stance. A K98 firing prone supported will outrange and outshoot any of the other weapons you guys are worrying over, firing standing unsupported. By miles. Not even close.

[Pelican Pal]

I also love the notion that a K98 isn't really any real weapon, even for a person who has used one continually. Um, care stand in front of me at anything under about 200 yards and repeat that, when I have one?

All the infantry small arms are deadly weapons in the hands of anyone who actually knows how to use them, and is brave enough to actually do so under fire. None of them are so useless they need to be just chucked aside for something else. And if any of them are useless, it would be the SMGs, if the range is long enough. Or a pistol, I suppose.

Semi-auto rifles like the SVT, M1 Garand, and G43 are all a clear cut above their bolt action counterparts though. The same can be said for the STG 44.

SMGs are really useful although I think that the way CM handles squad movement makes them too effective. An average CM squad will have at most 2 meters of spacing between each man and will be traveling in a column or "tactical blob" regardless of the situation. So a burst of SMG fire will result in multiple hits and is essentially as effective as an LMG in ranges around 100 meters.

Generally speaking I believe that particularities in CMs infantry modelling make bolt action weapons very ineffective compared to nearly any other weapon on the field of battle. Primarily these are the capability for players to push their infantry into extremely close range which heavily favors higher ROF, and the tendency for CM troops to move in tactical blobs which also favors putting more bullets out more quickly.

[YankeeDog]

YD - why do you think he even knows how?

No sure of the context in which you intended this -- the soldier's aptitude with various small arms, perhaps?

I know less about the details of non-U.S. combat infantry training, but most U.S. combat infantry did receive least rudimentary training in how to handle all of the major weapons of the rifle squad, if not in basic then in theatre after being assigned to a combat unit. I don't know for sure, but I think it's a fair SWAG that training for other nationalities was similar.

So I think it's reasonable to assume that at least soldiers of Regular quality and higher carrying e.g., an MG42 but no ammo for same would theoretically be capable of stripping a nearby corpse of an MP40 and 9mm clips and using the new weapon with at least a basic level of competence.

But again, as far as the game is concerned I really don't see this as a significant issue because by the time a soldier has gotten into a situation where he's (a) surrounded by the dead bodies and cast off weapons of his comrades, and ( completely out of ammo for his primary weapon, he's usually in such a poor morale state that I don't expect heroics from him; I'm pretty happy if he just keeps his s*it together enough to not surrender.

I do think it would be nice to someday to have the soldier/small unit AI tweaked so that total squad weapon weapons loadout was a consideration in what weapons are picked up via Buddy Aid. IMHO, squads should "like" to keep at least one SMG around, just as they now "like" to keep at least one SAW around. However, they also should not "want" too many of either; the bulk of the squad should always stick with their basic rifle. Ideally, the AI should favor one or two each of SMGs & SAWs per squad, but no squads should end up with 3+ SMGs or SAWs due to Buddy Aid except for specialized units like SMG infantry whose basic weapon is something other than a rifle (I have seen units end up with 2 and even 3 SAWs due to Buddy Aid; it's rare, but it can happen).

But this a tertiary concern for me, at best. Bren tripods might be higher on my list.

[JasonC]

YD - yes, skill with the different weapons is what I meant, you understood me correctly.

There is a very big difference between rudimentary familiarity with a firearm and actually hitting with one consistently. For the second, lots of experience firing that specific firearm - even beyond type, knowing exactly were the sights "are" for that specific rifle - makes a big difference. But certainly with the specific type.

If CM modeling thinks a bolt rifle is ineffective, so much the worse for CM modeling, not for bolt rifles. Bolt rifles are deadly accurate. There is a reason high end sniper weapons remain bolt rifles to this day, and why they remain the staple weapon of hunters on every continent.

What I see in this thread is players who think they understand small arms, and whose understanding consists of thinking rate of fire is the only important thing, dismissing the importance of accuracy, reliability, skill, familiarity etc - all as trained into them by FPS video games or mismodeling, here or elsewhere. Without even being aware that is what they are doing,

What I am saying is that our pixetruppen don't need to drop their Mausers so much as some of our players - maybe a designer too, I am open to that - need to pick one up sometime. And try it out. It should revise their opinions of how quickly our pixeltruppen would want to chuck theirs.

[Holman]

I've killed lots of pixel enemies with pixel bolt rifles in CM. As has been pointed out, however, CM scenarios tend to favor short range engagements where automatic weapons decide the issue quickly.

[YankeeDog]

If CM modeling thinks a bolt rifle is ineffective, so much the worse for CM modeling, not for bolt rifles. Bolt rifles are deadly accurate. There is a reason high end sniper weapons remain bolt rifles to this day, and why they remain the staple weapon of hunters on every continent.

Scenario design and the types of battles that CM players like to play is definitely part of it; CM scenarios are not a representative sample of WWII combat.

In addition, though, I think the reason many players find bolt-action rifles less effective in CMx2 has as much to do with how people play the game as anything else. Many CM players seem to be in a big hurry to win and I also see a lot of players with a strong desire to execute dashing, exciting tactics -- rapid flanking moves, close assault, etc. These high-risk, high-reward tactics tend to favor infantry with close-range, high ROF weapons. And while such tactics can work, they're not necessarily the most consistently successful tactics in the game.

IME, in a pure infantry fight, once you've uncovered the enemy positions, if you're patient and sit back with your bolt action rifles and SAWs in the 200-300m range, you can easily outshoot SMG-heavy infantry, eventually attriting and routing them. Of course, the SMG infantry can hide in the forests and buildings to cut down the potential engagement range, but then there's often a way to bypass them.

SMGs and SMG infantry have their place, but if you want to control the battlefield in an infantry fight, you need ranged fire.

[Nidan1]

Consider the fact as to how the tactics of infantry combat have changed both during and since WW2. All the nations entered the conflict with bolt action infantry weapons, and probably trained their soldiers to be as proficient as possible with the rifle that they would be carrying into combat. Timed, accurate infantry fire, at range, was considered to be desirable. The bolt action or semi-auto rifles fulfilled that notion.

Early in the Pacific War Marine Corps infantry still carried the bolt action Springfield, which was replaced by the M-1 sometime after the Guadalcanal campaign. The Americans were the only ones with a semi-auto infantry weapon for all soldiers.

Automatic weapons were usually carried by specialized troops in most armies, early in the war, and as has been said before it is not a stretch to believe that infantry troops had some knowledge and rudimentary proficiency with Mp-40s, Thompsons, and early models of Russsian SMGs. As late as 1944 some German "Erzatz" infantry formations around Arnhem were armed with obsolete Italian Baretta 38a SMGs because they were not considered to be "front line" units.

In CM, Russian SMG units are deadly, but you have to get them into closer combat ranges to take advantage of that effect. At some point in the war, the "amount of bullets going out" became more desirable than the "accuracy of the bullets going out". This concept is still in effect today, and only snipers usually carrying a bolt action weapon.

In CM at closer ranges in urban and bocage type environments the automatic weapons and MGs keep infantry pinned, and allow for more accurate mortar fire to cause the casualties.

CM models this quite nicely I think. In a QB if you load up on Russian SMG units, you are going to have to close very tightly with your German opponent, or sit back and wait for him to come to you, to take advantage of all that firepower. With the advent of the MP44, the AK47 and the M-16 and then all the auto weapons that have entered service since, most armies completely discarded the notion of accuracy for the concept of sending as much lead downrange as possible.

Good accurate, longer range rifle fire still has its place in CM, a combination of accuracy and volume will lead to sucess in most engagements.

[JasonC]

"most armies completely discarded the notion of accuracy for the concept of sending as much lead downrange as possible."

Not quite. They first turned accuracy into a specialist function - and then later they turned it into a technology and training thing. (Red dots for aimed snap fire, heavily drilled, etc). But this isn't because sending as much lead downrange as possible is actually better at hitting men at the other end than accuracy is. It isn't. It actually reflects a shift in the role of infantry within combined arms tactics, a downward shift in their maximum effective range, and an emphasis on suppression, not actually hitting people, when they fire.

Basically, the shift to carbine caliber select fire weapons went along with infantry holding their fire completely down to quite short ranges, letting other weapons - crew served MGs, mortars, indirect fire, heavy vehicles - fire at anything more distant. This is about maintaining stealth and infantry serving as eyes for other weapons, as much as anything about actual fire effectiveness.

Then inside those very short range engagements, under 100 yards, armies found that volume of fire simply suppressed the enemy and reducing their outgoing, faster than actual hits could accumulate to physically stop enemy fire. To be blunt, scaring the crap out of the other guys impacts the battlefield faster than actually shooting them all, and lots of loud fire does that more than accurate, single shots.

If you actually want to shoot them and put them down permanently, not just make them duck, a bolt rifle - or any accurate select fire or semi auto firing single carefully aimed shots, does better and always has. Spray and pray is what modern soldiers call the attempt to get hits by just firing a lot, and it is a term of derision used to describe a common mistake of amateurs.

A full belt fed MG can give you both, to be sure.

[ridethe415]

One reason why soldiers don't switch weapons at will...You are responsible for the weapon you were issued.

This is current day info, but I am sure regardless of the military, you don't report back with a different weapon.

From a US Army officer in 2010:

It matters. Oh good heavens, does it matter. You cannot imagine the hell you would catch if you lost your weapon (or had it mixed up with someone else's). Generally speaking, you can catch this early by yourself, since your weapon has more distinguishing features than just the serial number.

The very smallest punishment for misplacing a weapon, if it's found within a reasonable amount of time, is a "Company Grade Article 15." That means you can lose one grade of rank, a week of pay, and two weeks of extra duty. If that's all you lost, you got off very, very lightly.

Accountability and personal responsibility for your equipment is something the military takes so seriously it's not even funny. Because if there's a fight, and you don't have your weapon, then you're a huge liability to everyone.

source link

Sure, Corporal Steiner did pick up a PPsh in the opening scene of Cross of Iron...and guys may have picked up other weapons, but generally I think you stuck with what you were issued.

[Pelican Pal]

I have a MN 91/30 (thanks Russian surplus!) and it is a reliable, accurate, and generally powerful weapon. I wouldn't deride it as a ****ty weapon at all.

However, as a CM player it is something I don't want my men to have. Really it comes down to how squads move and spread out. In reality an infantry squad should have something like 5-10 meters between each man. So an average German squad would cover between 40 and 80 meters and an average Russian squad would cover between 50 and 100 meters of terrain. While in CM both of these squads will cover 10-20 meters of terrain with maybe a little more than a meter between each man. Quite often these men are in tight column with less than a meter distance between each man.

Or you have men fighting in a house and have 4+ men at a single window.

There are a plethora of circumstances like this where troops bunch up absurdly tightly.

In these cases a single burst of automatic fire can easily cause 50% casualties if not more. Something a bolt action rifle could never hope to do.

[JasonC]

PP - so let's fix the game, not drive trucks through its bugs...

[Nidan1]

Once again we have the strange behavior of a poster planting a request that has obviously garnered some debate pro and con, and never coming back to re-post or comment on what has been said by others. In three forums to boot.

You would think that superwoz would at least comment on the two additional pages of posts in this forum. I find that to be the supremely weird, but that's just me. Maybe I have too much time on my hands, or maybe I'm weird to think this way.

[sburke]

Well you do frequent the peng thread if that helps answer the question

[Pelican Pal]

Unfortunately I don't think it is a currently fixable problem. The action square system exists to cut down on the processing requirements of the game and doing any sort of expansion will increase the PC requirements to run the game.

I would be interested in seeing how the game played if we were able to split squads into fireteams and fireteams into buddy teams.

[Nidan1]

Well you do frequent the peng thread if that helps answer the question

Hmmmm. sometimes the dialogue in there seems more normal. I will have to ponder that.