Best Man Portable Artillery Piece

[Vanir Ausf B]

ATG movement in-game is more of an abstraction of every condition rather than just assuming level dry ground, because the speed is the same whether the gun is being push up a muddy hill or across a parking lot. Also, the crew never fatigues. Taking those factors into account the movement rate isn't as pessimistic as it appears at first blush.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[Melchior]

I'd trade crew fatigue for higher movement speeds any day. The abstractions against ATGs and machine guns in the game are biased against movement and flexibility they very really did have. A crew just changes everything, take it from someone who pushed 2,000-3,000lb airplanes around a muddy grass airfield for years.

Look how about this. What if instead of giving the player a fixed deploy time, what if the deployment times were a forecast of a readiness time. They'll probably deploy inside that time, they might not. Much could depend on troop quality. 

Edited February 21, 2016 by CaptHawkeye

[LukeFF]

Look how about this. What if instead of giving the player a fixed deploy time, what if the deployment times were a forecast of a readiness time. They'll probably deploy inside that time, they might not. Much could depend on troop quality. 

That's already the case.

[Melchior]

I'm rather clearly not talking about a +/- 5 seconds here Luke. 

[JasonC]

c3k - I understand the hypothetical about a room without any good set up location and so forth, but I regard it as a corner case, and I don't think it should be the rule for e.g. using a US M1919 from a house.  It just didn't take minutes to do that, and in the game it does.

As for what the training standard time I reported was for, it is an artillery MOS skill to deploy a disassembled 50 caliber machinegun to either a tripod or a vehicle mount. The typical task starts with a tripod, barrel, and receiver as 3 separate pieces, along with the cradle-pintel attachment that goes under the receiver, a wrench, and a box of belted 50 caliber ammuntion.  All are arranged reasonably close to the location where the trainee is suppose to set up the gun.  Then the task is (ground mount) -

Place the tripod and stamp down its "feet" into the ground;

Screw the barrel into the receiver and wrench it tight;

Attach the cradle-pintel to the underside of the receiver;

Lift the receiver assembly onto the tripod and lock it down;

Check that the gun is on "safe" or rotate it to safe if it wasn't;

Open the feed tray cover; grab and position the ammo belt, close the feed tray cover;

One pull to the charging handle with controlled return to pull the ammo in.

The gun is now in "condition 2", aka "half load".  That completes the assembly drill.

To fire from condition 2 means one pull and release of the charging handle (full load, condition 1, round in the chamber), rotate the safety to the desired fire position (single or auto); align the sight and depress the spade grips for a half second burst.  Repeat every 5 to 10 seconds depending on the rate of fire called for the shoot.

On a vehicle mount, the required items are on the 'track" (M109 SP 155mm e.g.) and you are climbing outside.  No tripod, instead a pintel receiver on the vehicle.  Ammo in a box attachment that has to be assembled onto the gun after it is seated.  Same allowed time.

You aren't wrestling with furniture in that standard drill.  But you are moving with a purpose and performing tasks you have done many times before, by the time you are being tested on it for time (and no missed steps, "calls out" for checks like the gun being on safe, etc).  Missing any of those or going over on the time and you do it again.  The individual parts are heavy, but the mechanical actions are simple though they do need to be done with some precision.

In the real deal, you get a team to do some of these things, but any one man being able to do it in 30 seconds is required of everyone in the battery.

There have been enough situations in the field artillery's history where that was important, in order to protect the battery position from enemy close attack, that people train to that standard.

Just putting in context what we are actually talking about doing within 30 seconds...

Edited February 22, 2016 by JasonC

[JonS]

c3k - I understand the hypothetical about a room without any good set up location and so forth, but I regard it as a corner case, and I don't think it should be the rule for e.g. using a US M1919 from a house.  It just didn't take minutes to do that, and in the game it does.

You clearly do not understand, since in this context it's not a "corner case", it's the WHOLE case! There is, for just one obvious example, no 'ground' to 'stamp' the tripod into. There's also a striking shortage of vehicle mounts in most buildings.

Edited February 22, 2016 by JonS

[sburke]

 There's also a striking shortage of vehicle mounts in most buildings.

I think there are some municipal bus drivers in SF that could assist with that.  

[JasonC]

JonS - of course it is a corner case.  If I have an M1919 MMG and I need to set it up on a building, I probably can and will use a window mount if I have to get into action quickly.  Would it be better to loophole the wall for a perfect, better protected firing position?  Sure, but I just won't do it if I don't have the time.  

The MG is going to be in action rapidly.  If, after that, the crew can improve the position then they will.  At any break in the action, the siting of the MMG may improve.  

But the place not having a convenient pool table 14 feet from the rear window at just the right angle to cover a certain street is not going to let a German company waltz down that street unmolested.  They might find it easier to molest me back using a window mounting, but then again they may be too busy getting out of the street and scrambling for cover themselves to give me much trouble on that score.

As for the (dense?) remarks about my 50 cal example, I cited it earlier as a typical example of how much one person can do in that period of time, not because it is the exact steps all 6 men of the MG team will be doing when an MG sets up in a building.  All of them busy and moving with a purpose and accomplishing things.  2 guys can be assembling a moved MMG or HMG in well under the cited time, while another sets up the ammo operation and 2 others prepare the position and the team NCO sights what he wants covered and gives directions and so forth.  30 seconds is a lot of time, and 12 hands is a lot of hands.  

As I also mentioned before, what we actually got done in 2 minutes with a team of 6 was prepare a large howitzer for indirect fire.  And no, I'm not citing that because I think you are setting aiming stakes or shooting azimuths inside the room when setting up an MMG, but as a sign of how much a military team working together actually gets done in 2 minutes.  Routinely.

Edited February 22, 2016 by JasonC

[kevinkin]

I wonder if  we need to also factor in the effect of combat stress/incoming fire on the in-game MG set-up times. The game should not use an ideal time from peace time training manuals published in the 90's. How do they reflect the east front experience and the state of those soldiers in a 1944 firefight?  I am not sure how productive it is to discuss in such detail an abstraction-compromise the affects 90 secs or so of game time. But carry on, it is somewhat interesting at that. There does seem to be agreement that manhandling guns is too slow.. 

Kevin

Edited February 22, 2016 by kevinkin

[JonS]

JonS - of course it is a corner case.  If I have an M1919 MMG and I need to set it up on a building, I probably can and will use a window mount if I have to get into action quickly.  Would it be better to loophole the wall for a perfect, better protected firing position?  Sure, but I just won't do it if I don't have the time.  

The MG is going to be in action rapidly.  If, after that, the crew can improve the position then they will.  At any break in the action, the siting of the MMG may improve.  

Dude. You can do that in CM. Now.

WTF are you complaining about again?

Edited February 23, 2016 by JonS

[cool breeze]

It would be cool though if the guys not aiming/loading the machine gun could do most of the mg deployment time while the mg was actively working from the window semi-deployed.  I don't really need them helping with their rifles, Id rather them do the furniture and or loopholes while the mg gunner fights.  Once they finished the gunner could just move to the tripod and "plop" it on.

Edited February 23, 2016 by cool breeze

[JasonC]

JonS - I and others are complaining about things that take comically longer in CM than in real life.  Pushing guns, setting them up, rotating them, setting up crew served weapons, etc. You might try reading the thread.  Or you could stick an index finger in each ear and sing God Save the Queen, I suppose. 

Edited February 23, 2016 by JasonC

[JonS]

But the things you're complaining about - at least in regards to (some, appropriate) MMGs and HMGs - don't exist. In other words; you're complaining about your own imagination, and while there's medication available for that, you probably shouldn't expect it to come as a patch.

In other words; you might try playing the game, since this and many other threads have made it abundantly clear that you are still carrying chips on your oh-so-broad shoulders from CMx1, rather than expounding any useful knowledge of CMx2. Those CMBB days are gone, man. They're gone. Let it go.

Edited February 23, 2016 by JonS

[Warts 'n' all]

JonS - I and others are complaining about things that take comically longer in CM than in real life.  Pushing guns, setting them up, rotating them, setting up crew served weapons, etc. You might try reading the thread.  Or you could stick an index finger in each ear and sing God Save the Queen, I suppose. 

Would that be the Pistols version?

[Melchior]

In other words; you might try playing the game, since this and many other threads have made it abundantly clear that you are still carrying chips on your oh-so-broad shoulders from CMx1, rather than expounding any useful knowledge of CMx2. Those CMBB days are gone, man. They're gone. Let it go.

I never played CMx1, I don't see how it's affecting JasonC's views here. I don't agree with everything the guy says but in this case he's absolutely right about how impractical machine guns and crewed weapons are made by needlessly long deployment times. In game they're statics that can sort of re-position, even though you can watch videos of re-enactors scrambling field guns around like it won't be cool tomorrow. Yeah just not seeing the whole need to cripple heavy weapons here. 

[kevinkin]

Yes but for argument's sake the en-actors are not under fire with there lives on the line and they probably just spent a nice night in a Motel 6. So I would expect the game to incorporate hesitation / "friction" into the code. But, we will be here to the cows return trying to decide what that hesitation should be within a range of 1-2 mins. It would be more insightful if we found a systematic advantage for the Germans or the Soviets which would affect competitive balance. 

Kevin

[Melchior]

And conversely for *our* argument those re-enactors are not veterans who underwent weeks of intensive training doing just this sort of drilling. 

 But, we will be here to the cows return trying to decide what that hesitation should be within a range of 1-2 mins. 

Kevin

So make it an actual range and not arbitrarily long every time. Look, 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB1QaYP_kxk

Yes, fine reenactors fortunate enough to be pulling this drill in the 21st century not actually at the Battle of the Somme. Time from start to deployment was about 28 seconds. Don't you think a 5x increase in that time is a little much over deploying it on the bed? I'll be damned if guys weren't even faster in an actual fight. Pressure has that sort of effect on people who are thoroughly trained. 

 It would be more insightful if we found a systematic advantage for the Germans or the Soviets which would affect competitive balance. 

Kevin

As I thought, "competitive" balance. This is really knee-jerk reaction balance. 

Machine guns > rifles. You want to balance this? Drive the cost/score factor up for the crews and their weapons. I don't know for certain but i'm willing to bet the game doesn't score kills on Flak 36s all that high. Even though that gun was heavier than some tanks and required far more specialized crew. Very valuable weapon system that the Germans would frequently risk at the front, but at their own peril. So make that the player's peril. Once it's found it becomes an objective in and of itself. Killing it might alone turn the attacker's situation from "Minor Victory" to "Major Victory". You see what i'm getting at here? 

Edited February 23, 2016 by CaptHawkeye

[A Canadian Cat]

As I thought, "competitive" balance. This is really knee-jerk reaction balance. 

Nope.  I realize you think you are right and the setup times are too long.  Sorry I do not have first hand experience but other people, who have, put some thought into this.  BFC disagrees with you based on that experience.  I think it is a valid argument for someone with experience to attempt to claim the setup times are incorrect but to jump further to saying that the times are some gamey force balance choice by BFC is simply not correct.  At least as far as I can tell.

So rally the troops and show examples - convince BFC that they need to tweak it.  Just saying "its wrong cause I said so" over and over has run its course - IMHO.

 

[JasonC]

kevinkin - the desire to not get killed to death is a remarkably strong motivator.  Motivate, as in cause to move with a purpose and with speed.  No motel 6 required.  No, people aren't going to move slower in combat than in training.  Might they make more mistakes or skip a step?  I suppose, yes.  Or a member of the team might have more urgent things to worry about, like not bleeding to death or something similar.  But other than that, no it isn't going to take 4 times longer to do something that you've been trained to do and have done repeatedly, that your life will depend on doing rapidly right now, just because someone is shooting at you.

[JasonC]

CaptHawkeye - hmm, 28 seconds, 30 second training standard in the US Army, what are the chances?  

It is almost like there is an actual time these things take, and that we don't need to just make things up...

[kevinkin]

There is a huge variability in the way soldiers behave under fire. Using training ground numbers is misleading. One motivation is cowering and avoiding fire to stay alive. Doing something rapidly disregarding situational awareness can be deadly. Our troops are not supposed to be perfectly fearless. Jason, make a table of what you think set up times for a few representative MGs should be under various tactical situations. Compare them to what they are now with the current code. Let's see how much the new recommended set ups times will impact the fire fights we are simulating. Thanks. 

Kevin

Edited February 23, 2016 by kevinkin

[poesel]

Since a lot of the setup depends on the given circumstances we could try to lobby BFC for more randomized setup times.

Use the current time as maximum and deduct 0-59 seconds for example (modify range by experience for extra realism ). I don't think anyone would complain about that except for Charles who has to program it.

[Melchior]

Nope.  I realize you think you are right and the setup times are too long.  Sorry I do not have first hand experience but other people, who have, put some thought into this.  BFC disagrees with you based on that experience.  I think it is a valid argument for someone with experience to attempt to claim the setup times are incorrect but to jump further to saying that the times are some gamey force balance choice by BFC is simply not correct.  At least as far as I can tell.

So rally the troops and show examples - convince BFC that they need to tweak it.  Just saying "its wrong cause I said so" over and over has run its course - IMHO.

 

Where's BFC? All I see here is you acting like the self appointed attorney for them, again. If you want pictures and evidence of overlong deploy times i'll provide them in due time. Just as long as we both understand here that we're not really doing this for BFC's sake, but yours. 

[Michael Emrys]

All I see here is you acting like the self appointed attorney for them, again. 

Really? So Ian is not to be allowed to have an opinion or to express it merely because he opposes your own? You might want to step back and rethink what you are saying and how you say it, but that's up to you.

Michael

[Melchior]

Joke is that's not what I said.