CM WWII: Are tanks "overpowered"?

[Kaunitz]

When I was thinking about house rules for quickbattle-setups, I also noticed how many advantages the CM engine seems to give to tanks in the WWII setting, particularly in quickbattles. Let's discuss!

Here are the points why I think tanks are overly strong in CM: 

• broken fortifications (in reality, there was not much a tank could do against infantry in a foxhole/trench, other than trying to "burry" it by spinning around over the foxhole or throwing grenades from hatches; in CM, you can just lob a few shells at the infantry, job done)
• totally overpriced tank obstacles and AT mines, no AT ditches
• borg-spotting/area-fire which helps tanks a lot (the main weakness of tanks was their limited vision; this weakness is inexistent because players can let their tanks area fire at targets the crew has not spotted)
• almost total lack of anti-tank close combat means (in most formations, AT grenades come in ridiculously low numbers; there are neither Molotov cocktails nor mines to be carried on the men - satchel charges are only available to dedicated engineer units).
• lack of a "reinforcement" mechanic in quickbattles, so that a player can manoeuver freely with his tanks once he is certain that he has defeated the opponents (anti)tank assets. There is no risk of new, dangerous units showing up.
• Also, I'd sometimes wish that "underpowered" AT assets would actively attempt to stop "overarmored" tanks by actively targeting their tracks. I prefer an immobilised tank over a tank which has been hit by a deflecting shell (with a tiny or inexistent chance of penetration).

In combination, the following points lead to a loss of immersion/realism and also to a loss of viable tactics. For example, when advancing in combination with tanks, attacking infantry could still be engaged by the defending infantry, because the defenders would have more protection from their fortifications and the tanks would still have troubles to identify targets. So the defenders could try to fend off the tanks' infantry support (note that this usually only works on realistically large maps on which the attacker needs to advance in the open for some distance). If advancing without infantry, tanks could only "pass through" defending infantry, but not defeat it all alone as it is the case right now.  

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by Kaunitz

[SimpleSimon]

They're underpowered if you ask me. The tank was the war's most decisive ground weapon, and there's a reason Russian Tank Armies crashing through the Fulda Gap were among the greatest fears of Western leaders until the Curtain fell owing to the fact that honestly, there wasn't much you could do to stop  a big enough horde of tanks. The Russians knew that just as well as the Germans who knew it before everyone else in 1940. 

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

• broken fortifications (in reality, there was not much a tank could do against infantry in a foxhole/trench, other than trying to "burry" it by spinning around over the foxhole or throwing grenades from hatches; in CM, you can just lob a few shells at the infantry, job done)

Tanks were literally designed to defeat infantry fortifications. It is legit their most basic job which is why so many tanks were armed with nothing but a machine gun or fixed gun in a casemate. Frontline fortifications were overrun all the time by tanks and yes usually by them just bombarding the enemy position until the enemy was dead. 

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

• borg-spotting/area-fire which helps tanks a lot (the main weakness of tanks was their limited vision; this weakness is inexistent because players can let their tanks area fire at targets the crew has not spotted)

Tanks have built binocular vision and radios, these are a pair of two honest to god superpowers compared to Private Timmy and his Mk1 Eyeball and outdoor voice. 

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

• almost total lack of anti-tank close combat means (in most formations, AT grenades come in ridiculously low numbers; there are neither Molotov cocktails nor mines to be carried on the men - satchel charges are only available to dedicated engineer units).

Infantry anti-tank assaults are usually described as heroic events and as a result those are the ones you hear about the most. The reason you hear about the successful ones is because you rarely hear about all the times that failed and the attacking infantry were murdered by the tank's wingman because in reality infantry close assault on armor was a suicidally dangerous thing for infantry to do before shaped charge projectors showed up. 

10 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

• Also, I'd sometimes wish that "underpowered" AT assets would actively attempt to stop "overarmored" tanks by actively targeting their tracks. I prefer an immobilised tank over a tank which has been hit by a deflecting shell (with a tiny or inexistent chance of penetration).

Most AT weapons are hard enough pressed to hit the tank they're shooting at to begin with unless it's very close to them by which point it's more than likely curtains for your Pak40 crew. Do you know how big something even the size of a Tiger looks in a sight at 500 yards or 1000 even? 

Biggest problem with tanks in CM is that they're overused. Too many scenarios have them and then further that problem by then having too many in the scenario. They're too commonly encountered in most of the games and this sort of a has a fatiguing effect on players after a while but really I think they're too easy to kill or disable in most of the games. In reality there wasn't much 99% of men in an army, armed with a rifle and spade, could do against 30 tons of cannon, machine guns and murder and everyone knew it. During and after the war it was apparent that the only thing that could stop a large enough army of tanks was...another army of tanks and if you don't believe me brew yourself up a coffee and grab some reading on the Fulda Gap and an order of battle for Group Soviet Forces Germany. 

[Kaunitz]

I think our ideas of the overall capabilities of tanks differ a bit. To get us on the same page, I'd want to emphasize again that It's about WWII tanks, not Cold War era or even more modern tanks. 

Of course tanks were equipped with sights. But the more you zoom in, the more you lose in terms of peripheral vision. If you zoom in, you only see a tiny part of the world outside. Apart from the sights, your only other option in a buttoned-up tank are vision blocks/slits - these were usually fired upon by infantry. So I stand by the point that buttoned up tanks were pretty blind for their more immediate surroundings, which is exactly where it gets dangerous (can't lower your weapons!). As far as we know, CM features an indepth system to simulate the vision of individual crew members, but then fails to capitalize on this awesome feature by allowing players to let their tank (area) fire at targets that the tank crew has not spotted. 

Of course attacking a tank in close combat is a risky, suicidal thing. If I had god powers and could change CM in any way I wanted, no matter how diffult, I'd give tanks a psychological impact (+X to suppression meter if within X m of enemy tank). Objectively, we'd need to present figures how often these assaults occured, and in what circumstances. I'm not sure whether either of us has the expertise or the time for that (if such statistics even exist...). I could only search for anecdotal ""evidence"" in the eyewitness accounts/memoirs I own, and may add some to this thread when I feel like it and find the time. But I can imagine that engaging enemy infantry in close combat without friendly infantry support was not a very happy situation for tankers either, so retreating might have been a more comfortable solution (in which case no assaults are neccesary in the first place...). By shaped charge projectors you mean bazookas, panzerschrecks, panzerfausts, AT rifle grenades? 

It depends, but I also think that tanks are probably a bit overused in CM. I guess it's the "tabletop" effect: players just want to have a little bit of everything in their little armies. A well "rounded" force, so to speak. This does not always seem very plausible from a realism point of view but is quite understandable. But full tank platoons/troops in support of an attack are not that unreasonable anymore. StuGs in particular seem to have been attached on infantry even in individual vehicles quite commonly.

I don't see how the point about Paks being unable to hit tanks is relevant to the topic.

 

PS: Just for your entertainment, here are two WWI clips on anti tank close combat. I don't post them as proof. I rather believe that their existence testifies the tanks' psychological effect on infantry. 

https://youtu.be/9iL_6IyH9gs (canadian/Walt Disney)

https://youtu.be/uonceDBABAQ (german)

 

[Hapless]

My quick 2p: I don't have any problems with tanks in CM, I think almost all of the issues you raise have tactical solutions. Or to put it another way, don't the situations you describe imply that something has gone wrong somewhere?
 

13 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

borg-spotting/area-fire which helps tanks a lot

Why are defensive positions exposed to direct fire at all, never mind direct fire from tanks? If the defensive plan is to engage in a slugfest with a superior enemy force, what is the purpose of these positions (delay, attrite, destroy, bait?) and how are they sited to achieve that purpose?

13 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

almost total lack of anti-tank close combat

How has enemy armour advanced to infantry close assault range? Is the infantry too far forward? Are the anti-tank assets not set up effective? There are plenty of infantry tools (bazooka, PIAT, faust, shreck) capable of dealing with enemy armour- are these weapons effectively distributed or protected until they are needed?

13 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

player can manoeuver freely with his tanks once he is certain that he has defeated the opponents (anti)tank assets

If all friendly AT assets are gone then something has definitely gone seriously wrong! But how would the enemy know that he can operate unopposed? Where was the AT reserve?

13 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

I'd sometimes wish that "underpowered" AT assets would actively attempt to stop "overarmored" tanks

Why are underpowered AT assets engaging overarmoured targets? If they're underpowered, what was the plan to use them effectively? Cumulative subsystem damage from non-penetrating hits isn't a trivial problem: tanks with no optics and no radios are a lot less effective.

Maybe a different angle on the issue.

Fortification issues are a different kettle of fish, but from a strictly (potentially unrealistic) gameplay perspective I would rather have ineffective or overly expensive fortifications than time consuming trench clearing operations, map spanning minefields and impenetrable walls of anti-tank obstacles.

[Kaunitz]

Hey Hapless! I love your videos. And I've linked your video about "Bunkers for dummies" many times in many forums.  Many of your questions are linked to each other, so let me present my thoughts summarily. 

Positions become "exposed" to direct tank fire once the enemy has beaten your long range AT assets and can therefore let his armor advance far enough to get LOFs on your enfilade defensive positions. Must something have gone "wrong" for this to happen? I don't know. Sometimes you lose the long range tank combat, sometimes you win. It's also (not exclusively, of course) a matter of luck and force selection. You've bought many smaller calibre ATGs and the enemy shows up with 1 Tiger. Good luck with keeping the Tiger at bay (if you find a way please tell me )! You've bought a single large calibre ATG? Now you are more of a threat to the Tiger, if your gun is positioned on what happens to be the right side of the map and can see the Tiger that is! Unfortunately, good ATG positions are preferred targets for speculative arty barrages, and you can't do a lot to protect the ATG. Fortifications are not reliably, and moving the ATG into position only once the shelling is over is bad as the gun loses its camouflage bonus (and also it might be too late!). And if your enemy brings 6 light tanks instead of 1 Tiger, then good luck with your single ATG. 

This is also the reason why underpowered AT assets sometimes need to engage overarmored tanks. As demonstrated above, sometimes your (A)T force selection is no match for your opponent's (A)T force selection. This doesn't mean that your force selection is neccessarily bad. Just that it is bad against this or that combination, and good against other combinations. (A)T force selection is often guesswork and can have a big impact on games. From my own experience and also from watching CM AARs, I often get the impression that (anti)tank duels are decided one way or the other at some point. There is hardly ever a stand-off that lasts until the end of the game - at some point the attacker will need to attack and both players have to show their cards. This decision then quickly shifts the balance of the game. The idea for this thread here is also to make games last and stay interesting beyond this point. If the attacker is out-armored by the defender, then it's obviously game over. But a defender could very reasonably keep kicking from his prepared defensive positions, try to seperate the tanks from the infantry. Under the current conditions, I think this is not possible.

 

PS: Forgot to add the american "Crack that tank" video: https://youtu.be/EngDMNRoqvE

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Kaunitz

[MikeyD]

I just did a test, ordered my bog standard CMRT Russian infantry to close assault a Stug III. Lo and behold, one of them tosses an RPG 43 at the tank and knock it out! Apparently RPG 43 is listed generically among 'grenades' in the weapons menu.

 

[nik mond]

Grenade attacks on tanks are very effective in this game. The grenades represent an inclusion of RPG, gammon bombs, stick bundles in the mix in which case its possible to disable a tank, or KO. Although anti personnel frags shouldn't do anything to a tank that's buttoned. It often comes down to last tank standing. But they still have to keep their distance from infantry to stay alive. Its difficult to maneuver suicidal infantry attacks on a tank but there are ways with a little distraction and luck.

[MikeyD]

A lot of frustration with the CM engine comes from its low tolerance for movie-style heroics. The tactic of "I'll just run up to the enemy and..." or "I'll just hide here and..."  tends to meet with failure. Because being reliant on  you opponent's slow response time or inability to spot practically guarantees that he'll have a quick response and you will get immediately spotted. Its Murphy's Law in action.

[Ithikial_AU]

Tanks may just feel overpowered partly due to the timeframe the WW2 CM titles portray. 1944-45 means:

- Radios in each vehicle allowing them to share spotting information is common.

- Most front line armour has 75mm or greater main guns.

- Ammunition loadouts can cover most circumstances a tank will find itself in whether it's going up against enemy infantry, fortifications, enemy armour etc.

- Most nations have infantry held AT weaponary. Bazookas, PIATs, 'schecks, and 'fausts.

This is all a combination of years of hard fought experience the different armies had endured before the time period of the CM games is reached. Though there are in some ways exceptions to this such as the early CMFI period or comparing the fight against German infantry in Normandy vs the Bulge with the latter being more risky due to longer range panzerfauts being standard.

 

It's part of the reason I'd love to see an early war title one day where all these problems with equipment and doctrine were being sorted out. For instance:

- "Pfft, you don't need a radio in every tank!" Spotting information can't be as readily shared between comrades unless the tanks are unbottoned and within visual range. I'm thinking early Soviets here.

- "Pfft, this 2 pounder main gun will cut through anything the enemy will throws at us."

- Some vehicles going into battle with only solid AP shot and smoke rounds.

- "So you want me to fire this AT rifle continuously at what now?"

Just some of the new problems a player would face in a 1941 era title. Not to mention you'd fear a Panzer IV appearing on the horizon.

 

If you want a greater challenge with armour in current titles push into the 1945 and take them into urban environments. Good luck.

 

Or you play the modern titles where it's largely a case of:

"Mind that Abrams"

"What Abrams?"

<Bang>

[Bozowans]

I do agree that tanks are overpowered, but everything else is overpowered too IMO. I don't think this is an issue with tanks alone. Foxholes don't provide that much cover from even small arms fire. There is not enough fog of war in the game. For one thing, they never managed to replicate what they did in the CMx1 engine, where the game would deliberately mislead you about where enemy units are. If an enemy unit was firing at you at long range, a little 3D soldier model named "sound contact" would appear somewhere, but it might appear dozens of meters away from where the actual unit really is. So if you were taking long range MG fire from a cluster of buildings off in the distance, you would not be able to tell which building they are firing from. You can try plastering the location of the sound contact with HE fire from tanks and artillery, but once you get closer, you might find that the enemy unit is in a slightly different location completely untouched.

In CMx2, if an enemy sniper fires just one single shot, you can pinpoint his exact location easily and order every single one of your units to mass fire on that exact spot in the next turn. Real life wars on the other hand seem awfully boring and confusing most of the time, with firefights consisting of hours of ineffectual and mindless shooting in the general direction of the enemy, with the outcomes decided more by morale than anything else. Both sides will put on a big display of noise and shooting until one side cracks, thinks they are going to lose, and then they run away. In CM, units are not allowed to rout off the map, and every battle is a brutal fight to the death with enormous casualties. Battles in CM are decided more by fire superiority and destroying the enemy as completely as you can. 

I think the tank issue can be solved if the game just had more mystery to it. Enemy locations and unit types need to be much more vague. You should not be able to tell that an enemy unit 1000m away is an HQ team located in that one precise action spot. You should only have a general idea that there is enemy infantry "over there" somewhere. That way, battles would be decided by throwing suppressing fire over a large area and then assaulting up close, instead of pinpointing the exact action spot the enemy is located in and then just hammering it with HE fire from tanks and artillery until everyone is dead.

[Kaunitz]

6 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I just did a test, ordered my bog standard CMRT Russian infantry to close assault a Stug III. Lo and behold, one of them tosses an RPG 43 at the tank and knock it out! Apparently RPG 43 is listed generically among 'grenades' in the weapons menu.

 

6 hours ago, nik mond said:

Grenade attacks on tanks are very effective in this game. The grenades represent an inclusion of RPG, gammon bombs, stick bundles in the mix in which case its possible to disable a tank, or KO. Although anti personnel frags shouldn't do anything to a tank that's buttoned. It often comes down to last tank standing. But they still have to keep their distance from infantry to stay alive. Its difficult to maneuver suicidal infantry attacks on a tank but there are ways with a little distraction and luck.

I was aware that the soviet AT teams had special grenades that do not show up anywhere in the UI (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/133362-tiny-details-you-might-have-missed/. But I didn't know that all infantry units have them? If so, I have to delete that point from my list.  Hold my beer, I need to run a few tests...

3 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

Tanks may just feel overpowered partly due to the timeframe the WW2 CM titles portray.

I'd also love to see an early war title some day!  For example, I love all the goofy stuff the Italians have in Fortress Italy. But generally speaking, I think that players can coordinate tanks and infantry too easily in CM. It's not just related to area-firing at targets the tank crew is unaware of. It's also about reacting to friendly and enemy movements. E.g. let's assume a tank's "support infantry" suddenly stops because it gets pinned down by small arms fire, does the tank automatically stop? If the tank crew can't see its friendly infantry in this very moment (because the tankers' eyes are directed towards the enemy in front), then it should probably move on! I've stumbled over quite a few instances in eyewitness accounts in which this kind of infantry-tank coordination failed quite horribly. But it's hard to recreate this in Combat Mission games. There is nothing you can really do about the player's god powers in a game. An idea would be to somehow implement different reaction intervals for tanks (e.g. 2 minutes?) and infantry (1 minute, as usual). This would also help a bit against the area-fire problem. Note that tanks would still react to threats and retreat by means of their tac AI. One could even link the reaction intervals to equipment (telephones for infantry support, radios for tank-tank-coordination) and tank status (buttoned up or not). I think such a limitation would resemble the difficulty of coordination better. Any volunteers for an experimental test battle with this rule?  ("You may only give new orders to buttoned-up tanks (or delete old orders) in uneven minutes.")

1 hour ago, Bozowans said:

I do agree that tanks are overpowered, but everything else is overpowered too IMO. I don't think this is an issue with tanks alone. Foxholes don't provide that much cover from even small arms fire. There is not enough fog of war in the game. [...snip...]

I think the tank issue can be solved if the game just had more mystery to it. Enemy locations and unit types need to be much more vague. You should not be able to tell that an enemy unit 1000m away is an HQ team located in that one precise action spot. You should only have a general idea that there is enemy infantry "over there" somewhere. That way, battles would be decided by throwing suppressing fire over a large area and then assaulting up close, instead of pinpointing the exact action spot the enemy is located in and then just hammering it with HE fire from tanks and artillery until everyone is dead.

I'm with you regarding fortifications not providing nearly enough protection against small arms fire (and artillery) either. Good point about sound spotting, which unfortunately is not part of the Fog of War in CM. 

Interestingly, I find that playing larger and more open maps help a bit with the overall feeling of the engagements and also with tank combat. If you're used to playing mostly quickbattle maps, then they usually feature very dense terrain with short lines of sight. As a result, there are relatively few positions from which the enemy can see you and fire at you at any given time. These few positions can be controlled with relative ease. Things change when you multiply the number of potential enemy positions, as it is the case on a larger/open map. You can't deal with all positions at once, there is an overflow of potential targets and greater distances mean that spotting is less reliable. Spotting and targeting becomes more "chaotic" in general, casualties more "attritional" rather than "shock". Advancing with infantry is a question of the incoming enemy "volume of fire". In these circumstances, it's actually a bad idea to let tanks area-fire (i.e. focus their attention on one point, so to speak), as there are many possibilities offsides your tanks current angle of vision for new threats to show up. Also, thanks to greater distances (=lower lethality), you have a chance to set up support weapons even when the battle is already on, because chances are high that the enemy is still firing at some of the many other targets. Under short LOS conditions, by contrast, fire fights are decided by elimination in a matter of 2-3 minutes. Anything that "arrives late" is spotted instantly and knocked out.

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Kaunitz

[Bulletpoint]

5 hours ago, MikeyD said:

A lot of frustration with the CM engine comes from its low tolerance for movie-style heroics. The tactic of "I'll just run up to the enemy and..." or "I'll just hide here and..."  tends to meet with failure. Because being reliant on  you opponent's slow response time or inability to spot practically guarantees that he'll have a quick response and you will get immediately spotted. Its Murphy's Law in action.

Agreed, but I've played against Kaunitz a couple of times, and he is definitely a capable player.

So let's not talk about his tactics, but keep focus on his main questions:

• Should area fire be restricted to contacts the tank actually has C2 information about? The game has a great C2 sharing system. But it can be disregarded completely for area fire.
   
• Should trenches, foxholes, and bunkers provide more protection from direct fire?
   
• And I will add a point of my own: Should tank MG fire really be massively more accurate than infantry MG? That's how it works now, and that also makes tanks (and light AFVs) much more powerful.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Bulletpoint

[Kaunitz]

I thought I need to post this separatedly, as it is so important and I can't edit the initial post: 

My point about the lack of AT close combat means is not valid. As it turns out, ordinary grenades are very effective in close combat against tanks in CM. 2-3 grenades will destroy the tracks and may even knock out a tank. In my quick test (US infantry in CM:FB), 3 ordinary HE grenades knocked out a Tiger somehow. I'm not quite sure how, as no hit info shows up in "grenade close combat" and the only damaged/destroyed part of the tank were the tracks. Anyway I think it's safe to conclude that weapons for anti tank close combat (mines, cocktails) are represented by ordinary grenades?

25 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Agreed, but I've played against Kaunitz a couple of times, and he is definitely a capable player.

So let's not talk about his tactics, but keep focus on his main questions:

• Should area fire be restricted to contacts the tank actually has C2 information about?
   
• Should trenches, foxholes, and bunkers provide more protection from direct fire?
   
• And I will add a point of my own: Should tank MG fire be massively more accurate than infantry MG?

Thanks for the support. It's not my intention to make tanks worse because I suck at fighting them (which may still be true, I'm afraid). I'm really more concerned about how the game plays, whether what we see is "realistic", encourages players to use proper WWII tactics and/or makes for a good game. But it was to be expected that most answers would give me tactical advice.  

Regarding your last point: Are you implying that tank MGs currently are more accurate than infantry MGs? It depends a lot on what type of infantry MG as light/medium/heavy infantry MGs differ a lot in regards to their accuracy and rate of fire over distance in Combat Mission. It's just that this difference is hardly ever noted except on large/open maps.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Kaunitz

[Bulletpoint]

10 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

Anyway I think it's safe to conclude that weapons for anti tank close combat (mines, cocktails) are represented by ordinary grenades?

Yes

[Freyberg]

Against the AI, if you can get close and the tank has no infantry escort, it's extremely easy to knock out a tank with any decent infantry team - they're completely vulnerable. At close range, AFVs also respond quite slowly, which models their limited visibility.

[Bulletpoint]

11 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

Regarding your last point: Are you implying that tank MGs currently are more accurate than infantry MGs? It depends a lot on what type of infantry MG as light/medium/heavy infantry MGs differ a lot in regards to their accuracy and rate of fire over distance in Combat Mission. 

Try setting up a test. I think you will find tank MGs are much more accurate on both close and long distances than deployed infantry MGs. When tanks fire (both main gun and HMG) it seems they always point the gun directly at the enemy, but they just need to get the range right. With infantry MGs, they fire many bursts much to the left and right of the target.

[Kaunitz]

Sidenote: I also forgot to link the most famous of these little instructional videos, "Men against tanks".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykb6Bdb6bcI (info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Männer_gegen_Panzer)

Edited November 6, 2019 by Kaunitz

[JoMac]

On ‎11‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 5:58 AM, Kaunitz said:

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

I thought I need to post this separatedly, as it is so important and I can't edit the initial post: 

My point about the lack of AT close combat means is not valid. As it turns out, ordinary grenades are very effective in close combat against tanks in CM. 2-3 grenades will destroy the tracks and may even knock out a tank. In my quick test (US infantry in CM:FB), 3 ordinary HE grenades knocked out a Tiger somehow. I'm not quite sure how, as no hit info shows up in "grenade close combat" and the only damaged/destroyed part of the tank were the tracks. Anyway I think it's safe to conclude that weapons for anti tank close combat (mines, cocktails) are represented by ordinary grenades?

Also keep in mind, ALL things in CM happen too quickly (more of a time compression) giving 3x fold more casualties then there should be...

You are allowed to do what you want, anywhere, at anytime (this goes for both Armor & Inf)...ex, Armor can be too deadly at range (not enough cover for Trenches), but in turn Inf will become too deadly just by throwing a few hand grenades at armor at close range, and KO'ing within seconds.

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by JoMc67

[Kaunitz]

Quote

Also keep in mind, ALL things in CM happen too quickly (more of a time compression) giving 3x fold more casualties then there should be...

To be honest I don't buy the "time compression" argument anymore. If time was compressed, then why don't units run out of ammo three times faster, why don't units reload more quickly (cover narrow arcs of fire more reliably), why don't they move three times faster (is space compressed too? If so, many things don't make any sense at all...), etc. etc. "Time compression" is just the standard go-to argument whenever the topic "excessive infantry casualties" pops up. But this is not the result of time compression. It's the result of many factors, some of which are discussed here. 

Quote

You are allowed to do what you want, anywhere, at anytime (this goes for both Armor & Inf)...ex, Armor can be too deadly at range (not enough cover for Trenches), but in turn Inf will become too deadly just by throwing a few hand grenades at armor at close range, and KO'ing within seconds.

The idea behind this thread is exactly to discuss this very question: Are infantry and tanks in a good place right now in regards to their "deadlyness" (against each other)in specific situations? Arguments can be based on both, realism and game balance. 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Kaunitz

[JoMac]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Try setting up a test. I think you will find tank MGs are much more accurate on both close and long distances than deployed infantry MGs. When tanks fire (both main gun and HMG) it seems they always point the gun directly at the enemy, but they just need to get the range right. With infantry MGs, they fire many bursts much to the left and right of the target.

Yes, and since last patch, Vehicle MG's are firing even more so then before causing even more pin-point hits on Inf...At least Inf MG's are realistically firing both left and right representing Area-Fire.

[JoMac]

8 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

Quote

Also keep in mind, ALL things in CM happen too quickly (more of a time compression) giving 3x fold more casualties then there should be...

To be honest I don't buy the "time compression" argument anymore. If time was compressed, then why don't units run out of ammo three times faster, why don't units reload more quickly (cover narrow arcs of fire more reliably), why don't they move three times faster, etc. etc. "Time compression" is just the standard go-to argument whenever the topic "excessive infantry casualties" pops up. But this is not the result of time compression. It's the result of many factors, some of which are discussed here.

That's just it...We use the 'Time Compression' or 'Game Balance arguments' to help us 'Sleep Better at Night, or Not' :-)

Edited November 6, 2019 by JoMc67

[Bulletpoint]

Just now, JoMc67 said:

Yes, and since last patch, Vehicle MG's are firing even more so then before causing even more pin-point hits on Inf...At least Inf MG's are realistically firing both left and right representing Area-Fire.

But should they also fire left and right when they are not doing area fire, but firing against actively spotted infantry in the open?

I'm assuming it's a gameplay balance thing, where they don't want infantry to be massively lethal.

But that's usually handled by giving soldiers a "saving throw" to represent micro terrain. I think it looks a bit odd to have several LMG42 firing at 3-400 metres against an enemy team in the open and not hitting anything for several minutes.

[JoMac]

19 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

But should they also fire left and right when they are not doing area fire, but firing against actively spotted infantry in the open?

I'm assuming it's a gameplay balance thing, where they don't want infantry to be massively lethal.

But that's usually handled by giving soldiers a "saving throw" to represent micro terrain. I think it looks a bit odd to have several LMG42 firing at 3-400 metres against an enemy team in the open and not hitting anything for several minutes.

What I mean is that Infantry 'Area-Fire' more or less by default (not just by giving the specific CM Order) and should have their Small Arms (especially MG's) fire center-left-right, etc, along with giving appropriate 'Savings Rolls'...Yes, and technically, Small Arms should be firing over several minutes and not hitting anything (at least slow down when targets are less visible, in cover or falling-back).

Keep in mind, I'm the guy who still thinks Small Arms (especially MG's), Arty, HE Direct Fire in CM are too deadly.

Edited November 6, 2019 by JoMc67

[Bulletpoint]

25 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

What I mean is that Infantry 'Area-Fire' more or less by default (not just by giving the specific CM Order) and should have their Small Arms (especially MG's) fire center-left-right, etc

Yes, I understand, but I was not talking about area fire, but about accuracy when firing at actively spotted enemies. It looks like shooters are actively trying to miss.

And the relevance to this topic is that when tanks fire, they behave differently: They actually aim straight.

You don't see a tank fire a shell that hits 30m to the left of a target, then 30m to the right, then left again, before finally after several minutes, randomly just get lucky and score a hit. Tanks fire a couple of shots to get the range, and then they are usually bang on target.

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Bulletpoint

[Kaunitz]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Yes, I understand, but I was not talking about area fire, but about accuracy when firing at actively spotted enemies. It looks like shooters are actively trying to miss.

And the relevance to this topic is that when tanks fire, they behave differently: They actually aim straight.

You don't see a tank fire a shell that hits 30m to the left of a target, then 30m to the right, then left again, before finally after several minutes, randomly just get lucky and score a hit. Tanks fire a couple of shots to get the range, and then they are usually bang on target.

Just because you're mentioning "shells": For the main gun, it would make sense if tanks get good results very quickly (gunsight)?

But for the tank's MGs not so much? I'm not really informed on the sights that were used for MGs on tanks (if any). Both types would also use tracer ammo to observe the fall of the shots? So I guess that both infantry and tank MGs would be "on target" with their beaten zone rather quickly*.

But the problem with infantry MGs seems to be that they never reach the point at which they are "on target", if I understand Bulletpoint correctly?

-----------

* This also opens up another faintly related question, namely at what distance the beaten zones of MGs are "best" in terms of the effectively suppressed area. There is a reason why MGs are best used at larger distances or from enfilading/oblique positions with grazing fire. It's worth mentioning that some tripods had features to modify the beaten zone. (Search for "Tiefenfeuerautomat" on wikipedia's MG42 page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_42)). It's also worth mentioning that it seems as if hMGs may sometimes still have been used as they often were in WWI, indirectly from defilade positions quite far behind the frontline, a bit like artillery. I wonder if this was particularly true for dedicated "MG battalions". What about "offmap hMG" units?

Diagrams of beaten zones and various distances can be found for the Browning Machine Gun here: https://www.bevfitchett.us/browning-machineguns-m1919a6-m37/chapter-introduction.html

Recommended reading: George T. Raach, A Withering Fire. American Machine Gun Battalions in World War I (2015). It includes a chapter on the "theory of fire".

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Kaunitz