Questioning MG effectiveness?

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

ASL has something called a “firelane” where an MG can take a shot at an enemy unit crossing an area then declare a firelane. When this firelane is declared, all subsequent units passing through this firelane are subject to the effects of the firelane<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds just about perfect to me.

No noubt it would require a lot of extra coding.

Maybe it could be done for CM2.

I wouldn't expect anything like that as a patch for CM1.

[guachi]

MGs that haven't moved and are on the defense get a firepower bonus past 400m to (somewhat) simulate pre-registered lines of fire.

I don't know if this is still in the game as it was talked about MANY months ago.

Jason

[:USERNAME:]

past 400m? You mean under 400m?

Lewis

[guachi]

Sorry, I realize my reply wasn't very clear.

This thread http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000475.html explains that if a MG is on defense and has not moved, its firepower is greater at ranges over 400m that it otherwise would be. And the bonus increases as the range increases.

e.g. at 500m, the MG's fp might be 10% higher than normal and at 750m the MG's fp might be 405 higher than normal. I have BO idea if this feature is still in or what the ACTUAL fp bonus is. I was just making up %increases for the example.

This MG increase doesn't PRECISELY cover whta you guys were talking about, but this seemed like the best thread to bring this info up.

Jason

(spending hours on a FAQ does have SOME benefits...)

[:USERNAME:]

Uh..why would it increase?

Let me let you all in on some reality. Even a LMG (belt fed, bipod minimum) at ranges from point blank to a couple hundred meters can put down some serious hurt for some amount of time.

Ive worn MILES gear (mult integrated laser engagement system) where you attach devices onto your small arms that emit laser beams every time you fire a blank (you wear recievers that "catch" the beam and you are either dead (long continuous beep)or had a close call (beep). Try to rush a squad in the open against a LMG and when it opens up and sucks in the belt you will drop a half a squad in seconds. At close ranges, MGs just need to pick a height and any body moving through there will catch lead. At ten bullets a second, I think its practically impossible to cross this "beam". In defense, we M16 carriers were to just catch the wounded and fanatics that would get through this.

If an MG can be setup so that it fires across the front and is protected from fire itself by being in a bunker or behind a building, etc., then you have the best guarantee of a positions defense.

As an aside, we even used "gamey" tricks with the MILES. Hiding behind bushes defeated the lasers as did wearing big palm leaves over the head. It was fun stuff. Most of the military wasnt.

Lewis

[guachi]

Lewis,

You're not comprehending what I wrote. I said that the firepower is higher than WHAT IT OTHERWISE WOULD BE.

I DID NOT SAY that the firepower at 500m would be higher than it would be at 400m. I said that the firepower at any range over 400m for a MG on the defense tha has not moved would be higher than for a MG that had moved or was on the offense AT THE SAME RANGE.

(made up numbers)

400m 500m 600m 700m 800m 900m 1000m

50...45...40...35...30...25...20

50...46...42...38...34...30...26

The top line is for a MG that has moved/on offense. The bottom line is for a MG on the defense and has not moved.

Perhaps a clearer way to say it is that the MGs firepower decreases at a lesser rate past 400m.

Jason

[:USERNAME:]

Jason

Believe it or not I understand. Seems counter intuitive to say the least. Somehow the unmoved gun knows all ranges. I dunno.

Lewis

[guachi]

i think the code change Charles made over a year go was a rather easy change to make compared to other ways to simulate pre-registering fire.

Jason

[TeAcH]

Well, I have waded through each and every post and I think I have gone cross-eyed.

I was drawn to this topic because the question of MG effectiveness, or lack thereof, has come up in my mind quite a few times during my CM games.

First off, Talenn, I totally get your point and I agree wholeheartedly with you. HMGs in CM, IMO, have no real interdiction/area deniability capabilities whatsoever. I agree with the solution that the game needs to add variable ROF for HMGs for reasons, which, IMO, you have so eloquently and articulately explained. ASL Veteran made some great points in support of this issue too.

One thing more. I know some of these discussions can make one feel a little frustrated, but I am so glad you were persistent for CM's sake. Your comments will help to make it even better if your point is taken and tweaks such as variable ROF among others are made to the HMGs. I also like the firelane idea.

Thanks for hanging in there and for being able to concisely make this argument. I support it.

On another note, I was also wondering if there is any in-game morale check made by troops (mostly green and conscripts) who witness (hence who are in line of sight of) and are charging with another unit that suffers high casualties from HMG fire. I'd like to see that considered. That might help this situation too. If a green squad is charging alongside another squad who is suddenly the recipient of helacious casualty-causing MG fire, wouldn't there be a chance they would break and run away or stick their heads in the dirt? just a thought.

Thanks

TeAcH

[Tekman]

the problem here is that every one forgets that an Mg42 can fire 1200 rounds/min but against ground troops that a disadvantage because it wastes too much ammo its true effective range on tripod is 600yds. Short bursts are the only way to keep a sustained rate of fire for these guns I think you can change the barrel in about 10seconds to keep the rate of fire up but that could be the MG34. The Vikers had a max firing rate of 1100rnds/min with fully automatic bursts of 10to20 rnds.: 60 shots/min. slow rate 250 as rapid fire. Its effective range is 1100yds. Hopefully this clears some of the misconceptions about the effectiveness of machine guns. Remember these guns are not known for accuracy just fire power so suppression rather than killing power is more realistic

[ASL Veteran]

Well, by its very definition a firelane would be a form of area fire since you are not targeting an individual but simply flooding an area with lead. The ROF question can be answered in this manner. Let's say you are attempting to deny a street to the enemy by setting up an MG at the end of it. OK, how long does it take a man to run across a street? Maybe a few seconds? Well, let's say that three squads of infantry (call it 30 men) all try to dash across the street in front of this MG to reinforce the next housing block. As soon as the first man hits the street the MG opens up filling the street full of lead. It will all be over in a few seconds. Now, not all the infantrymen dashing across the street will enter the street at the same time, so many of those who are following may hesitate and remain where they are. A few of the bolder ones will continue on into the street and many will get hit. A few lucky ones will make it across. In this case, a clinical adherance to a certain number of bursts per minute for the MG team will not get the job done. The job at hand would be, "don't let the enemy cross the street by whatever means necessary" and the maximum ROF would only need to be maintained for a few seconds to get the job done. Once nobody is left in the street the firing would stop. Since it would be a form of area fire visual hinderances would have no effect on a firelane - smoke or grain for example. Bear in mind too that to the MG team there are not three distinct targets (three squads) to be fired upon independently .. there is just a gaggle of 30 grunts trying to cross your line of fire. Think of a "firelane" as "maximum rate of fire for as long as the enemy is running about in front of you". Once he goes to ground you can use point fire with regulated bursts to engage him.

[Rooftop]

I’ve recently read through this thread and found it very interesting. The reason the subject caught me was that a colleague of mine stated that he was very disappointed at former computer wargames ability to model MG:s correctly and hoped that CM would do it much better. I myself am a very inexperienced wargamer so I don’t have that very much to compare to.

As far as I can understand of the discussion in this thread, the point seems to be whether a unit in the open should be suppressed or not when fired upon by MG:s. Many of you seem to agree on that the game doesn’t models this well (at least when the setup is like the “T-variant”).

Anyway, I couldn’t resist testing this by myself and therefor sat up a test scenario like the “T-model”. I let an American riffle platoon ran between two wood patches 200 meters apart and interdicted them with two German HMG:s from a perpendicular position 500 meters away. The HMG:s was placed on a hill which was five levels higher than the ground the riffle platoon ran over.

When I played it from the Allied side I thought I had made some mistake in the set up because none of the riffle squads was never ever shot at and they safely reached the wood. Hmm… I thought. Maybe, for some reason, the MG:s never caught sight of the riffle squads. Well, I tried to play the scenario from Axis side and see what happened. I didn’t do anything in the setup phase, just pushed the Go-button twice and let go. No problem! The platoon came perfectly in sight (after they had run about 50 meters from the starting wood patch) and the TacAI started to shoot at the squads.

Now I was a little confused. I tried to play as the Allied several times and get the same result every time. No shots were ever fired. But every time I played as the Axis the American riffle squads always came in sight and the TacAI was able to shoot at them.

If I played the same scenario in the hotseat mode, I get same result as if I played it from the Axis side.

I don’t want to argue on whether the squads were pinned or not or how many casualties they caught, this has already been discussed. And therefor this maybe is a little of topic, but I couldn’t find a better thread to put it in and I also thought that it had at least something to do with the discussion here. Why? Well, it seems (at least for me) that from the earlier messages in this thread that the game gives the human player playing as the attacker or the one on the offence an advantage over the computer-played defender. And my test shows that too I think.

Rooftop

[Ron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rooftop wrote:

Why? Well, it seems (at least for me) that from the earlier messages in this thread that the game gives the human player playing as the attacker or the one on the offence an advantage over the computer-played defender. And my test shows that too I think.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In my opinion that's not the correct assumption. The AI sees a target at 500m and perhaps realizes it's fire will be ineffectual so it keeps the MGs position hidden by not firing. Remember the computer opponent has another 2 levels of AI (strat and op from the manual) in addition to the TacAI we the players see during the turn resolution. It probably has priorities at odds with the test you were running.

Ron

[Lee]

Rooftop: Try the same test with 300 yards distance from the MG's.

This will help lessen the chance the AI may be deciding not to fire

due to range.

[Kelly's Heros]

I was watching a program on the Discovery Channel about machine guns and they said that during WWII when American troops heard an MG42 they would automatically go to ground just because of the sound. The fire rate of the weapon was so high that it scared people just to hear it.

Once the Germans learned of this, they would many times just fire the weapon in the direction of advancing troops to slow down an advance.

[TeAcH]

Another good point KH!

Id like to see a variable ROF added to the game to allow them to go all out when proper

-and-

the effects of MG on morale slightly heightened.

My 2 cents

TeAcH

[This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 07-09-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kelly's Heros:

I was watching a program on the Discovery Channel about machine guns and they said that during WWII when American troops heard an MG42 they would automatically go to ground just because of the sound. The fire rate of the weapon was so high that it scared people just to hear it.

Once the Germans learned of this, they would many times just fire the weapon in the direction of advancing troops to slow down an advance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The germans also would register artillery in a field. They would wait till the troops were in the field and give them some MG42 fire to flatten them all out. they would then bring in the arty/mortars/rockets on the field because the troops would all be pinned and disorganized.

Lewis

[dalem]

ASL Veteran (I too am a big ASL fan)-

Re the disappearance of the MG Battalion: When I typed that as part of my response to Talenn, I did not in any way imply that the MG battalions disappeared because of the 'ineffectiveness' of the MG. Rather, I was making a point that the formation disappeared in large part because of the realization that MG are better used in conjunction with other weapons.

-dale

[TargetDrone]

Guess i have to try out that T-scenario on my own....

as soon as the game arrives

damnit... im going on vaccation from friday on for the next 3 weeks

no computer, no CM...

it is driving me crazy

oh boy... guess i will survive this too....

at least i will know how someon on drugs feels if he is arrested and doesn't get any more stuff..

------------------

TargetDrone

who has a heart for smilies

and will defend their rights ....

even if the cost is bloody....

(you know... correct spelling.. my worst enemy )

[This message has been edited by TargetDrone (edited 07-11-2000).]

[TeAcH]

Time to resurrect this one since the release of v1.03.

Talenn:

What's your opinion of MG fire now?

Thanks

TeAcH

[Jarmo]

At least I'm happy with it now. At least with the lethality.

One thing that bugs me with this T-firing is,

when a unit has all

but reached it's destination, just a few meters away, it can

decide the advance is hopeless and runs back to the killzone!

[Lee]

I'm also wondering what everyone thinks of MG effectiveness since the 1.03 fix.

Has anyone tried to repeat the firing test to see what happens differently?

By the way, when I say MG effectiveness, I'm excluding the .50 cal accuracy

oddness from the question. That is a separate issue. I'm talking

about all other machine guns against troops caught in open ground.

Which was the original point raised in this thread.

[Jeff Heidman]

What changed in 1.03?

[Lee]

Charles tuned the MG's so the firer could increase the RoF if he

caught infantry in the open. This should help to make interdiction

of troops moving in the open more realistic. I was wondering if those that

thought this needed fixing had tested with the new version.

[:USERNAME:]

I think its a change for the better but would also suggest increasing pinning results also. I dont think infantry would respond like robots and keep moving like they do. I hate when they just waltz into a enemy held position. There should be some sort of pinning challenge when infantry try to enter a enemy held house, foxhole, etc.

Lewis