An MG study: Is there a problem here?

[The_Capt]

OK first of all I know this has been covered before and that the boys are looking at the problem for CMBB. But I thought that I would run a test or two just to see the situation myself.

I set up a defile of open ground about 140m wide. Then I took a 44 Vet Rifle Coy (minus support stuff), so 9 squads, 3 Pl HQs and 1 Coy HQ and ran them thru the defile towards a flag.

On Opposites sides of the strip of open ground I posted to MG Pillboxes (3 MGs each according to unit stats). So from my experience and readings I have done on WWI, unsupported infantry should not be able to get thru that defile to the flag without horrendous casualties, if at all. I mean we are talking 6 MGs spraying a 140m piece of open ground unsuppressed in broad daylight.

So I ran a 90 second test run, 10 times to get averages.

The results: # cas and NE (Non effective units, ie went dead, red or ! during the 90 sec)

1. 25 cas 2 NE

2. 40 cas 2 NE

3. 31 cas 4 NE

4. 39 cas 7 NE

5. 23 cas 3 NE

6. 40 cas 6 NE

7. 63 cas 5 NE

8. 32 cas 3 NE

9. 34 cas 2 NE

10. 37 cas 3 NE

Average casualties: 36.4

Average NE: 3.7

Avg % casualties: 28.8%

Avg % NE: 28.5%

I ran the test with HMGs, the numbers were much lower so I stuck with the worst case, which is 2 MG Pillboxes.

I personally think these numbers are very low compared to reality. I think they have made CMBO an "infantry heavy" game. I am going to run tests with armour to see what the averages are but my guess is they will be in the same neighborhood. There is no doubt in my professional military mind that a company would take much higher casualties in the above situation. At least twice as many if not more.

I think this is one of the most unrealistic elements of CM. But as I said before the boys are addressing the issue. I would be happy to hear how and if we can expect to see more realistic MG performance in CM2.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

I personally think these numbers are very low compared to reality. I think they have made CMBO an "infantry heavy" game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct on both counts. The problem is the way the "run" move order is modeled. It allows infantry too much cover for the speed at which they are moving. That makes them unrealisticaly resistant to incoming fire (not just from MGs either, small arms and DF HE as well).

This is being fixed in CM2 by making running troops have much less cover, and intoducing the assault order where they will move with a fair amount of cover, but much more slowly.

[Hilltopper]

Very interesting analysis. I've had a gut feeling that MG weren't as effective as they should be...hence, I have rushed lone MG positions and bunkers knowing that enough will get thru to take the position. Same with unsupported bunkers...just a quick bonzai charge to the door and you've got it sometimes with very few casualities.

[Doug Beman]

First off, you were using veteran infantry; IMHO the average infantry rating of US infantry in WW2 (esp in 1944) was regular. Next, what were the pillboxes rated at (tho that probably doesn't count for much)

Next, to what are you comparing your results? To the best of my knowledge no emperical data was ever collected, or normalized studies performed, regarding whether unsupported infantry could run across a field while being fired on by MGs.

Next, keep in mind that open terrain in CM is similar to what you might see in a wide field along the road; lots of dips and ditches, clumps of brush, the odd tree here or there. It is not a football field.

Next, CM's RUN speed, IIRC (and from RTFM's description), does not indicated "maximum sprint;" rather it indicates a run like normal joggers do. The infantry are also ducking here/there, hitting the dirt, etc.

DjB

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Next, CM's RUN speed, IIRC (and from RTFM's description), does not indicated "maximum sprint;" rather it indicates a run like normal joggers do. The infantry are also ducking here/there, hitting the dirt, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You must have missed the MG threads a ways back.

IIRC someone did a test that showed that running infantry move at about 3m per second. So how does a group of guys moving at about 10 feet per second manage to "duck here/there, hit the dirt ect."? BTS doesn't know either which is why they are significantly lowering the cover given to running squads in CM2. Ducking and hitting the dirt while advancing will be modeled with the new Assault command.

[ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[The_Capt]

I think there are three more factors

a) Rate of fire. It is situational and a "rapid rate" is needed.

Beaten zone. Or "grazing fire". This allows the effectivness to be distributed (like in real life) over an oval shaped area.

c) Group suppression. If squad A sees squad B getting cut to pieces, they are going to hit the dirt and stay there. As will C,D and F. Because the aren't suicidal.

I used Vet infantry and Regular Pillboxes. Vets are readily available and used quite often in the game. I will try with Regular to see the difference. It should effet NE units but I don't expect a difference in casualty numbers.

I know of no studies done so I am comparing result to my own training, military history reading and personal experience. I doubt any evidence is available but in my opinion "something ain't right".

As to "dead ground" or cover in open terrain. I understand that abstract but then troops should be hitting that cover and staying there, instead they gleefully sprint thru the MG fields of fire with stopping.

As to "alternate bounds" or "pepper-potting" as we call it. Well 150m in 90 seconds in full gear is just plain silly. I think, as it has been mentioned, that the running speed of troops is going to be re-tooled in CMBB and with good reason.

I would really like to see a "beaten zone" from the MGs so that their fire could effect multiple units over a wide area and not one squad at a time. The same goes for squads. The nature of CMBO is chesslike with an alomost 1 for 1 force ration needed when in real life it is 3 to 1. IE one squad should take up the time and effort of a platoon.

[Bog]

Probably one of the main underlying problems is that the MGs in CM fire as if they're on a firing range.

They fire about a 4 second burst, then WAIT for about 8 seconds, then fire again. In real life, the MGs would be firing at much faster intervals. And, of course, MGs cannot target more than one squad at a time, meaning that they concentrate on that one squad even after it's already broken and running.

[F_Paulus]

Capt-

I don't doubt your word about the test that you ran. If this has been a problem with CM:BO, I'm sure that it still exists. However, when I set up precisely the same scenario that you did with the two pillboxes, and a '44 Rifle Co., I'm consistently coming up with over 50% casualty rates. The men are running to the flag between the two MG nests. In fact, most of the squads, if not all, are panicking before the 90 seconds are up. This is a veteran group of units. If they didn't panic and run off of the map, the casualty rates would probably be higher...possibly 60-70%, which sounds fairly realistic for 90 seconds of consistent MG fire.

I must be missing something concerning the parameters you were using, because I can't duplicate your results. Again, I don't doubt your results.

F_Paulus

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

a) Rate of fire. It is situational and a "rapid rate" is needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's in CM2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Beaten zone. Or "grazing fire". This allows the effectivness to be distributed (like in real life) over an oval shaped area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's in CM2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>c) Group suppression. If squad A sees squad B getting cut to pieces, they are going to hit the dirt and stay there. As will C,D and F. Because the aren't suicidal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is what global moral is currently for, although in a very abstracted way. I'm pretty sure the unit specific effect you mention won't be in.

[Monty's Double]

Vanir's sig file says it all. While I think we'd all welcome a little tweaking, be careful not to ask for too much reality, at the risk of sacrificing gameplay. If Combat Mission were a true simulation, every time the Allied player got fired upon, he should retire all his forces and call in an airstrike. The guys making WWII online started with lofty ambitions of realism, and all they've done is make an unplayable game.

[The_Capt]

OK to respond to a couple of people.

Paulus,

I set it up so that the Coy comes under fire from two defilade positions for about 45 secs. The first 45 were just getting from the Start Line to coming under fire. I put the Pill boxes on the back side of two facing clumps of trees about 140m apart and ran the troops between them. The coy was under fire for between 45 and 30 seconds. If your guys were under fire for the full 90 it may explain why your results are much higher. And may infact be a good insight into sighting of MG in order for them to work in CM. How did you set up.

Vanir Ausif,

It has been said that the first two points will be in CM2 but that is like saying "it is in the Bible". I was wondering if anybody has heard anything more specific on the subject.

Group morale is portrayed by global but morale and it's effects are much more complex than that. Sub-units will suffer varying morale effects based on what is happening. One Platoon could be pinned but it may cause the whole Coy to react. Or the same but at a smaller scale for squads. Again, no idea what that will do to the game but it is just a thought.

Monty,

Whoa there partner!! I would be careful in calling CM "Wargaming Lite" in these parts. Could get you tarred and feathered. Hate to say it but I agree with your statement. The game does sacrifice realism for playability. It is a question of degree. I think a "user adjustable" realism option would do a lot to address this but again I have no idea what that would take to do, so I won't stomp my feet to loudly for it.

A good question though...is CM a light or dark wargame. I get the feeling it is a light amber but many would violently disagree and call it Black Bitter. One thing we can agree on is that it is fun.

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

Vanir Ausif,

It has been said that the first two points will be in CM2 but that is like saying "it is in the Bible". I was wondering if anybody has heard anything more specific on the subject.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've similarly read at least the assertion of BTS that MG firing rates are ramped up in CM2 close-range "desperation" fighting.

While I'm enthused too about BTS's adaptations, I think that it would be helpful to see a CM2 MG test scenario, related next to comparable scenario for CM1, so to give an indication of how close-range MG effect has changed. Leastways, I hope to see something like this not TOO far off in the future.

A good question though...is CM a light or dark wargame. I get the feeling it is a light amber but many would violently disagree and call it Black Bitter. One thing we can agree on is that it is fun.

Weeellllllllllll........with the training tools you're probably acquainted with, Warren, that "light amber" view is understandable from your perspective. But when comparing the CM series to most commercial "historical wargames," the basis of comparison changes. I would say that at least 75%-80% of such wargames are even of a much lighter shade.

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[The_Capt]

Now there is another thread topic right there.

How does CM compare to other wargames wrt realism.

I too would like to see some hard stats on the improvements/changes in CMBB. Of course a demo would answer a lot of questions

[Maj. Battaglia]

This topic has been covered ad infinitum before, but I think there were some points not made in the past that I would like to make since this is coming up again.

First: Open Ground. Remember that open ground not only is abstracted to contain small undulations but also terrain features not significant enough to be shown: a light fence, a single boulder, very small out buildings (sheds, outhouses), etc. These do not dominate the terrain or restrict vehicular movement so they are not separate tile types. If you want to model real flat open ground, use pavement. It may not look like what you have in mind, but it has the properties you want.

Second: Abstraction of unit disposition. The fact that these tests show several men making it shows to me the realism of the game's approximations. It shows the guys in there do value their lives. Although the squad icon may show three men running lock step a la a Russian human wave attack does not mean that is what they are actually doing (and the human wave tactics are one reason CMBB will change MG fire models if I understand BTS's posts on the subject). Some guys are running, others stopping to fire, others possibly causing diversions, some cowering. As a group, they are moving, but not in one tight knot.

The point I am trying to make is that you have to view a lot of what goes on abstractly. All is not as it seems on the screen. Everything looks realistic and complete, but a lot more is assumed and not shown. Algorithms involved may not show everything that happens, or allow the player to control every aspect, but they take into account a lot of this from what I can tell. If you read US Congressional Medal of Honor citations, you come across many instances where one or two people rush a MG nest and take it out. This is often accomplished by others creating diversions or by sneaking up from different directions, etc. These types of things have to be assumed.

Furthermore, the soldiers modeled in CMBO aren't using the same tactical doctrine as their fathers in WWI, even if both are charging. Their training on how to charge differed based on the WWI lessons.

I am not arguing that all is perfect, and CMBB will make some adjustments to make a finer point on running versus assault moving, etc.

Overall, I think the MG modeling is more realistic than some are giving credit. In fact, I would argue that the casualties The_Capt finds are high: over 1/3 KIA or WIA and 1/4 of the units not effective. This means out of 126 original men, you have lost about 40 men and another dozen or so are out of action for a few turns at least. That's quite a loss for 90 seconds' work. When employed well and in conjunction with infantry support, MGs are a tough nut to crack and one usually has to call in the arty or armor support if one wants to retain a cohesive force.

[The_Capt]

Major,

Abstractions are well understood it is the casualty rates which tell the story.

First of all if the troops are firing and moving than they are not going to cover 100ms in 30 secs or so (I timed it). Maybe three times as long. So the boys are moving like they are in a full out jog in full gear, not hitting the ground and getting back up.

The grouping of squads in Heuy, Dewey and Louey is very abstract. If someone is cowering than the squad should take a casuality..a psychological casuality. Or you are going to have a squad spread out over 100ms. Dispersion, which is a key to countering both Arty and MG fire is abstracted but by how much? Based on the casualty rates I see, a little too much.

A good deal of those cas were in the squads which were NE not in addition too. So you cannot add 28% and 28% to get 56%. I agree that some people won the CMOH by charging MGs but what I have seen is a Coy win the medal 10 times with about 60-70% of it's force intact at the end. This is running between 2 MG Pillboxes, firing a total of 6 MGs, at less than 200ms!!

"Quiet a loss for 90 seconds work"?! 6 MG 42s firing from defilade on troops over open (even with a few dips and stumps)!! I am sorry but there is more than "a few finer points" which need to be addressed here. You would be lucky to get 25% of a force thru and in reality probably 0%. Now maybe the problem is with pillboxes but HMGs just gave lower numbers.

[Spook]

And there again is why a "lab" test scenario with CM2 beta would be helpful to relate the revised MG effect here, in terms of tabulated results under certain conditions. The posters here would get a chance to "see."

Perhaps BTS could prevail upon one of its CM2 beta members to run a scenario similar to what the Capt has set up? If looking only at MG34/MG42 effectiveness within a given range, against troops using only the RUN command, then the "apples to apples" comparison basis could be maintained.

[The_Capt]

Excellent suggestion Spook.

I'd happily hand over my .cmb file so that they or anyone can try the same test. I am running the test with Armour right now and I can tell the results are also very poor in terms of stopping power. It is my estimate that the MG Pillbox will yield the highest cas rates, which it should.

[Username]

I would really like to see something like this. maybe something in the HQ instead of those MODs.

[F_Paulus]

Capt-

I was allowing for the full 90 secs of exposure to MG fire. I ran another test, though, with the proper defilade to allow 30-40 secs of exposure to MG fire. The pillboxes were set up on opposite sides of the clear zone. I'm now averaging 39% casualty rate, with only 3 effective units reaching the flag zone. On average, six of the '44 Veteran Rifle Co. squads panic (usually as an entire platoon) as soon as they enter the clear zone.

Please do send me your .cmb file (to: robf@mindspring.com). I'm sure that what this test really proves is that mileage may vary. I'm also interested to see how the modifications to CM2 will effect these results.

F_Paulus

[The_Capt]

Paulus,

Sure, I'll send it along. We are getting the same cas rate but that NE rate is interesting. It may have to do with formation. I averaged 3.7 over ten run thrus. Now that is only dead, red or ! units. Also if they finished the run not red or ! I counted them as effective.

Just did a second test, same setup but with two Pz IVs in place of the Pillboxes and the numbers are truly silly.

1. 25 cas 0 NE

2. 27 cas 2 NE

3. 22 cas 1 NE

4. 30 cas 0 NE

5. 24 cas 0 NE

6. 21 cas 0 NE

7. 26 cas 1 NE

8. 26 cas 2 NE

9. 26 cas 1 NE

10 26 cas 2 NE

Avg Cas: 25.3

Avg NE: 0.9

Avg Moral after run 90%.

This is running between two PZ IVs which have 2 MGs apiece. Interesting to note that the bow and co-ax can fire at seperate squads but still a dismal result. No main guns fired, I still can't figure that one out. But for a cost of 238 points against a coy in a perfect KZ you get 20.3% cas and about 10% NE.

I think there is a problem here.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

It has been said that the first two points will be in CM2 but that is like saying "it is in the Bible". I was wondering if anybody has heard anything more specific on the subject.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not even going to try to find the exact quotes. I think most if not all of them are in the various recent machine gun and SMG threads.

Steve really hasn't said much more than what I said. As for MG ROF, in CM2 MGs will vary how often they fire depending on the distance to target. MGs firing at very close targets (like rushing SMG squads) will be able to "go for broke". This may or may not increase the chance of jamming.

Beaten zone is already modeled somewhat in CM, but its affective area will be enlarged in CM2. I don't know if it will be in an oval shape or not (I think it is circular now). No details beyond this that I know of.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Oh, I forgot:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

Group morale is portrayed by global but morale and it's effects are much more complex than that. Sub-units will suffer varying morale effects based on what is happening.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was also discussed and there will be no moral modification to individual units based upon what they can see. It's an engine limitation thing.

[killmore]

Let me say it again:

I can kill more people rushing toward me with my paintball gun then MG42 in CM.

Does this strike you as correct?

MG are severly under powered in CM (and so are mortars)

BTS do this test:

30 guys run 100 meters toward 3 guys with semi automatic paintball guns. Then try same with fully automatic paintball guns.

This will end this discussion once and for all!

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore:

BTS do this test:...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guys, maybe I'm not making myself clear here. BTS already knows there is a problem and is fixing it for CM2.

[Maj. Battaglia]

Capt:

First, I submit my comments and criticisms in a respectful, constructive manner. I could be convinced otherwise, but for now I don't think there is too much of a problem with the MG model. I do think it can be useful to discuss such matters and test CM's capabilities, and I often do this with various ideas in mind.

What you say ("This is running between 2 MG Pillboxes, firing a total of 6 MGs, at less than 200ms!!") implies to me that your US troops started their charge 200 meters away. Unfortunately, this test builds into it a tactical blunder by the defense before the test begins. Remember, MGs are not primarily a close support weapon. Their strength is their ability to suppress troops over a fairly long distance. Setting up a MG with only a 200 meter field of fire is not utilizing it properly (at least, outside a city). Allowing a company of enemy troops to approach that close, especially considering you have no infantry support, spells doom for your pillboxes.

This brings up the second problem, the lack of acompanying infantry. Even in WWI, the MG positions would be flanked by supporting infantry. I understand you want to find out how many casualties the MGs inflict, but realistically, there is more to it than that. In your test, had you added a platoon of infantry around the flag, the results would have been much worse for the attacker. When playing various CM scenarios, enemy MGs have done their worst when I was closing with his infantry, weakening my forces before they can engage his troops closely. I would argue that is the realistic employment of a WWII MG.

I will add that I think there might be a problem using pillboxes. Use six wooden bunkers instead. This is the same amount of MGs, and they can target independently. Since you had two units and 13 opposing targetable units, I think some units would not be targeted and therefore get through unscathed. The bow MGs of tanks (pillboxes are immobile vehicles) can fire on separate targets when the turret is turned away. I am not sure what the pillboxes do, but it appears they only target one unit with all guns.

Also, give the MGs a realistic field of fire. Start the charge 400 m out and 'move' the first 200 m. If you want a nice, flat, open surface, use pavement. This will still not be a realistic tactical exercise, but you will allow the MGs to use their strength in firing at a distance, at least at first.

One further note about the use of MGs. They are not meant to be super-accurate weapons. Also, their rate of fire is theoretical. Troops on both side were trained to fire a few rounds and then adjust. This was to maintain some accuracy as well as prevent gun failure. I would argue that troops followed this procedure. If they had just fired away, they would be doing so very inaccurately and risk a breakdown, and probably not survive the firefight.

What this means is that at a long distance, you fire a few rounds, wait a few seconds while you adjust your aim due to recoil, etc., and fire again. You may miss individuals, but your rounds will fall close together and cause suppression. Your horizontal angle does not change much due to the distance, even if you are switching to another nearby target.

As the enemy comes closer and are runnning, they are harder to hit as a mass. You now have to move your MG back and forth much further than before. Even firing in a more sustained manner (which may cause you to begin firing over their heads), means that the horizontal movement dilutes the suppression effect as the rounds you fire are spead out over several meters. So you either move the gun slowly and concentrate on one unit, inflicting casualties there but allowing another unit to go untouched, or you move the gun back and forth, say about 60 degrees, to cover more of their approach. This might cause light casualties in a few units. Yes, there will be casualties, more than at a long distance, but barring a mass retreat, some will get through.

I read an interesting article in the Boston Globe a while back. Most of it has nothing to do with this discussion, but is a worthwhile read. It is about the killing of SS concentration camp guards by some troops of the US 45th division. They lined up about 75 guards and shot at them with a M1919, a BAR, etc. 17 were killed. It is unclear how many were wounded, but when the CO came and stopped this after about 10 seconds, and ordered the survivors to stand, most did. This may prove little overall, but it shows in one situation one can't just mow people down so easily.

Boston Globe article link