An MG study: Is there a problem here?

[The_Capt]

Hey ASL Vet,

Your point is correct and it further supports my tests and observations. The Americans use different terms but the idea is the same...the MG is designed to be employed as an Area Weapon capable of denying and suppressing an enemy over a large area. That is why a single well sighted MG can pin down an entire Coy. In CM that single MG will target and effect 1 squad (well I've seen it hit two but it is rare). So you get a one for one ratio, same goes for squads. The result is that the infantry "rush" is very effective but also not realistic. It makes for a fast and fun game but also an unrealistic one.

Which is a shame because the game does so much else very right. The effect of arty is very accurate IMO (well 4.2 and up, 81s and 60s are a little weak and having been on the receiving end a few times I can tell you that from personal experience.) Not the sighting and times but the actual shells landing on the ground. But MGs are stunted.

I think there is not much else to say except I hope CMBB can do better but if ASL Vet is correct it may take an engine rebuild.

[Username]

I think those WWI casualty figures point out the deadliness of MGs and bad tactics. In CM, we have lots of bad tactics and not so deadly MGs.

In WWI, there were great periods of non-activity. Followed by short periods of slaughter.

In WWII, Jason is pointing out that units were expected to be in business pretty much full time (frontline) and the cost couldnt bankrupt you in an afternoon.

Towards the end of WWI, there were some advances in this whole infantry warfare business. The germans in 1918 started to use better tactics. Anything was better than waves of infantry that followed a week long barrage (that did little to the defenders).

The germans (and I am sure the allies too), started to put everything, including their own MGs, into KOing the enemy MGs DURING the attack. It got so that MG gunners had such a high casualty rate that they started getting extra time off the line. These so called storm tactics gave the germans better results than the tank gave the allies. Arty was used to paralyze the enemys HQs and suppress the enemys arty. Direct fire infantry guns took on the MGs and allowed the storm troops to close on the trenches.

I really would like to have some playtester give some indication of how the infantry game is coming along or tested.

Lewis

[The_Capt]

Well I just finished another set of tests and I think I can say that the MGs in CM are not modelling reality, in fact they are not pretty far from the mark.

Here are some results.

2xPillbox MGs at 600-700ms. A total firepower of 6 MGs at what should be effective range. Versus a infantry coy (vet) the coy had to cross 200m of open ground with the MGs firing in defilade. The coy was exposed to 45-50 secs of fire. I only did samples of 5 here to save time but I think you can get the idea.

Over "Open ground"

1. 7 cas 1 NE

2. 5 cas 1 NE

3. 4 cas 1 NE

4. 1 cas 1 NE

5. 8 cas 2 NE

Now for defenders of "open ground" here are the results running over pavement, no stumps here.

1. 6 cas 1 NE

2. 4 cas 1 NE

3. 8 cas 1 NE

4. 4 cas 1 NE

5. 5 cas 1 NE

Here are six wooden bunkers at the same range

1. 16 cas 2 NE

2. 10 cas 2 NE

3. 8 cas 1 NE

4. 11 cas 1 NE

5. 15 cas 3 NE

And for comparison (and the fun of it). Same coy running thru a 2x120mm barrage.

1. 64 cas 11 NE

Well, I am done. That is enough for me, if someone wants to keep going, please do, but I am convinced. MGs are very weak and that IMO throws off the tactics of the game. MGs are what should make armour a feared thing on the battle field and should be the anchor points of a defensive position but with these figures the entire equation is changed.

I know BTS is aware of the problem and I only hope they have a good idea of how to fix it. I too am interested to hear from a playtester as to the "new MGs" in CMBB.

[Lambshank]

from ASL Vet:

quote: (from Battaglia)

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

I would argue therefore that CM models things pretty well (with room for future enhancements) in terms of MG effectiveness. 1 MG vs. 1 squad, whether the MG has them in enfilade or the squad is making a frontal assault, and the squad is going to suffer heavily. Once you start adding more units, the MG can't cope with the numbers. In the former case, men will get by and in the latter the MG is doomed (but the infantry will still suffer some stiff casualties). From what I can tell, this is realistic.

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

Of course this is just flat out incorrect. The problem is how Grazing Fire is being defined.<snip />

>>I think you're applying the argument that MGs are modelled in a mechanistically unrealistic manner, which is categorically true (even with a generous definition of "realism") to Major Battaglia's argument that the *outcomes* are realistic. Given previous citation of casualty figures in WWII conflicts in Nothern Europe (the time and place modelled by unadulterated CM:BO), Battaglia's assertion is reasonable. The outcomes encourage a player to employ them in conjunction with other units on the battlefield in a manner approximating historical usage.

Now, I'm not discounting the value of taking into account a muzzle-to-target cone of fire. Would modelling that add to the CM:BO experience? Doubtless. (Holy processing speed, Batman...). Certainly, this sort of "every object on the battlefield modelled" is the stuff of young boys' dreams.

[JasonC]

Numerous issues here. First, Capt. seems to doubt whether I understand what he is trying to focus on, and because of it, the relevance of overall loss data. I am well aware that he is trying to get a handle on "mad minute", worst case MG firepower, but that does not suffice to make the overall loss data irrelevant. Their relevance is that they -constrain- possible solutions to peak MG firepower changes. Simply put, making changes to fix the "mad minute" (upward) have to be done carefully, or they will push the already sky-high overall loss rate through the ceiling. Linear, across the board increases in MG firepower will not work.

I quite agree with Capt that highest losses to MG fire would regularly be above the loss rates seen in CM. In case anybody forgot, I suggested several changes to address that issue, quite some time ago and again in this thread. My preferred solution is higher exposure numbers / lower cover for moving units, especially rapidly moving units. I have also suggested "rush" behavior changes, like going to ground rather than accelerating when under fire, "hot MG" ROF increases tied to target exposure, etc. What I do not support is across the board increases in MG firepower, because they will break the other end of the loss relationship, total losses in 30 minutes.

Then there is the issue that Capt says what he is trying to model is the first minute of the Somme. There are numerous problems with this, which I will address here at length. To start with it ought to go without saying, but apparently doesn't, that the first minute of the Somme is not the usual case of MGs firing at infantry in the open. To me it is yet another example of the ever present disease I have encountered among knowledgeable grognards on this board, the phenomenon of "averaging up". The peak performance of any weapon or match up is thought of as the norm, and modeling is demanded based on this notion.

The battle of the Somme did not last 45 seconds and involved rather more than two MG bunkers. It lasted 140 days, and 6/7 British casualties in the battle occurred after the first day. 27 British divisions were involved in the attack. During the 139 days after the first, the loss per division per day averaged around 100 men, a figure lower than those already presented here for US divisions attacking toward St. Lo in Normandy in July '44, though still heavy fighting obviously.

During the first day, of course British losses were much higher. In fact they were about the highest in recorded history (though a few early gunpowder era battles, like Leipzig, might be higher). The average losses in the attacking British divisions were as high as the losses on Omaha beach in WW II, and the worst hit division at the Somme lost as much as both divisions on Omaha combined. It was as bad, on a much larger scale and with a higher ratio of force to space. But this did not happen in 45 seconds, either, and was not caused by two MG bunkers.

The German forces holding the sector attacked amounted to 16 divisions, each with a frontage of about 2 kilometers. The frontage of attacking divisions was more like 1 kilometer. A CM map that we fight company or sometimes battalion actions on, was packed with an entire division. No man's land was not 100 yards wide, but between 250 and 600 yards. In some cases following waves of the British attack forces had to walk 3 km to reach the forward German trench. The Germans had three main lines of trenches in addition to various traverses and pillboxes, anchored on fortified ruined villages and hilltop redoubts; the whole defended zone was up to 5 km deep.

Some British formations were already out of their trenches in no man's land. Most of the others that went over the top in the first wave were well into NML before the first MG fire hit them, because the German MG teams had to climb out of their deep dugouts after the end of the barrage, "racing to the parapet" as it was later called. The quite accurate memories of battalions being hit by MG fire the instant they went "up", were about follow on waves sent in in spots the first wave had accomplished nothing, with the defenses already manned - or delayed jump offs in a few cases.

The attackers advanced 400 to 1000 yards in places, despite the losses, but failed catastrophically wherever they encountered uncut wire, which they did in many places. The hardest hit division penetrated 900 yards to the second line of German defenses, was there isolated by barrage fire behind them, hit by flanking MG fire for hours because of the failure of the units on their flanks, and was then reduced by counterattacks up the traverse trenches. Remnants pulled back that night. That division lost 5500 men, but all day, not in 45 seconds.

The French, attacking on the right at the same time, were already using the open "skirmish" tactics of small groups using all available cover, which they had learned at Verdun. These became standard in all armies in the course of WW I - long before the late war German "strosstruppen" inflitration tactics, which were additional refinements beyond the basic one of advancing in squad packets, rather than company waves. The French took nothing like the losses the Brits did, and advanced 2-4 km on the first day.

Overall, British losses were 7 times those of the Germans. The Germans were not defending the 34 km frontage with scattered MG teams alone. Their defending divisions lost an average of 500 men each that day, high by the standards of WW II, or indeed by the standards of the rest of the campaign.

At the front, the manpower odds may have been 4 or 5 to 1 for the early stages, as the Germans were deployed in depth - but it was not 12 MG gunners against a 730 man battalion. The Germans had 2 MGs per platoon, less than in WW II, but heavier tripod mounted and water-cooled pieces. Many of them fired 20,000 rounds apiece beating back the morning attacks.

The Brits attacked in waves. The force to space was much higher than anything you are used to from CM. A Brit battalion of that era had 730 men at TOE, and Brit division ("square" rather than "triangular" in layout) put up to 10 battalions apiece into the attack. The "teeth to tail" ratio was much higher than in WW II - meaning, far more of the men in the division were in the infantry as front line riflemen.

If you want to see what such an attack looks like in CM, then you'd simulate a battalion with a CM Brit battalion, 2 added companies, an additional engineer platoon, and a couple Vickers MGs and 3" mortars. All the troops should be "green" - this was the first offensive use of "Kitchener's army", the new draftee force. Delete the PIATs and reduce the 2" mortars to 1 per company, traveling with the company HQ.

Put two companies abreast plus an engineer platoon on a frontage of about 440 yards, then put another two companies and engineer platoon behind them as the second wave, and another two companies behind them with the MGs and 3" mortars and battalion HQ. Then group move, not run, the whole way toward the German position in one straight line. As units take fire they will speed up or drop out; rally them with the company HQs.

The opposing German force should be about company strength, plus added HMG teams and MG log bunkers, and plenty of uncut wire. They should be regular quality, and if you want to simulate what the MG teams really did, use a 25% fanaticism setting as well. In overall men, the Brits should have 4-5 to 1. In CM points, they should have about 3:1 for fighting units alone, but only 2:1 when fortification points are included (wire and log bunkers).

Turn every building on the map into rubble and every wood or tall pine tile into scattered trees, to show the effects of the bombardment. Simulate trench lines by using stone walls, with one the vertical length of the board 100 yards from the west edge for the Brits to start behind, and two or three full lines of them, each around 400 yards apart and the first 400 yards from the British one, for the Germans to hide behind. (By hiding you can get full cover behind them, at the cost of not shooting).

The Germans should have all the hills, most of the rubble, and their choice of trench lines to conform with what scattered trees there are. Use farmland, light woods, small hills for the terrain type. Give the Brits 30 minutes, and the Germans at least enough wire to cover half the frontage.

If you want a smaller simulation, use a strip only 240 yards wide by 880 yards deep, and give the Brits green two companies with 2 2" mortars and no PIATs, 1 Vickers MG, and give the Germans one platoon plus 2 HMG teams and a sharpshooter. Give the Brits only about 15 minutes. This will simulate a single wave.

I have run several such simulations. In the one wave case, I let the AI command the Brits to simulate how uncoordinated and straight-ahead the attacks actually were. The result I got with 95 Brits down to 9 Germans, after 15 minutes, and a total German victory. 2 panicked Brits from a platoon HQ were still alive past the wire; no one had reached or crossed the first trench line.

Some others had made it past the wire but broke afterward, some ran off the map edges. 24 Brits were in "OK" morale state, and every one of them was rattled (!). The two German HMGs had lost 5 (immobile) and 2 men respectively and had 6 ammo left between them. All the squads were "low", with only two men hit in one of them. The platoon HQ had 7 shots left and the sharpshooter was out. With how clumped the Brits were under AI direction (to avoid open fire zones), one barrage would have ended it.

In another fight, I gave the Germans only 6 HMG teams and 2 HQs, and no much wire, while the Brits had two companies plus 2 Vickers MGs. I let the Brits keep all 6 2" mortars in this one. I commanded the Brits this time, after setting up the Germans in a two tiered defense (fields of fire of second tier reach to just ahead of the first positions), without "trench" walls to help. Most of them were in rubble, a couple in foxholes in scattered trees on a hill near one edge of the map. In this case, the map was large - a mile deep by 440 yards wide. The idea was to simulate just a few determined MG teams among the rubble.

After 15 minutes in that one, the Brits had 2 platoons shot to pieces, with only a few men down in the other four but around 1/3rd of the remainder rattled. Overall, losses were 33%, broken units another 17%, leaving half effective. Those had varying levels of ammo remaining, some 3/4, some 1/3rd; all the mortars were dry though. The German hill position had beaten off all attacks but run out of ammo in the process, and one of its MGs was down to 2 men who were panicked. The other gun had all 6 men but only 8 shots remaining; the HQ there was fine. The other MG in the forward position was wiped out. The three in the "2nd tier" were untouched, having expended around 30 shots between them.

Realistically, the Brits would have stopped to reorganize at that point. With 4 platoons left and most of the men in them functioning, they could have pressed on the next half-mile to the second tier of the defense. But the Germans would not have been idle, and all that hill that held out needed was an ammo run, maybe a few extra defenders, to remain a thorn in the Brit's side. They hadn't really made it through the whole of the 1st line, and they took 1/3rd losses.

Green troops and 15 minutes are not veteran troops and 45 seconds. It is certainly true that realistic HMGs would have hit more men in 1 minute than I saw them hit. But it is also true that 139/140 days of fighting at the Somme saw still green British troops lose only 100 men per division per day - when mad minute modeling (3M) might make that the inevitable casualty toll for moving into the open at all, for one company.

I realize why Capt wants 3M. He wants unhistorical tactics to not be used for historically accurate reasons. He realizes that Somme style losses are exceptional, and does not want to see them in CM games, where indeed they would be quite out of place and unrealistic for the tactics later used. But he thinks the reason such losses did not occur after the 1st of July 1916 is because nobody ever again group-moved swarms of infantry into LOS of unsuppressed MG teams - except perhaps at Normandy (and similar cases) where the nature of the operation and terrain gave no choice in the matter.

Personally, I consider that doubtful. I think there have probably been plenty of cases since the 1st day of the Somme where infantry walked into MG fire zones - without taking Somme-like losses. Why the difference? First and foremost, because the force to space wasn't so high, and second and multiplying the effect of the first, because the men fired on went to ground rapidly and worked forward much more carefully.

My thesis about what was truly exceptional about 1 July 1916 is that such a group of men never did the like again. I don't mean just any men attacking MGs; I think that -has- happened, but not with such results. The men of the Kitchener army before it had been blooded went forward with a recklessness that has not been equaled since.

You have to be that green to go in so dumb, and you have to be that trusting of the plan and the officers around you (or that brave) to keep walking upright and forward under such fire. The combination of that green and that brave (or docile to leadership for that matter) was rare, and exceptional. Because experience teaches caution on the one hand, and the some degree of experience is usually needed to avoid panic. Vets wouldn't be so stupid. Raw recruits wouldn't be so brave.

Leaving aside the interesting historical issues of the Somme proper, I reiterate the main point I am driving at with my suggestions on the one hand and the information on average losses vs. CM losses on the other. I can see valid reasons to increase the firepower of MGs in short periods of fire against exposed, moving troops, in the open. But increases in the effectiveness of MGs against that specific kind of target have to be carefully done, and narrowly tailored to that case, to avoid excessively high casualties over the long run, including all other cases.

As a design matter, that means solutions have to focus not on across the board firepower or shot resolution changes, but on the distinctive marker of the case Capt is concerned about. Which is "hazardous movement", moving too rapidly to use small bits of cover, through ground open enough for MGs to play fire lanes across it, for moderately long periods (not snapshots of a few seconds, etc).

There are already CM markers for that case, it seems to me. % exposed, and movement rate. To increase the loss rate from fire in those cases only, without doing so in other cases, is thus the design problem. There are obvious ways to do so, that have already been suggested numerous times (go to ground on a "pin" result instead of accelerate to run; increase MG ROF against high % exposed targets; link % exposed to movement state; etc). In my opinion, it can be done without the micro-management workload of "fire lanes". In my opinion, it should not be addressed by any across the board fire effectiveness increase.

In the meantime, I also continue to recommend use of green-regular rather than regular-veteran as the accepted or default level of unit quality. Green troops give reactions to fire, especially taken in the mass, that seem to me far more realistic than that displayed by veterans. The excellent CM command delay system is also masked by use of vet troops, who typically render the delays so trivial they do not make a difference in plans. A middling morale result is not trivial for green troops, as it can push the reaction time for new orders to 2 minutes.

[Maj. Battaglia]

JasonC raises excellent points concerning the Somme that are not only true, but worth putting into the context of tests that try to simulate this.

No Man's Land: You can't expect Somme-size casualties over only 100 or 200m.

More than two pillboxes: The Germans called in artillery on the advance and had infantry. They had defense in depth. (And the CM pillboxes, despite being listed as having 3 guns, only target one unit at a time with all 3; I assume they also have the same fire axis.)

Density of troops: Although it varied, the plan of the division that included the Tyneside Scots, the brigade that suffered 80% casualties in 10 minutes, was to have an assault in four columns, three battalion waves to a column, each column covering 400 yards, and 150 yards between the waves. I daresay nothing like this was attempted on the Western Front.

Tactics: Initiative was not expected. Therefore the disciplined, green British troops simply moved ahead leapfrog until 200m out, then a full-on bayonet charge. CM models WWII small unit tactics and therefore models a better inherent defense in open ground than their WWI fathers due to better formations, doctrine, etc.

Capt: I can't explain the difficulty you've had in getting effects of MG fire on nearby units. A squad does cover at least 5m front, and CM won't let you put them closer (so that the LOS line reads less than 5m). I will readily agree that beaten zones should probably be bigger over longer distances. Lethality should be low but suppression present.

I ran a test of my own, and came up with interesting results. I created a gauntlet of pavement 160m wide and 300m long. I placed 4 reg wooden bunkers 150m back from the center line of the gauntlet, 2 on each side (and filled in the space between them and the gauntlet with pavement), and each one about 120m from opposite "endzones." At one endzone I set up the unsupported US reg company shoulder to shoulder on a front 50m wide with the HQs spread out just behind and proportionately. All HQ leadership modifiers were deleted. I ran the test hotseat and had the bunkers hide, and the troops sneak for the entire length of the gauntlet. After the first turn I changed all commands to run and unhid the bunkers. This allowed for all troops to be in essentially a broad line (no varying command delays, and no opening fire with some to be grounded and others to leave first).

After 60 seconds, there were 48 casualties (38%) and all units were either Broken!, Routed!, or eliminated. But more importantly, I followed who the MGs were targeting. After 30 seconds the targeting began to switch and the units began to break out of formation. Before this, however, the MGs predictably targeted only the nearest two units on each wing.

At the 30 second mark, there were a total of 29 casualties, and the line was in full enfilade position realtive to the bunkers. What I found amazing was that the 4 targeted units suffered 8 (28%) while the untargeted units suffered 21 (72%) of those casualties!! The middle squad, C2, 10m away from the nearest targeted unit, suffered 3 casualties and was panicking.

I only ran this once because it took some time to do the detailed analysis. But it shows, beyond a reasonable doubt to me, that some form of fire zone exists. And in 60 seconds, each of 4 MGs took out an average of 12 guys, many of them not even being the primary target.

Are beaten zones and grazing fire modeled 100% accurately? No. As Lambshank points out, you can't model every bullet. Are they modeled? Yes. What priority should 100% realism for these receive in the context of Western Front tactics, and how much difference does it make to gameplay? I would say little.

ASL Vet is right to point out that grazing fire was missing from the conversation. That's one reason I thought for beaten zone effects, The_Capt should place his MGs further back. That is also what I was alluding to when I mentioned that the Vickers slide rule did not give a beaten zone under 500m: the beaten zone is of infinite length, or more correctly, does not exist and the principles of grazing fire are in effect. Was there something else ASL Vet thought was wrong?

Someone asked why continue to argue this point. For some time there has been criticism about MG modeling and seemingly mass clamor for more MG killing power. I, for one, think that there is always room for improving realism in any computer simulation (and some of these issues are being addressed re MGs, I know). Small tweaks to MGs, unit morale, infantry speed, etc. are fine as long as MGs aren't upgunned to the point of becoming much more fearsome than they already are.

[The_Capt]

Maj B,

If you would be so kind as to send me your cmb file. I would like to see this in action. I have had a hell of a time seeing any beaten zone or grazing fire in the game. I can say that you are going to get a beaten zone with the M1919 at 500m. In fact troops used to tie weights to the barrel to get a better beaten zone with our new C-6 MMG at 600m. I have seen units hit and effected but only if they are in direct line.

Perhaps the problem is with Pillboxes but I tried the test with armour and have posted the result. I pulled back to 600-700m and had even fewer casualties.

I think we (or BTS) need to establish a "standardized test" and come to an agreement of acceptable result. If Maj B is getting 100% denial of an area with his MGs than we have a winner. Four may be too many, when two would normally be enough but at least we can see it.

I have no doubt that MGs are weak in the game and I think everybody can agree with that, the question is how weak. I think that 2xHMGs firing from enfilade at 300m should be able to stop a coy from getting across open ground, Point A to B of 200ms. They should be able to "Pin" the coy.

I think Jason (though wordy and often rambling as usual ) is on to a point. It isn't the casualties which are important, it is the "stopping power" of the MGs on the coy. That stopping power is the psychological shock the entire organization feels when it sees tracers whipping about from both sides. Nobody wants to die so they hit the dirt. In WWI this was trained and forced out of troops who often had no idea what they were getting into. But in WWII the fire and move tactics allowed soldiers to hit the dirt. When under the situation I have stated above the coy is going to go to ground and stay there.

I think the problem may not be so much with the MGs but with the morale effect the situation should be having on the coy. Same goes for armour. In one test I did a coy ran between two PzIVs, I would not lead a coy through that and if ambushed would bolt into cover and stop all forward movement.

So I am not sure just how much is the weapon and how much is the morale question. In reality seeing casualties outside of your own small organization will cause units to balk.

Now maybe this would lead to a much to frustrating game. People think their units don't do what they say now, imagine if whole coys dropped and refused to move.

Anyway, I think the question need be re-visites in CM2 and I would be very interested to know how BTS "tests" the effects of the weapons in the game to ensure they demonstrate reality to a degree.

[ASL Veteran]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia:

Are beaten zones and grazing fire modeled 100% accurately? No. As Lambshank points out, you can't model every bullet. Are they modeled? Yes. What priority should 100% realism for these receive in the context of Western Front tactics, and how much difference does it make to gameplay? I would say little.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Until you can identify situations where full modelling of grazing fire and beaten zones gives the MG the advantage, you can't identify its importance. Jason pooh poohs the full modelling of grazing fire as well - although his reasons differ from yours (he doesn't want the game turned into a game of angles and feels it would be too difficult for the AI to grasp IIRC).

Situation: city street in Berlin, April 1945. You are Hans the MG gunner with a WW1 surplus MG 08 and you are set up at the end of this street. The street extends for approximately 500 meters then dead ends at a river. There is a Regiment of Soviet infantry that need to cross that street to continue their offensive toward the Reichstag. The Soviet troops are lined up in the buildings along the road all the way from the river up to within 100 meters from your position. They want to cross the street - only you are preventing them from crossing the street and getting to the Reichstag.

In reality you could control the entire length of the street from the river all the way back to your position by using grazing fire. It wouldn't matter if the Soviets crossed simultaneously at points 100 meters from your position, 200 meters, 300 meters, and 400 meters - you could hit them all simultaneously. Obviously you couldn't kill them all, a few would get through, but it would be clear that the Soviets would need to deal with you if they wanted to control that street.

Currently in CMBO, you could cross at all four of those different points and only the troops who crossed 100 meters from your position would be affected. All other crossing points would be completely unaffected. In fact, a gamey player could just set up one sacraficial squad to run directly at the MG and let a whole battalion cross further down with no ill effect.

What practical significance does this have? It means that you cannot isolate city blocks with MGs - therefore you cannot prevent reinforcements from getting into a city block that you want to take. You change that one thing - grazing fire - and it changes the whole complexion of the game.

Anyway, I see little profit in continuing this discussion because I am not only discussion a cold fact - grazing fire is not modelled in CM - but I am also forced into discussing the tactical significance of grazing fire. I have been down this road numerous times on this board. If you can't identify the tactical significance, you won't realize its importance to the game. I guess it is similar to a conversation about cooking Hot Dogs. I can say that fire allows you to cook your hot dogs thus making them taste better. However, If you always eat your Hot Dogs raw you might saw - "aww, cooking Hot Dogs is overrated - I eat my Hot Dogs raw all the time and they taste just fine." I can tell you about cooking Hot Dogs until I am blue in the face, but until you've actually cooked one you will never know what you are missing. Once you eat cooked Hot Dogs though, you will never want to go back to raw. If BTS ever gets full modelling of grazing fire into CM, you will wonder why you ever thought MGs were adequate before.

[The_Capt]

My Hot Dog has a first name,

It's B-E-A-T-E-N Z-O-N-E

My Hot Dog has a second name,

It's G-R-A-Z-I-N-G F-I-R-E

[Username]

Well like it or not, the game is going to introduce angles in the form of covered arcs.

If the MG is given a narrow long covered arc, it remains to be seen what the 'crossing' effects are. Will each crossing unit get a squirt? Will they flatten out or keep on running depending on if they are assaulting or moving/running? Is there any point in making the arc narrow? Will narrow arcs generate quick reactions to units crossing the arc?

Lewis

I think most of the people here want to know. Its an exciting game change and the reality level of the game will go up. Personally, I think that the spotting should be tied into the arc angle too.

[Andrew H.]

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

I think that 2xHMGs firing from enfilade at 300m should be able to stop a coy from getting across open ground, Point A to B of 200ms. They should be able to "Pin" the coy.

I think Jason (though wordy and often rambling as usual ) is on to a point. It isn't the casualties which are important, it is the "stopping power" of the MGs on the coy. That stopping power is the psychological shock the entire organization feels when it sees tracers whipping about from both sides. Nobody wants to die so they hit the dirt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that this is generally right, and there are a couple of things that keep this from happening in CM. The first, as Jason noted, is overuse of veteran troops. Veteran troops are Gavin's paratroopers crossing the Meuse under fire in flimsy boats, unloading, and the boats returning to the other side, still under fire, to pick up more men to cross the river. Most troops weren't like this, and green troops, in particular, are especially sensitive to MG fire. HMG fire at 500-600 meters vs. a green squad in the open will -- about 50% of the time -- cause the squad to go to ground and seek cover, even though there are usually no casualties. This is very realistic behavior that is modeled in CM.

What's not modeled very well in CM is MG target switching. This would make MGs more historically effective against green troops especially: if a short burst can cause a squad to go to ground, and an MG can fire 4 or 5 short bursts in a turn, this would give the MG the potential to stop 4 or 5 squads in a turn, rather than one. (Although a short burst won't always stop a green squad at 500 meters). Having a larger beaten zone would also make MGs more effective vs. green squads at range, too.

But this plan (which essentially permits the MG to spread its fire more thinly among more squads) depends on the use of less experienced troops to obtain results that are consistent with most historical accounts.

This issue doesn't directly relate to the Capt's mad minute experiment, but it is complementary in that it points out that, at longer ranges, the lack of realism is not a function of MGs not having enough firepower, but of the MGs not being permitted to spread the firepower out thinly enough. Thus, a fix to the MGs close-in weaknesses should be narrowly tailored to not make the MG overpowerful at longer ranges.

[Lambshank]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I guess [this MG thread] is similar to a conversation about cooking Hot Dogs. I can say that fire allows you to cook your hot dogs thus making them taste better. However, If you always eat your Hot Dogs raw you might saw - "aww, cooking Hot Dogs is overrated - I eat my Hot Dogs raw all the time and they taste just fine." I can tell you about cooking Hot Dogs until I am blue in the face, but until you've actually cooked one you will never know what you are missing. Once you eat cooked Hot Dogs though, you will never want to go back to raw. If BTS ever gets full modelling of grazing fire into CM, you will wonder why you ever thought MGs were adequate before. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

or, one may know the pleasures of a pan fried or grilled hot dog, but realize the particular stove or grill one has will take 2–3 years to cook it properly. Given that bounding parameter, one will gladly take a raw hot dog, when what one has been eating before has been cat food.

The discussion of tactics and game implementation is fruitful and enjoyable, but I sense no one is arguing that the game as a whole is not “gamey”. What I sense is the argument is whether we've reached a point of diminishing marginal returns, or worse, whether tampering with the balance of nature in a high-strung simulation will result in even more egregious outcomes.

[JasonC]

While I agree with Andrew about green troops for realism, I don't agree that the issue is spreading MG firepower thinner, among a greater number of targets.

One, MGs will change targets if the AI picks them, instead of having one designated by the player. They usually don't switch until the target goes to ground, but they do prefer men up or firing, as well as close ones.

Two, the issue is definitely that little is done to the units fired at. It is not like every shot badly hurts the target but the MG then "overkills" it, letting others go. The ones shot at are often fine. Spreading the already low effect over more units will not do the trick.

Part of the issue is rush behavior, in the form of set reactions to being fired at in any ground that is open. The initial response of a moving unit to such fire is to accelerate to a run. If the morale state is green, that is all that will happen. If the morale state is pushed up to yellow, then the unit will often change its destination to the nearest non-open ground tile and run for the (lower unit qualities especially). If the morale state gets to red, then the unit voids its orders and runs, but often in the wrong direction, trying to avoid fire but usually badly.

One annoying minor thing, not related to the MG firepower problem, is that units in an open ground tile will often react that way, even if stationary or if they do have some form of cover. Walls aren't used properly. Going to a crawl might mean no exposure at all, but units will still run as though naked. Hedges likewise, and craters/foxholes in open ground are abandoned far too easily. Similarly, a unit in open ground behind a ridge often has great cover available by backing up slightly, but with shot in open ground the unit will often run for scattered trees that are more, not less, exposed.

This undoubtedly all has to do with the "seek cover" routine not knowing LOS considerations from baked beans. Admittedly, this a hard programming problem to solve perfectly. But it would be nice if the routine could ask "if I go to heads-down/crawling right here, how exposed will I be to that shooter?" - and if it treated foxholes and craters as adequate cover, regardless of the tile type.

I think a more realistic rush behavior would be to go to ground if the morale state hits yellow. Meaning, reduce the movement rate, instead of increasing it. The path should be cleared and the destination changed to the nearest cover too.

Right now, higher quality troops will run to their listed waypoint - or even divert to charge directly at their shooter - even while "shaken", which I think is far more aggressive than realistic combat behavior. Regardless of what training tries to teach about ambushes, the overwhelmingly dominant reaction to heavy fire (which a yellow morale state should track) is to go to ground.

The "accelerate to run" or "charge the shooter" behaviors might be restricted to green morale results, like "alerted". BTS has already said they will be revising such rush behavior issues for CM2, of course.

There still is an issue about not enough men being hit during hazardous movement, especially at range. I don't mean Somme massacres; I am not calling for 1 MG to kill 3-5 men per shot. More like, running in open, multiply exposed % by 1.5, moving in open, multiply it by 1.25.

Then just going to a crawl (which incidentally ought to be faster, closer to the speed of "sneak", to represent a high crawl rather than a low crawl) would provide some protection. The current level of firepower per unit time would be quite believable for troops high-crawling in moderate-length grass.

Personally, I'd like to see a more systematic tie between % exposed and movement state, but a few ad hoc changes could tweak the current system without much revision.

[Battlefront.com]

Folks,

I really wish people would do searches before they start long threads There must be about a dozen detailed threads on MGs and their effectiveness in the game. I really don't have the time to get into another in depth discussion on the topic, but I will address one question posed by The_Capt:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think there is not much else to say except I hope CMBB can do better but if ASL Vet is correct it may take an engine rebuild.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Major reworking has already been done. As in already coded, but not yet tweaked. Some of the changes have nothing to do with MGs specifically, but never-the-less have an impact on this topic:

1. New default Experience - Green/Regular will now be the usual default, not Regular/Veteran. Hopefully this will reduce the overuse of Veterans by gamers. The behavior differences between Green and Regular are rather significant, but Green and Veteran are huge.

2. Run has been changed to a pure sprint - no cover and no return fire worth speaking of (SMGs at 20m or so have 25% firepower, simulting firing from the hip). Running straight at ANY capable enemy unit is not a pretty sight.

3. Grazing Fire effect has been increased - this is in CMBO, but the effect was not as great as we feel it should be. This means you can at least suppress more units in a greater area than you currently can now.

4. Final Defensive Fire - currently MGs (LMGs, MMGs, HMGs) do not have the ability to unload as fast as they can when an enemy unit gets up really close. This has been added and works great. Closer the enemy unit gets, the greater the chance that the unit will unload quicker. This applies to Squads with LMGs as well as dedicated MG teams.

5. Target Switching - we have greatly increased the amount of target switching that can take place for MGs. This is range dependent, but is also state dependent. In other words, a MG will now be more likely to switch from a Pinned unit to one that is still in motion.

6. Covered (Firing) Arcs - you can now tell a unit, any unit, to specifically concentrate on a geographical area. This is a brand new, fairly rich feature that goes far beyond just having fields of fire for MGs.

7. New movement orders - the above all favor the MG position, but there are some things that the attacker can now do to avoid getting mowed down or get forced into a rush attack. A new "Move to Contact" order allows a unit to basically get back to cover if it is surprised by enemy fire while on the move. And a new "Assault" order simulates a deliberate, concentrated attack on a given point using leap frogging, covering fire, great use of cover, and decent speed.

What does all this stuff mean? Well, reread these items and think of situations as they are in CM right now. Then think of these various factors appearing on the battlefield in combination with each other. For example...

Attacking Green or Regular units using maximum speed right now reduce time exposed to fire without getting enough of a penalty. Now that the Run order has been changed the player can use it, and basically slaughter his own units, or he can use one of the slower orders, which increases exposure time to enemy fire but better defensive capabilities (cover, return fire). Enemy fire can also be much better concentrated and directed using the Covered Arc command. Cross firing can also be planned, the effects of which are alredy working in CMBO but "distraction" issues mitigate this in a target rich environment. And inside of this zone the MGs will switch targets more frequently and affect a greater area with each burst. If the attacker still makes progress forward, then the MGs will ratchet up their RoF. In the end, the suppressive fire is vastly improved. If the enemy persists in its attacks, or is using poor troops, the casualty rates will also climb up compared to CMBO.

In some quick tests I did in CMBO with running Company of SMG units (a whole 'nother overdone discussion ) overwhelmed two US MMGs taking serious, but not bad enough, casualties (IIRC 25%-30%). In the new Beta they got slaughtered. I don't remember the exact results of the tests (some weeks ago, posted to another thread) but I think in every single test the MMGs survived and all of the attacking units were either routed or wiped out. When we get done programming stuff the attacking units will most likely bugger off sooner, which will reduce their overall casualties, but of course stop them from advancing much.

In conclusion... issue has been discussed much in the past... fixes already coded... more to come.

Steve

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[The_Capt]

Wow,

Thanks Steve. I will apologoze for not searching but have you guys tried that thing lately. Also I did some cool test I wanted to share. I would be very interested in some hard trial results on the new system from some of the Beta Testers.

Quick questions though. Has the ability of the MG to fire from enfilade been increased to model something like a beaten zone. This will give the ability to deny and area. Or is this "Arc of fire" going to emulate that effect. And have these effects been estended to armour MGs

Again I was mainly aiming at some casualty rates and effects, not so much to re-hash the topic. Everybody thinks MGs in CMBO were off to some extent but I don't think anybody came to a solid conclusion as to "how much". And if you don't know "how much" you may overpower the systems.

Anyway good stuff and I look forward to running a comparison with CMBB.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

In some quick tests I did in CMBO with running Company of SMG units (a whole 'nother overdone discussion ) overwhelmed two US MMGs taking serious, but not bad enough, casualties (IIRC 25%-30%). In the new Beta they got slaughtered. I don't remember the exact results of the tests (some weeks ago, posted to another thread) but I think in every single test the MMGs survived and all of the attacking units were either routed or wiped out. When we get done programming stuff the attacking units will most likely bugger off sooner, which will reduce their overall casualties, but of course stop them from advancing much.

]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glad to see this type of testing is part of the new process. But why not use water cooled M1917's?

lewis

[Thomm]

Just re-played "A Day in the Cavalry" as the Germans. My battery of two FlaK guns was attacked by a platoon of US infantry breaking out of the woods at approx. 90 meters distance. Close defense of the battery consisted of two HMG42 teams.

What can I say? One of the HMGs fenced off the whole platoon! No units were eliminated, of course, but they turned around and went were they came from. I was watching this with great interest after following this discussion and did not put to much faith into my MG, but it protected the battery nicely!

I was also pleased to witness that the AI played the two opening battles of this operation better than me. Of course it got ripped to pieces in the long run, but over-performed in the beginning! The mentioned battery was already softened by artillery with one gun being abandoned. The subsequent infantry charge was a textbook move!

Regards, Thomm

[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: Rollstoy ]

[Lanzfeld]

Steve,

I was just wondering.....

Is there any way that these MG fixes and enhancments can be "patched" into CMBO? I am looking forward to the East Front but CMBO will always be my fav. Just wondering.

James

[Apa]

We aren't propably going to get any patches to CMBO anymore, or atleast not a patch that makes this game CMBB on the west front. Asking for such a patch is a bit like asking for a free upgrade from Quake1 to Quake2 to Quake3. Ofcourse I also would like to see this done, or some other way to play on the western front with the new "rules" before the second coming of CM engine.