CM2 Modification for HMG: Idea

[FFE]

The current handling of HMGs permits them maximum firepower with reduction in manpower. Instead of this allowance, HMGs ought to start losing some of their effectiveness once they suffer casualties.

Break down/divide HMGs into parts, thus having their total firepower reduced when casualties are incurred. For example: MG-42 HMG; instead of 1 MG-42 listed, it would show 6 HMG Handlers with the proper ratio of 1/6th firepower per individual. The total Firepower column would sum the Handlers into an effective total.

[BorderBill]

The effective rate of fire for a heavy MG would not be effected until the crew was reduced to 2 or less crew. In a HMG crew you have a primary gunner, a loader, and the rest of the crew are ammo bearers who also help carry the tripod, spare barrels, etc. Therefore a reduction in crew from 6 to four while effecting mobility and the amount of ammo that would be available would not necessarily effect the rate of fire. When not carrying ammo, the additional crew act as riflemen who provide local security for the MG and may help spot targets. A crew of two in a static position with all their ammo in their fighting position can use a MG to it's full effectiveness.

[rleete]

This isn't very realistic. If a team firing a HMG, and one of the ammo carriers gets hit, does that mean the mg fire isn't as effective? Or that the bullets lose some of their velocity? No, It just means that they may become shaken or pinned. As it is it seem that HMG teams don't have enough supression of enemy infantry as expected.

Damn, ya beat me to it. Exactly what I was trying to say.

Edited because I type too slow.

[ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: R_Leet ]

[Username]

As if the HMGs are not modeled weakly enough as is?

I could see the spotting reduced or the movable ammo being similarly decreased. If a HMG moves, it can only take what is capable of being moved.

The way HMGs are modeled now remind me of those japanese open-clip fed tripod jobs. They fire so slowly and cant repulse rushes, etc.

Lets let BTS fix them first please?

Lewis

[FFE]

Realism aside for a moment. The firepower of any give HMG is not based purely on the weapon; all factors are brought into play, totally encompassing the spectrum. This includes additional personnel, added mobility, and redundancy. Back to realism: Stating to the effect, HMG's only need # men might be true, the game's firepower abstraction embellishes a full complement of men working in unison. Start fragmenting the unit and efficiency ought to dwindle, but it currently doesn't. At best one might be able to suppress a HMG at range, but total destruction of a HMG is not the norm. Slack off fire for a minute, the HMG generally reinitiates fire, without any negative features due to casualties.

I comprehend a few other issues concerning HMGs. Those issues (running, speed, ammo, suppression capabilities, etc....), but those were beaten to death. My slant doesn't involve those issues, just current code (in-game) concepts.

[Michael Emrys]

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

Start fragmenting the unit and efficiency ought to dwindle...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you mean by "efficiency"? You have already had explained to you by several people why the firepower would not be diminished as long as two men remain. So just exactly what are we talking about here?

:confused:

Michael

[FFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

So just exactly what are we talking about here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The firepower of any HMG is not calculated purely on the weapon alone. Two men cannot operate a HMG as efficiently as Six, especially if one casualties was carrying spare barrels, optics, or whatever else is needed. The game detracts ammo for loss of personnel if it moves. When a single man remains the unit becomes immobile. Although, a single man operates a HMG to its fullest capabilities under the current scheme, which is not-quite-right. I've often had immobilized HMG's continue to pour out lead as if every single man in the unit was standing. There are no shades of grey. HMG's are either 100% firepower effective or it's dead.

It takes a near-full complement of men in order to field a HMG to its maximum capabilities. The current HMG incarnation does not adjust firepower whatsoever so long as a single man remains.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Two men cannot operate a HMG as efficiently as Six, especially if one casualties was carrying spare barrels, optics, or whatever else is needed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as the spare barrel and ammo are close at hand, I see no reason at all why 2 people could not opperate a MG at full efficiency or close to it. HMGs don't move around much, so it's logical to assume that if the guy carrying that stuff if hit, it will still be nearby.

I agree that a MG reduced to one crew should be severely handicapped, and should probably just abandon the weapon instead of becoming immobile.

I'm forced to agree with Lewis that the last thing CM needs right now are less effective MGs.

[ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Michael Emrys]

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

Two men cannot operate a HMG as efficiently as Six, especially if one casualties was carrying spare barrels, optics, or whatever else is needed. The game detracts ammo for loss of personnel if it moves. When a single man remains the unit becomes immobile. Although, a single man operates a HMG to its fullest capabilities under the current scheme, which is not-quite-right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I can see what you are driving at now. Thanks for the clarification. But if I may say so, I think the issue is a bit different than you are visualising it. The loss of the bearers of the spare barrels should effect firepower only if the gun is moved after they become casualties, otherwise the barrels are right there. In any case, it is reasonable to suppose they would be one of the things brought along if the gun moves. Same applies to the sights. You just don't leave them behind.

Your statement that the HMG continues to operate at maximum efficiency when it is down to one man is a much more serious matter, and if it is the case than I agree that it should be addressed. As I have made no observations myself, I will take your word that this is the case. Clearly barrel swaps and ammo feed would be trickier and more time consuming with one man.

Michael

[FFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

As long as the spare barrel and ammo are close at hand, I see no reason at all why 2 people could not opperate a MG at full efficiency or close to it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compare a LMG-42 to a HMG-42. The difference is 200% firepower and more range allotted to the HMG. Simply because the HMG uses a Tripod instead of a Bipod? Whittle the HMG-42 down to two men and you are left with a fully capable HMG-42; 3x the firepower and greater range than the bipod version. The underlying reason for the 200% greater firepower lies within the additional four men who are either firing rifles or assisting the sole MG-42.

There is no attrition. This is wrong. The firepower figures are based on a full complement of men. We are playing with HMG firepower figures that don't shift.

[ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Then maybe the LMG should be made more powerful.

No one has yet provided a logical reason why 2 men cannot opperate a MG at full or near full efficiency given that the necessary equipment is near at hand.

I restate that MGs are under modeled in CM under some circumstances as is, so a lessening of MG effectiveness would not result in increased realism.

[offtaskagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Then maybe the LMG should be made more powerful.

No one has yet provided a logical reason why 2 men cannot opperate a MG at full or near full efficiency given that the necessary equipment is near at hand.

I restate that MGs are under modeled in CM under some circumstances as is, so a lessening of MG effectiveness would not result in increased realism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The main reason HMGs have higher firepower is they can afford to burn up more ammo per burst. Thats because they have 6 men per crew to carry around it all. Also the tripod mount makes it more accurate so more bullets are on target. It's also easier to change barrels, though 2 men probably could do that just fine.

[Battlefront.com]

FFE wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The underlying reason for the 200% greater firepower lies within the additional four men who are either firing rifles or assisting the sole MG-42.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not correct. The increase in FP is due to the tripod and optics. The difference between firing something like a MG42 on the ground with a bipod compared to the Lafette tripod is night and day. That is why the Germans went through so much trouble to lug them around Also, it was pretty much standard to have at least two spare barrels for the HMG which increases the practical rate of fire. The two spares were usually in a single container, so losing crew members is not an issue even when moving since one barrel is just as easy to carry as two.

As for actually manning the MG, it makes no difference how it is deployed. Two men is all that is needed. Period. One is the gunner, the other the loader. It really is as simple as that. Having a third man around to change barrels would have no real effect on efficiency since a well trained GUNNER could fire his gun and change the barrel in about 6 seconds. So how much faster do you think a third man could do this? 5 seconds instead of 6? So again, it makes no difference if there are 2, 3, 6, or 552 men manning that MG. In terms of keeping the gun firing there is absolutely no tangible difference. At least until the ammo runs out. Obviously having 550 men carrying ammo for a gun would be much better than 1 man

Now... when said unit goes to move then we have a big difference here. A two man HMG team is still barely mobile due to the extra weight of everything needed to keep the MG a HMG (i.e. tripod and ammo). A two man LMG team can move faster because it isn't weighed down as much. And obviously a two man LMG can always move with its full allotment of ammo, but a two man HMG can not.

When either weapon is down to just ONE man it suffers a hit to its FP. This is a standard thing we do for crew served weapons, no matter what it is (i.e. AT gun, IG, HMG, whatever). The logic here is simple and consistent. In the case of a MG takes two men to work the gun efficiently, and only two. So if you dip below this number, FP certainly should be reduced.

So to recap... extra crew men over 2 are there to carry ammo and to replace fallen comrade in order to keep the gun functional. That was their historic role, and that is their role in CM. There will be no changes to this in CM2.

Steve

[Reverendo]

As far as I know, the tripod allows the MG to use a light bolt instead of the heavy one mounted in light MGs.

Though I do not remember the exact numbers, the heavy bolt gave the MG a fire rate of about 800 r.p.m while the light one allowed for 1200 r.p.m. You cannot fire a MG effectively at the latter fire rate if it is not fairly well fixed to the ground with a tripod, that does not only add a third leg for better stability, but more weight to the MG itself, thus reducing recoil and making the high fire rate bearable.

The increase of range is mainly due to the optics, since the bullet and the gun are still the same. The reduction of recoil would help the bullet travel a bit further, that is true, but I am pretty sure that the relevant increase is not in actual range but in effective range, since better optics would allow the gunner to target objects that are far away from his firing position.

I am pretty sure about the firing rate issues I mentioned above, but I would need correction for range issues. I can help with physics, but I have never seen the optics of a German HMG.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

FFE wrote:

That was their historic role, and that is their role in CM. There will be no changes to this in CM2.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But will you be able to "convert" an HMG into an LMG - by abandoning the tripod/optics and hotfooting it away with your intact LMG with bipod?

[Battlefront.com]

Reverendo is correct about the differences between the bipod and tripod in terms of effectiveness of firing at near max practical RoF. But my information here states that all MG42 gunners had both light and heavy bolts. Although I am sure that a HMG would more likely have it installed than a LMG.

Michael:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But will you be able to "convert" an HMG into an LMG - by abandoning the tripod/optics and hotfooting it away with your intact LMG with bipod?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In theory this could be done, but it will not be possible in CM2 any more than in CM1. The primary reason is the way the code works, the secondary reason is we wanted to avoid abuses. Historically speaking, from what we can tell, the tripod was only abandoned in the most dire of circumstances. It is standard military practice to hold soldiers acountable for the equipment under their charge. This was very true for the German Army. We did not want to allow the human player to just discard the extra weight whenever desired.

Steve

[Username]

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

[QB]

The reduction of recoil would help the bullet travel a bit further, that is true, but I am pretty sure that the relevant ..

[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

??????????????

when you say "bit" are we talking inches or feet?

I think in retrospect a HMG german MG should have been modeled like a squad. In splitting, it would then turn into a LMG (3man) and a crew (3man).

But it seems hard-coded to be HMG or not.

Lewis

[ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[FFE]

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

This is a standard thing we do for crew served weapons, no matter what it is (i.e. AT gun, IG, HMG, whatever<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for shining light on my view. I perceive and recognize the meaning of what you wrote. The additional crew of any HMG is added redundancy for its utilization and additional ammo carrying capabilities. CM does not add a firepower rating based on the extra personnel. Since HMG's never abandon their crewed weapon, I presumed they functioned akin to infantry squads, rather than Mortars, AT guns, etc.... Which brings up another facet, why do HMG's never de-crew their weapon? Rather presumptuous, but I have witnessed an uncountable number of situations when a routed/broken HMG tries to slowly slog its way across the battlefield instead of dropping their weapon/ammo to commence running.

[Grunto IV]

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

As if the HMGs are not modeled weakly enough as is?

Lets let BTS fix them first please?

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i'm with you on this one. let's get them to where they're as effective as in asl then, after that worry about the number of crew members at any given moment.

andy

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But it seems hard-coded to be HMG or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. And this answers FFE's question as well. The way the code works, MG and PAT teams (doesn't matter what type or nationality) are treated like infantry. When they freak out they keep their weapons just like a regular infantry squad. This is distinctly different than other crewed weapons such as mortars and guns.

I forget the exact reason for this, but that is the way it is. It has to do with internal coding stuff that doesn't necessarily make sense from the player's perspective (which is why I keep forgetting the reasoning ). All I know is that there would have to be a substantial change to the code to change the way it works, and that won't happen until the new CM engine is made (after CM2).

Steve

[Paco QNS]

The real extreme: un-manned firing HMGs.

At least once time in the Spanish Civil War, nationalist infantry advanced -avoiding the continous lane of fire- against what they supposed were blind machine-gunners. The republican army unit had left their russian "Maxim" HMGs -with lots of ammo linked and fixed triggers- before their "retrograde" movement.

A bit of a "Zinderneuf-esque" tactic with harassing fire ((like putting false soldiers to defend a fortress)), but retardating, notwithstand. Don´t know if it was a russian practice. Have anyone heard it before? ((In that case, must it be in CMBB? ))

[Username]

I have read accounts of germans doing such things as tying strings to tripod HMGs and then pulling the string/trigger to make the enemy think fire is coming from a flank when no one is there. Seems hoaky.

The germans would also fire tracer laden bursts about head high. This would pin down guys or at least make them do the doubled-over rush. Meanwhile a non-tracer MG is putting a firelane across the field around shin high.

[MikeyD]

Getting back to the original question, I was under the impression that in the game when a mg's crew decreases there's a corresponding tendency for the mg to be less willing to maintain a steady rate of fire. Sure the mg itself doesn't decrease in firepower, but a reduced crew is more likely to take cover. Ain't that the same thing?

[FFE]

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

... mg's crew decreases there's a corresponding tendency for the mg to be less willing to maintain a steady rate of fire. ... but a reduced crew is more likely to take cover. Ain't that the same thing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although I do not know for absolute certainty the answer to the first portion, by evaluating my observations; HMG's tend to maintain a unitary ROF. Steve pointed out HMGs reduced to a one man crew will, indeed, be adversely affected. I believe then, any HMG with two or more men will maintain a unitary ROF, unless receiving fire.

All units operating with fewer than their maximum allotted crew become brittle, susceptible to worsening morale states. The worsening morale states reduce ROF (Firepower), progressively. The worse the state, the fewer 'shots' per minute the unit will risk.

Culminating the first portion with the second bespeaks possibilities. If one maintains a sustained fire at a HMG, which is operating with fewer than normal men, then yes the ROF will decrease. However, there exists several tangible factors. 1) Sustained fire requires ammo and once your ammo levels become unsatisfactory, you are unable to suppress (by morale state reduction) the targeted HMG. 2) If the HMG relocates or situates itself in a manner as to reduce exposure to incoming fire and its current state is greater than a single operator, then the HMG operates near (if not fully) in its capabilities.