more machinegun follies-- yet another call for a fix

[Battlefront.com]

Foobar:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If Pillar's test example is not suitable for isolating a fair appraisal of the MG simulation, please suggest one that is, or perhaps give me a link to where it has been done. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this is the reason why I got annoyed with Pillar. Go back and read my first couple of posts. I clearly, in no uncertain terms, outlined why Pillar's test was flawed. At least to the extent he wished to draw broad conclusions from such a test. Pillar decided to not address this but instead use "veterans" and out of context quotes to support his position. That is why I said, twice, that I was disapointed with Pillar's way of expressing himself. I said that I expected better from him BECAUSE he is not a newbie/detractor, yet that is the way he pushed forward.

And of course anybody in this thread that has said "MGs are fine as is" or "I see that BTS has a difficult balance to make" have been ignored as if there is only ONE correct way to look at this. On the other hand, I have explicitely stated that there are flaws with CM in general, and MGs specifically, and that we are going to try fixing this for CM2. At the same time I am still saying that Pillar's test, and therefore conclusions, are overblown and out of context.

o in my opinion Pillar is not totally wrong and the people that say it is "about right" are not totally correct. However, Pillar's conclusions go far further than his test supports, especially when he brought in vehicles into the discussion from left field.

Steve

[PlankWithANailIn]

Please stop, your making my ears bleed.

Plank :eek:

[Foobar]

Steve,

I went back and re-read your posts. I think I understand where you are coming from. And by the way, I dont think there is just ONE way of looking at this. All I can use personally is my own perceptions. I didnt find anything telling me what parameters to use for a fair test, and I am still interested in doing that.

The situation of a MG position being charged is at the heart of the issue

One of the problems with a forum conversation, is that you realise what people are getting at much later than you would in casual conversation. And I am going to try to stop beating around the bush, and get to it.. (roight)

You said that CM2 will have to be tinkered with to deal with human wave attacks. I read that, and it hit me, that's what many of us are talking about. People are doing Human Wave attacks now! Thats the whole problem. I dont want to mention a certain popular ladder where this kind of wacky tactical action seems the most prevalent, but when I started encountering some of the very very unorthodox players, it threw everything I thought I knew about this game on its head. I thought MG emplacements could counter concentrated infantry groups, and deny open ground to advancing units. It does not play out that way against tight groups of infantry running across open fields at your MG's.

The system is what I am getting at. You probably havent encountered it, in the circle of players you encounter, but there is some wierd stuff going on out here in CM-ville.

Against conservative players, it rarely comes up, but now that I know how the system works, I find it infecting my own play behvior.

So what it comes down to, is that people are doing Human Wave attacks today. It is becoming more and more common, and I dont know how to play the game anymore. Everything I thought I knew is thrown on its head, and I cant seem to use it to simulate real ww2 combat, which is what is my passion, as it is yours.

I cant speak for everyone else, but for me, I am hot on this issue not because I dislike CM, but because I love it, and in my screwed up way of thinking it is being tainted by wacky tactics that the game engine does not punish.

[André]

Please get over this guys, BTS are aware of the problems and are working on possible solutions. What more can you ask of a developer?

Heinz

[Ron]

*Captain Foobar*, I think I know where you are coming from. After being away from CM for awhile I completed a couple games where I experienced that human-wave assault w/VG SMG platoons - gamey b******s, you know who you are! I didn't quite grasp what 'unrestricted' could possibly mean, now I know! Anyways my friends in those games were the 81mm FOs and the M3A1 HT/Scout Cars, they served to break up the assaults before they could hit home, allowing my infantry to deal with depleted VGs piecemeal. Don't know if I got lucky or not but a suggestion for what it's worth...

Ron

[Foobar]

Heinz, you said that BTS is aware of the problems.

This whole conversation is about trying to understand what the problems are. I dont think I am being unfair. If I am in fault it could only be in my tone. (Judging by your reaction to my post).

Let me reiterate here and now that I am a BIG fan of BTS. They have delivered in a way that no wargame developer has before, from my experience. I love this game, I appreciate their hard work. I can also say that they have a stellar track record of listening to customer feedback, and I give them the benefit of the doubt on just about everything.

Check my posts throughout the last year and beyond. I am not one who has been sniping at them. I rarely take up a controversial issue here, but this one is important to me, and I want to got to the bottom of it. Either I dont understand ww2 combat on this issue, or something needs to be worked on. I approach this with humility, and I will accept that I am incorrect on the matter, based on rational explanation. BUT, I would rather not see anyone come around saying otherwise without pointing to rational evidence to the contrary.

[ 04-08-2001: Message edited by: *Captain Foobar* ]

[Battlefront.com]

Foobar,

I hear yeah. As for a better test, I was as specific as I need to be. There is no one right way to see how MGs work in the larger context, but there are some ways that are more correct than others. The more the test involves realistic, standard combined arms situations the better it will reflect how well CM handles MGs in their propper context. The only situation that is really not acceptable, if one wishes to make broad conclusions, is using a MG all by itself. As I have said, take any weapon out of its combined arms context and it is likely to not do nearly as well.

We had a discussion about Human Waves a few weeks back. The conclusion, IIRC, is that they *can* work. Sometimes in some situations. Sometimes these results are actually realistic, sometimes not. The Germans did mount rather clumsy rush tactics towards the end of the war as training standards decined.

The key element to defeating a human wave in CM1 is good positions, keeping your cool, and good combined arms. If you use mortars, MGs, small arms, and other support weapons with terrain very carefully taken into account. The less of this you have, and the more skilled the other guy is, the better chance you will be overwhelmed.

This is fairly realistic. Combined arms tactics were what kept the Germans from being kicked all the way back to Berlin in 1941. But the Germans also suffered huge numbers of casualties and lost a lot of terrain at the local level even during the summer fighting. Human waves, therefore, should work to some extent.

Part of the problem with what you are talking about is typical "gamey" "cherry picking". That is to say, the gamer comes up with a specific combo of units and always plays with them. The number one reason for having a Rarity system in CM2 is to make such "cherry picking" very hard to do when the option is played with (remember... it is OPTIONAL).

To some extent there is no way we can prevent people from playing ahistorically. And yes, ahistorical tactics can often turn an otherwise realistic game "on its head" as you put it. The more freedom the player has to choose his forces and the conditions they fight under, the greater the risk that player is going to be able to play using ahistorical tactics. CM offers some controls to help counter act this truth, but it is still ultimately up to players to decide how they wish to play. CM2 will have more controls, but the basic truth will still remain.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Foobar,

You don't have to defend your record of working for a better CM to anybody, least of all me. I think Heinz was just saying that we have, and continue, to state that there are shortcomings to the way MGs work. This is correct.

Because we are aware of these issues is exactly why I take such an issue with those who say CM's MGs are totally inept. They aren't. Perfect? Certinaly not, but apparently neither are the way people are using them.

But overall, the basic reason why (IOHO) people have constantly complained about MGs is that they have a Hollywood sense of their capabilities. This image is very clear that when the good guys have an MG, the enemy dies in piles in front of it. Oddly enough, whenever a friendly force attacks a MG (like in SPR) they take one or two casualties. Just like the real life memories of Audie Murphy as described in this thread. I have always found this kinda funny since these images are totally contradictory.

MGs are potent and dangerous weapons. This is very true. Some MGs were better than others. This is also true. Some situations for MGs were more favorable than others. Unfortunately, this is far too often not understood.

Hehe... man, I remember when the CM Beta came out. The Close Combat fans complained that the firepower ratings for practically everything in CM were too weak. We could trot out statistics and testimonials, but in the end we could not convince a core group that their concept of lethality, as demonstrated in a game like Close Combat, was incorrect. The single worst misunderstanding about effectiveness was the MG. Still is.

CM might not be perfect, but it is a fair representation of WWII small unit combat. The MG is a fundamental part of that simulation. If we have MGs as badly simulated as some think, then the game as a whole would totally fall apart. Yup, it is that core to the game. Since it doesn't fold up when looked at objectively, then we can't be that far off with how we simulate MGs.

Steve

[Foobar]

Steve,

Just one more thing. I dont think your responses were fair towards Pillar. You seemed to misjudge his motivations entirely, and that seemed kind of messed up. He's one of your devoted sycophants man...I thought he was being reasonable..

Thats all I have to say about that..

[kmead]

I don't wish to get too bound up in this but I would like to speak of my very limited experience with machine guns. I had the wonderful summer opportunity (twenty years ago this coming May) to enjoy a summer camp trip to beautiful Fort Knox, Kentucky all expenses paid by the US taxpayer. While I was there I had the enjoyable opportunity to fire a number of weapons on ranges of which the M60 bipod mounted light machine gun (a true misnomer if you have ever hefted one around for any distance) was one. I didn't for long, just a couple of 500 round cans of ammo, but it is something I remember to this day.

All we had to do is run up to an emplacement, hunker down, get the weapon ready and then fire on a variety of very holey 55gal drums in groups at different ranges and angles from the emplacement. The range had a number of hillocks and very little (surviving) vegetation with a larger hill some 1500 meters distant.

First it is very difficult to hit a target, in fact once the trigger is squeezed it is well nigh unto impossible for the gunner (me) to even see the target until I let off on the trigger and can see the last of my bullets impacting the drums and hitting the hill downrange. After a few tries we are then required to change to another target at a different angle to the emplacement.

No you do not pick up the gun and skootch the muzzle over, the emplacement has a narrow embrasure that requires that I crab my body several feet sideways (to lift the weapon you would likely need to kneel which would bring you up above the parapet and expose you to fire, which by the way angers DIs no end...) to acquire the new target then you would have to work with your teammate to arrange the ammo feed and begin laying on more fire. Eventually you do get into a rhythm and eventually you start hitting the drums with some of the bullets with alot of help from your team mate whacking you to gain your attention for redirects.

A machine gun is an incredibly violent machine, the mass of the machine running (firing) and the noise is incredible. I have no notion of how many of my 1000 shells hit the targets, but it was not nearly what I could do with my M16A1. It was interesting shooting at the targets 500 to 1000 meters away as you could fire and see the tracers in flight and then impacting down range. I then got to do the same thing over from the loaders perspective.

Admittedly I was not very trained, nor am I built on the physical scale that a machine gunner needs to be (at the time I was 130lbs/5'6", still 5'6" but now 162lbs thanks honey) so I can't say that what I experienced is indicative of what real results would be. What I can say, is its difficult to hit a specific thing with a machine gun, and if the thing is jinking from side to side to avoid being hit and alternating with another advancer at some lateral distance the chance of being able to hit either one diminishes immensely the closer to the machine gun they get. A HMG mount will do better, being able to move smoothly from side to side with little effort, but the problem remains that a close infantry assault would be a hard thing to break with a machine gun as I perceive the problem relative to my limited experience. My .02, thanks;

[Vitalis]

Ok, my experience with full auto weapons is only that of an amatuer, but better than the average Joe In addition, I am also a competative shooter in both handgun and rifles.

Now a person at 200 meters, just standing there is a difficult target, your front sight blade completely covers them and they are about as big as a pea. And this is with my standard M4 pattern rifle. Single Shot causes you to lose the sight picture momentarily, jumps completely off the target.

Now mind you, that target is stationary, it is not moving, not running, nothing. So you say that you will just follow the target? B.S. A ten millimeter deviation at the tip of your barrel will be about a ten meter deviation at 200 meters. That is quite a difference. My geometry may be off here, but I am illustrating the point sufficiently.

I have also had the priviledge to fire a Ma Duece (M2HB .50 cal), a PPSH, a M-60, a HK MP5K, and a full auto HK-91 (G-3).

One squeeze of the trigger, or depression of the firing spoon and these babies are all over the place. Now, the MP5K was the nicest, followed by the Russian PPSH, but the 91, the M-60, and the M2HB were aweful. The M2HB was on a locked mount as well, and that baby was all over the place.

I even have video of a M2HB on a fixed tripod being fired at a mid-70s Buick at 100 meters. It was a hundred round belt, the car was stationary on blocks. Bullets hit it from the front of the car to the back of the car (It was a side shot), went over it, went under it, and missed it wide in the front and the back. Granted, the car was swiss cheese, but only about 30 bullets out of a hundred hit the car.

So, that was a 16 or 17 foot stationary object at 100 meters, a locked down fixed tripod, and only 30% of the bullets hit the target.

Now run the same experiment with a man at that range. You won't be hitting squat, maybe one round if you are lucky.

Machineguns are not man killers, they are suppressive weapons. The only beef I have with how machine guns are modeled, is the lack of suppressive action they have on the target.

In the scenario that was run where a single squad charge the machinegun and only took 3 or 4 casualties, I have no problem with that, it is fairly (within a wide margin of reason) realistic. My problem comes with the fact that if a squad endures direct machinegun fire for 30 seconds, they should be suppressed and going NO WHERE. That is what machineguns are designed for.

Just my .02 cents...

Have a good one,

Vitalis

[KiwiJoe]

Yeah if they could somehow use the "grazing fire" code to work as a suppression device things could be different. Thus any MG firing at a squad would supress near-by squads.. if that makes sense

[Vitalis]

It makes total sense, though I totally understand the reasons why they had to do the machine guns the way they did.

I like them and have no problem with them. They do damage fine, they tear up squads fine, had one last night rip into one of my squads from about 600 meters and screwed me up bad.

All in all, I like them.

But in a perfect world.... hehehehe we could have grazing fire.

So, I was wondering, isn't the figure something like over 200,000 rounds fired by the US during WWII just to get ONE casualty???

Vitalis

[StellarRat]

Once again, the MGs are plenty powerful enough if you use them correctly. I think some people are under the impression that you shouldn't be able to advance on a MG with unsupported infantry. This is obviously not true. Otherwise WW II would still be underway! As a couple posters have stated, it's hard to hit an individual with a MG. Never mind that the "targets" are shooting back and trying to use every piece of cover available. Also, the infantry isn't just running straight toward the gun! They are dodging, ducking, hiding and doing whatever they can not to be hit. If they were "running" right at the gun I imagine that they could cover at least 200 - 400 yards per turn, so even running in CM isn't really running it's just moving faster than normal. Call me whatever you want, but for the most part they seem to work just fine IMHO.

[Vitalis]

That is exactly what I was trying to point out. A unit is very very hard to hit at any range. Machineguns are suppressive weapons. A squad that has suffered a few casualties should be suppressed, but not just waxed cause you are defending with a super bullet garden hose of death.....

And when a squad is hiding, ducking, pulsing forward, they can be nigh on impossible to hit.

CM did a good job when you think about the generalizations they had to encompass in the code. I am VERY impressed with the game.

Vitalis

[kmead]

I don't think a MG should be able to suppress a nearby squad, which was my point although not clearly stated. It is in effect easier to lay down longer range suppressing fire than it is to try and hit several nearby targets that are going from cover to cover in alternating leap frog movements. You don't move in the line our abstracted digital soldiers are showing, (I apologize in advance for the the following insufficient explanation which in present company is likely entirely unneeded) instead soldier A moves from one bit of cover to the next. Soldier B now moves forward in the same fashion but he is twenty yards away to the side, soldier C lays on suppressing covering fire. The further they are apart (laterally) the more difficult it is to keep track of which one is moving and having to resite the weapon on the constantly switching targets. This is hard to do and takes time by which time the next target to one side is moving and somebody is dumping suppressive fire upon you.

The closer they are, the less effective a machine gun is likely to be when out of context with the combined arms that its a part of. In effect supporting the way the game works and what was found in the scenario that started this thread. Ok so this is my .02 more.

[yobobo@TH]

Steve wrote:

We had a discussion about Human Waves a few weeks back. The conclusion, IIRC, is that they *can* work. Sometimes in some situations. Sometimes these results are actually realistic, sometimes not. The Germans did mount rather clumsy rush tactics towards the end of the war as training standards decined.

The key element to defeating a human wave in CM1 is good positions, keeping your cool, and good combined arms. If you use mortars, MGs, small arms, and other support weapons with terrain very carefully taken into account. The less of this you have, and the more skilled the other guy is, the better chance you will be overwhelmed.

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

From what I have seen.

This wave attack works more times than not. And in the right hands it will work about 90+% of the time. Will not matter what you have behind your lines, you will lose. A flat map with 0 tree cover will help you though

yo

[ 04-08-2001: Message edited by: yobobo@TH ]

[StellarRat]

Actually, I think artillery is FAR superior for suppression vs MGs. Even the little stuff is very dangerous. I hope I never have to be in combat, but if I had to choose between being shot at by a MG or have someone dropping mortar rounds on me I'd pick the MG every time. At least with a MG you only have to worry about fire coming from one direction.

[ 04-08-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

[Battlefront.com]

Pillar:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyone who reads this thread from a neutral, grounded standpoint will see that all of Steve's claims suggesting I have some personal vendetta against him or the game are complete BS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ratchet down the rhetoric. I said nothing of the sort about you. What I did say is that you made a broad, general, and grossly unfair conclusion based on a flawed test. I tried to explain why the test was flawed, and therefore why your your conclusions were unfair, but when you ducked the challenge to the test and stuck to your guns I got ticked off. I will say I am sorry for that, but I will not apologize for slurring your motivations because I did not do so.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve said he didn't think there was a problem because nobody seemed to be talking about it much. I posted a list of quotes from various discussions suggesting it WAS being talked about. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I said was relative. Compared to some of the other things people have been bitching about since Beta Demo, rational and insightful MG discussions have been few and far in between. Considering that MGs are critical to ever single CM battle, if the simulation of MGs was totally off the mark (as you suggest) CM would be unplayable and therefore a lot more trashing would have happened.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It had nothing to do with supporting MY argument. Those were OTHER PEOPLE'S concerns and I made that clear. I was responding to your claim that nobody is talking about the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but you only quoted the ones that supported your point of view that there is a serious problem. You did not try to reach any sort of balance by quoting people that said exactly the opposite. And several of those people have just posted to this thread. I stand by what I said about your use of those quotes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't take kindly to people accusing me of being intentionally malevolent by using out of context quotes or bizzare tests.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fine, but I don't like people using out of context examples and quotes to support a broad and sweeping general conclusion based on them. I never said you were being "malevolent", but repeatedly not addressing the core issue about the relevance of your test is certainly being obstinate in my book.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I feel I have made my points very clear. I acknowledge, and have acknowledged, all that you have said. I still would like to see a change. I have also said I respect your decision and I have a lot of faith in BTS's ability to produce a high quality product with regards to CM2, be that in accordance with my notions of MG's or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you. However, I am surprised with all this respect for us that you didn't consider my point that your test was flawed based on what it was you were concluding.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't think this discussion was given fair treatment, but I wish everyone all the best with regards to the resolve of the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On this we agree. You made a test and some sweeping generalizations. I tried to explain why your test was not a fair one for the type of conclusion you came up with. You didn't wish to give my words fair consideration, and that has lead us down this road of tit for tat discussions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My signature talks about the primacy of the truth. I hope the ego's here can settle down a little so that wonderful little thing can show it's beautiful head.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you don't like the way I respond to your posts, perhaps you might take a peek back at yours.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I wish to thank kmead and Vitalis for the great first hand observations. This goes back to how the thread started and backs up what I have been saying about the limitations of MG capabilities. Thanks also to StellarRat for saying what I believe is at the heart of EACH and every one of these MG debates. And that is, as I said before, a totally "Hollywood" perception of what MGs are capable of.

As for the suppressive effects of a MG, it is situationally dependent. I have seen one MG pin down a whole platoon in cover, I have seen a squad charge a MG without taking a casualty. It all depends on the circumstances. (NOTE: I just watched a bit of the History Channel and they mentioned a platoon sized formation running over open ground to assualt MG 42s in a house. They won).

As I explained earlier, the closer a unit gets, and the more open the terrain, the more likely the unit will NOT go to ground (depending on Experience and Morale). I have also explained why it is that the game is coded up this way. Does it produce 100% realistic results each and every time, in any and all situations? No. Nothing in CM lives up to that absolute standard. But when they are placed in realistic situations with realistic expectations, they perform very realistically.

The key here is expectations. If you expect a MG to kill everything in its path, any time it opens fire... you will not think CM is very realistic. If you expect that a MG will always cause a unit to grind itself into the ground... you will not think CM is very realistic. On the other hand, if you think of an MG is a part of the whole and treat it as such, making sure it is not put into disadvantage situations, then you should generally be quite pleased with the realistic results CM yields.

For all the people complaining about MGs being ineffective, sure enough there is someone else saying they are plenty effective. So who is right? Neither. MGs in CM are sometimes very realistic and sometimes they show the weaknesses inherent in the game system as a whole (or with MGs specifically). But I will never, ever, agree with anybody that thinks that CM's MGs are "useless". If I had the time to play against such people, I would gladly show them how wrong that sentiment is. Unfortunately, I just don't have that kind of time.

Steve

P.S. something I haven't corrected yet... there is grazing fire in CM1. Fire at the middle squad of a lined up platoon with a MG. See what happens. Should it be turned up a few notches? I don't think so, but that is something we will look at for CM2.

[Battlefront.com]

Pillar,

OK, let's just start over

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you clearly illustrate some parameters for what you feel is a fair test, I'll perform it. (My email server is down btw, if you've replied to that already.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, I already responded. Here is the relevant bit:

First, and this has been your problem thus far, you need to define the SCOPE of what you are trying to prove first. If you insist on proving that the MG is a useless piece of junk, in the most wide spread general sense, then you need to make the battlefield as "realistic" as possible with a wide range of troops and weapons. If you simply wish to judge relative effectiveness, then you can try smaller experiements. But not just ONE condition. Try a bunch of different circumstances and see how each is different from each other. One situation for something this dynamic isn't worth anything.

For something worthy of larger generalizations, try taking a combined arms defensive force. Oh... say a couple platoons with a few MGs, light mortars, and maybe something heavy. Put them into good defensive positions according to sound defensive doctrine of the day (I can not spend the time to go over that, so I'll leave it to you). Attack with a larger enemy force from realistic starting positions (i.e. don't just plop them down x meters away and have them charge). Keep in mind that certain situations are going to be more favorable to one side or the other, so try and make a situation where the defense has a chance. Now, charge the attacker at the defender and see what happens. Do this many times. Would be good to do up more than one test scenario too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It should at least isolate the MG though, simply for scientific reasons. That's the best way to get results from a test.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on what you are trying to show. The scope of your conclusions has to be in keeping with the scope of your test. As I have said before, MGs were supposed to be used in combination with other arms if they were to be successfull. So just plopping down a MG alone, by the very nature of the test, shows the MG in a situation it was not supposed to be used in.

The best way to look at a complex situation like this is to do a BUNCH of tests in different situations. That is what I did the last time I looked at this issue. I had MGs alone, MGs in groups, MGs with infantry in support, and I think MGs with infantry and mortars in support. I used "larger" forces (I think three MGs vs. a Company in one situation for example) as the more you whittle things down to one vs several you can get skewed results (i.e. it is a lot easier to charge one MG with a platoon than three platoons against three MGs).

Anyhoo... be creative. But keep in mind what you are trying to show. If you want to show that a single MG doesnt's keep guys' heads down enough (or not), that is one goal. To show that MGs are generally useless (or not), that is another goal. Totally different tests need to be used. And do more than one since conditions effect outcomes as much as the units themselves.

Steve

P.S. I will be away for 4 days and likely won't check in. I'll try though.

[Tiger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...clearly illustrate some parameters for what you feel is a fair test, I'll perform it....

It should at least isolate the MG though, simply for scientific reasons. That's the best way to get results from a test.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still hasn't heard a word that Steve has been saying. I've only read through this thread once and get the gist of it.

The MGs in CMBO were programmed to simulate combined arms approach for this particular theater of war during this time period, i.e. one mg is not going to be cutting down swathes of charging troops. This will need to be changed in CM2 to simulate that theater and time period(s) properly in the game engine, however this does not mean there is a major problem with the way MGs are modelled in CMBO.

I'd tend to agree as I've just finished a game against the gamey AI using a mass charge against my line. After the AI Vt artillery finished chopping up my 2 platoons and 4 mgs, I regrouped them using the company commander and moved them back into the line. Here comes the AI rush of 2-3 platoons, which my 2 tattered platoons of infantry supported by 4 heavy mg42s (also chewed up), and 2 81mm mortars that just came into position. End result: One of my platoons took a hammering but with the 4 heavy MGs and 2 mortars I annihilated this charge almost to the last enemy unit, using no vehicle support. Oh I'd better add: my two platoons were regular rifle squads.

I dunno Pillar, is there any chance you would not find something hugely wrong using any "test" simply to win this argument with Steve?

[ 04-08-2001: Message edited by: Brummbär ]

[BloodyBucket]

There are a couple of issues that there is room for reasonable people to disagree on, and this is one of them. Professionals still debate S.L.A Marshall, and believe it or not there are debates about the effectiveness of MG fire in different roles going on today within the US military.

Since MG's have been around in one form or another since the 1860's you would think that there would be no debate on this, but there is. I think it is the nature of war that even the simple is difficult to understand, and I am suspicious of anyone who has it all figured out. If you do, the various service acadamies would love to hear it. Pros spend careers trying to make sense of war, and no one has an ironclad answer to it all yet.

I love this game. I think that any object of passion will arouse passionate discussion. I respect the right of the folks who made it to act like it is their baby. I respect the right of the fans to be fanatical. I hope that BTS continues to put out a product that is so fantastic people are passionate about it.

So, I raise a glass to all concerned. Cheers! This game has made us all comrades in arms, and for this I am grateful.

[Battlefront.com]

Pillar,

I just thought of a good example of why rulling out elements for a test sometimes limits the ability to draw conclusions from it.

OK... say you suspect that the US 57mm AT gun is too effective. You put one 57mm AT gun down and three PzIVs. You put the PzIVs at close range, say around 500m, and then hit the Go! button. Let us say that on average the AT gun knocks out 2 PzIVs before getting taken out itself. Sometimes it takes out all three, but rarely less than one.

Now... what can you conclude from this test? That the 57mm AT gun is capable of firing at, and killing, a PzIV. Check the stats and so forth and you will see (hehe... at least I think so, this is from memory) that it can in fact kill such a tank at such a range easily. You can also conclude that an AT gun has an advantage against a tank, which could be explained by it smaller size, higher RoF, or other factors.

Now... is the 57mm AT gun too effective? How does this test show anything that you can base such a conclusion on? First of all, having 3 PzIVs positioned in such a way is fairly artificial. Not having infantry to support the tanks is also weighted heavily in favor of the AT gun. Since this is therefore not an average situation, it can not be concluded from this test that on average the AT gun is either too effective or not effective enough.

Or something like that

Steve

[Steve McClaire]

I think ASL Veteran made a good point, which seems to have been drowned out -- That 'real' MG fire affects a line of space from the firing MG out to where its bullets hit the ground. My understanding of how a MG is 'best' employed on defense is not to have it firing head on into a charging enemy, but to have it firing across the enemy's line of advance, at as high an angle as you can manage. This way the enemy has to advance across a 'wall' of bullets, instead of just having a 'line' of bullets going through the space occuppied by a single man.

My 2 cents, tossed out in the interest of any MG tweaks we get in CM2.