more machinegun follies-- yet another call for a fix

[Runyan99]

I have skimmed this topic for the past few days and will throw in a quick $.02

I have had several people complain to me that the MGs in this game are not effective enough. My opinion is that these people have an inflated idea of how effective a single MG actually was in combat. These same people were shocked at how vulnerable some of the German armor is in CM, mainly because those tanks had an inflated defensive value in old games like Close Combat and Steel Panthers.

For my part I have no problem with the firepower ratings of MGs in general. I find them quite effective when the enemy is moving or has little cover, and much less so under better conditions of cover and concealment.

That said, they do almost nothing when given an Area Fire command, and I am with ASL Veteran for improving their ability to provide area fire, or grazing fire, or fire lanes, or whatever you would like to call it.

I would like to see a higher rate of fire for MGs in general, particularly when a high number or density of targets is presented.

BTS has stated they are looking into some of these things, and I am sure they will improve some of these things for CM2.

BTS, please include that new MG coding for CM2 in a patch for CM, so that the MGs perform the same in both games.

[Ron]

Setup another test per the screenshot. A VG SMG Company assaults over ~220-230m of open ground to the US positions of a Rifle44 Platoon and 4 x 1919MMGs. All troops from both sides are Regular, HQs are random, though I made the Germans all have a +2 command bonus. Ran 10 times for two minutes each, the results are : "German casualties"; number of GE squads/HQs that were at the objective in 'good order' at the end of two minutes, ie not Panic, Broken or Routed, wasn't concerned about number of men in the unit, just their 'state', then "US casualties".

1 - 32 GE cas - 1 HQ Alerted/3 Sqds Pinned/Shaken : 13 US cas

2 - 63 GE cas - 1 HQ Pinned/Taking Cover : 2 US cas

3 - 47 GE cas - 1 HQ Alerted/1 Sqd Pinned : 6 US cas

4 - 61 GE cas - 1 HQ : 1 US cas

5 - 35 GE cas - 1 HQ/2 Sqds Pinned/Taking Cover : 6 US cas

6 - 58 GE cas - 2 HQs-1 Sqd Pinned/Taking Cover : 2 US cas

7 - 55 GE cas - 2 HQs-2 Sqds Shaken/Cautious : 4 US cas

8 - 49 GE cas - 2 HQs-3 Sqds Pinned/TakingCover : 14 US cas

9 - 60 GE cas - 2 HQs Shaken/2 Sqds Pinned : 7 US cas

0 - 46 GE cas - 2 HQs Alerted/2 Sqds Pinned/Taking Cover : 8 US cas

Only in one test (#1) did the Germans have the upper hand in their immediate area after the assault, and only because 2 of the 1919MMGs Jammed, every other case they were totally ineffective as a force, and even in the first test the US could have easily counter-attacked and regained that position. I saw a few German squads 'taking cover' in the open, they would remain like that until they were fired upon again at which point they would seek cover 'normally'.

Now if the VG Company was closer, say under 100m, then I have little doubt they would overrun the US positions, however I would have been doing a piss-poor job as commander if a company of infantry could mass undetected less than 100m from my troops! Before that occurred there would be mortars, artillery and direct area fire to break it up or at least buy me time to make my counter-moves. I agree though there might need be a tweak to the rate of infantry fast/assault moving in combination with the suppressive effects of MG fire. Just my thoughts....

Ron

[ASL Veteran]

That is an interesting test. Now, this shows that you can successfully defend against a rush of Volksgrenadiers across 250 meters of open ground with three or four MGs placed in flanking position. Now, one thing to keep in mind about your test is that each MG is using point fire against one VG squad as it is running about in the open. Presumably switching targets when appropriate. You also state that if the distance was less, say 100 meters, they would overrun the position. Your conclusion says - well, if I let the enemy that close I'm a poor commander anyway - or something to that effect.

Okay, now lets look at that example if 'Grazing fire' was included in CM. Well, each of the three or four MGs would be hitting everyVG squad that is running about in the open ... huge difference. CM now has each MG engaging each squad one to one. If you had grazing fire each MG would be hitting every squad. So, rather than one MG hitting one squad then switching to another squad you would have everysquad getting hit by every MG. So, each VG squad would be getting hit by three or four MGs all at once. How far do you think those VGs are going to get if each squad is getting hit by three or four MGs at same time? Probably not very far eh? Maybe not more than 20 meters? So while your example is interesting, it is most interesting for what it shows is lacking. Grazing Fire. Try spreading the VGs out a little too so CMs beaten zone effects are reduced and the charge will probably succeed a little more often. Naturally, spreading them out would have no effect on 'grazing fire'.

One more point, grazing fire does involved moderate swinging of the MG from left to right (or vice versa) which would widen the 'firelane' into more of a triangular shape that is horizontal to the ground. It could maybe be ten or fifteen meters wide toward the end of the 'lane' hitting everything within that 'area'.

[Ron]

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

That is an interesting test. Now, this shows that you can successfully defend against a rush of Volksgrenadiers across 250 meters of open ground with three or four MGs placed in flanking position. Now, one thing to keep in mind about your test is that each MG is using point fire against one VG squad as it is running about in the open. Presumably switching targets when appropriate. You also state that if the distance was less, say 100 meters, they would overrun the position. Your conclusion says - well, if I let the enemy that close I'm a poor commander anyway - or something to that effect.

Okay, now lets look at that example if 'Grazing fire' was included in CM. Well, each of the three or four MGs would be hitting everyVG squad that is running about in the open ... huge difference. CM now has each MG engaging each squad one to one. If you had grazing fire each MG would be hitting every squad. So, rather than one MG hitting one squad then switching to another squad you would have everysquad getting hit by every MG. So, each VG squad would be getting hit by three or four MGs all at once. How far do you think those VGs are going to get if each squad is getting hit by three or four MGs at same time? Probably not very far eh? Maybe not more than 20 meters? So while your example is interesting, it is most interesting for what it shows is lacking. Grazing Fire. Try spreading the VGs out a little too so CMs beaten zone effects are reduced and the charge will probably succeed a little more often. Naturally, spreading them out would have no effect on 'grazing fire'.

One more point, grazing fire does involved moderate swinging of the MG from left to right (or vice versa) which would widen the 'firelane' into more of a triangular shape that is horizontal to the ground. It could maybe be ten or fifteen meters wide toward the end of the 'lane' hitting everything within that 'area'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the "piss-poor commander" comment wasn't directed at anyone at all, just that's the conclusion I would come to if such a thing happened to me, knowing full well it(massing of troops) can be dealt with effectively beforehand.

Steve has said earlier in this thread that *grazing fire* is in CM. Now perhaps a clarification of what grazing fire actually is should be made, and how it is implemented in CM.

Ok, what I observed from the MG fire was as I commented before, it has an area affect, about a radius of 15m or so I believe. I didn't notice that the effects of the MG LOF extended beyond that, ie the center platoon in my example above wasn't affected by the MG fire on the wing platoons.

Ron

[ASL Veteran]

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

Well the "piss-poor commander" comment wasn't directed at anyone at all, just that's the conclusion I would come to if such a thing happened to me, knowing full well it(massing of troops) can be dealt with effectively beforehand.

Steve has said earlier in this thread that *grazing fire* is in CM. Now perhaps a clarification of what grazing fire actually is should be made, and how it is implemented in CM.

Ok, what I observed from the MG fire was as I commented before, it has an area affect, about a radius of 15m or so I believe. I didn't notice that the effects of the MG LOF extended beyond that, ie the center platoon in my example above wasn't affected by the MG fire on the wing platoons.

Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't take any offence at the poor commander comment, but I think that it is pretty obvious that the power of the MG would be dramatically improved with 'grazing fire' included in the game (if possible). What is being described as 'Grazing fire' by Steve (your words, I haven't checked myself) sounds more like a 'Beaten zone' to me. However, I would rather leave it to Steve to explain his own comments than to try to interpret his words for him.

[ASL Veteran]

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

Thanks Foobar. (Re: Where's BTS?)

Every military veteran I talk to all say that the suppression and grazing fire effects need changing. They aren't just a bunch of ex-ASL players, although many of them think ASL did things quite well.

Just out of curiosity -- CM being inspired by ASL, why the change?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe they ever played ASL ... and it really isn't necessary to play ASL to do a game about WW2 tactical combat so I'm not sure that knowing ASL is really relevant anyway. I would suspect that modeling grazing fire in the way described would be difficult to code - at least that's what I would suspect.

[StellarRat]

One of the posters did a test that showed he could stop an assault at 250m everytime. Is it possible that 100m is just too close to stop an overrun attack with MGs? 100m is not very far! I mean anyone can run that far in 15 sec. (Yes, I know without equipment, etc...) Still this doesn't seem like a lot of distance to cover and expect everyone to get shot or stopped specially when we're talking about 100 plus men who know their best chance for survival is to reach cover or kill the enemy that is shooting at them.

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

[Mattias]

When adding a line of barbed wire and having a guinea pig platoon run through it I noticed that the MG went into double time as soon as the men entered the wire, spraying 1 burst per 3.5 seconds (17 in 60 seconds) instead of the normal 1 burst per 7 seconds (6 in 42 seconds).

Under what circumstances does this ROF double time happen?

Only in wire or at other times as well?

Anybody know?

M.

[Ron]

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

Setup another test per the screenshot. A VG SMG Company assaults over ~220-230m of open ground to the US positions of a Rifle44 Platoon and 4 x 1919MMGs. All troops from both sides are Regular, HQs are random, though I made the Germans all have a +2 command bonus. Ran 10 times for two minutes each, the results are : "German casualties"; number of GE squads/HQs that were at the objective in 'good order' at the end of two minutes, ie not Panic, Broken or Routed, wasn't concerned about number of men in the unit, just their 'state', then "US casualties".

1 - 32 GE cas - 1 HQ Alerted/3 Sqds Pinned/Shaken : 13 US cas

2 - 63 GE cas - 1 HQ Pinned/Taking Cover : 2 US cas

3 - 47 GE cas - 1 HQ Alerted/1 Sqd Pinned : 6 US cas

4 - 61 GE cas - 1 HQ : 1 US cas

5 - 35 GE cas - 1 HQ/2 Sqds Pinned/Taking Cover : 6 US cas

6 - 58 GE cas - 2 HQs-1 Sqd Pinned/Taking Cover : 2 US cas

7 - 55 GE cas - 2 HQs-2 Sqds Shaken/Cautious : 4 US cas

8 - 49 GE cas - 2 HQs-3 Sqds Pinned/TakingCover : 14 US cas

9 - 60 GE cas - 2 HQs Shaken/2 Sqds Pinned : 7 US cas

0 - 46 GE cas - 2 HQs Alerted/2 Sqds Pinned/Taking Cover : 8 US cas

Only in one test (#1) did the Germans have the upper hand in their immediate area after the assault, and only because 2 of the 1919MMGs Jammed, every other case they were totally ineffective as a force, and even in the first test the US could have easily counter-attacked and regained that position. I saw a few German squads 'taking cover' in the open, they would remain like that until they were fired upon again at which point they would seek cover 'normally'.

Now if the VG Company was closer, say under 100m, then I have little doubt they would overrun the US positions, however I would have been doing a piss-poor job as commander if a company of infantry could mass undetected less than 100m from my troops! Before that occurred there would be mortars, artillery and direct area fire to break it up or at least buy me time to make my counter-moves. I agree though there might need be a tweak to the rate of infantry fast/assault moving in combination with the suppressive effects of MG fire. Just my thoughts....

Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Setup another test with the same parameters except the VG Company was only 120m from the US postions this time and the tests were run for one minute. Because of the time it took to spot the running Germans, the US MGs never opened up until the Germans were less than 100m away.

The results:

1 - 30 GE cas - 2 HQs & 4 Sqds Shaken/Cautious : 3 US cas/1 Jam

2 - 32 GE cas - 2 HQs Shaken/1 Sqd Pinned : 0 US cas

3 - 34 GE cas - 2 HQs & 2 Sqds Pinned/2 Sqds Shaken/1 Sqd Ok : 3 US cas/2 Jams

4 - 38 Ge cas - 3 HQs & 2 Sqds Pinned/Shaken : 1 US cas/1 Jam

5 - 33 Ge cas - 3 HQs & 2 Sqds Cautious/ 2 Sqds Pinned : 2 US cas/2 Jams

6 - 35 GE cas - 1 HQ Shaken/2 Sqds Pinned/Taking Cover : 4 US cas

7 - 25 GE cas - 2 HQs Alerted/2 Sqds Pinned : 7 US cas/1 Sqd Pinned

8 - 41 GE cas - 1 HQ & 1 Sqd Shaken : 1 US cas

9 - 33 GE cas - 2 HQs & 2 Sqds Pinned/Taking Cover : 2 US cas

0 - 26 GE cas - 1 HQ Alerted/3 Sqds Shaken : 0 US cas

I thought the US position would be swamped, it wasn't, the Germans were gutted every time. Actually this *test* appeared more realistic than the first because about half of the attacking Germans retreated back to the start line after taking a little fire. In the first test they would usually carry on forward. I'm sure it has to do with the way CM handles troops seeking cover, in this example the German start line was the 'nearest' cover.

Ron

[Ron]

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

100m is a long way to go under continuous MG fire from multiple MG's firing grazing fire over specific overlapping fire lanes.

Ron, try that test with two companies when you get some time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, there's a joker in every crowd! :eek:

Ron

[Username]

A VG coy has 13 targets? thats counting the hqs? You are firing 8 firers at 13 targets and proving what?

Try something like 8 firers taking on 26 targets (two companies sounds about right). Thats a 3:1 ratio and the minimum I would expect to have a chance in your experiment. More than likely they will get through in the game. In real life; the double cross fire of two MGs on each flank would stop them cold.

If there were fire lanes then it wouldnt matter if it was 250 meters or 100 meters. The final protective FP of the MGs would knock down most of the foolhardy force.

Lewis

[Username]

Not only that, but the US squads are 12 man and the volks are 8 (9?). You are running a 100 man force into a 60 man force.

Try a US platoon and two MGs against that volks coy. I just did it from 350 meters away and the US squads were dug in against completely flat open terrain. The germans didnt stop running till they were within 50 meters (my rule but some went into the US foxholes on their own accord!) and captured half the US guys. No way in real life. From 200 meters on down the MGs would take the germans apart at the legs. From 100 meters on down the BARs and M1s and Tommy guns would stack them up.

We were taught in the military to sight about knee high. The legs are in the stream of bullets the longest amount of time and will catch the most rounds.

Lewis

[Ron]

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

I was serious.

Keen observation Lewis. Nice not having to explain everything

If you aren't up to it Ron that's no problem. Someone will do it eventually, maybe even me (Yeah, we're all lazy SOBS aren't we?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No harm, just read yours after posting the last test, and yeah about the lazy SOBs I only set it up like this because of the other fellow posting a screenshot saying "this is what we are talking about" etc. Perhaps another time I will run it with two companys...

Ron

[Username]

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

I'll add as a note here (if it hasn't already been said) that in Ron's test, despite the casualties, the taking cover/pinned rate was very low. Take into consideration the things Lewis said, and it appears even worse.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that units that are RUNNING should also be downgraded during the turn into MOVERS and then SNEAKS as well as just HALTED. The speed gets scrubbed off in addition to pinning and other results.

What really happens is that squads move forward in rushes. When they attract firepower that gets too close, they will go to ground. Another squad will then get up and take its turn. Ideally, theres covering fire to help suppress this firepower.

But in tests against the volks, I find it difficult to believe that troops could just run into a foxhole line, without covering fire, and not get creamed. I just played out another test and the US platoon took as many casualties as the germans! The remaining US guys surreneded.

This needs some attention if the russians are to be modeled in realistic numerical advantage.

Lewis

[Ron]

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

How dare us MG-obsessed crazy grogs have lives to get in the way of our testing.

No worries Ron, hehe.

If anyone is up to doing the test please follow the format Ron did, it was very complete.

I'll add as a note here (if it hasn't already been said) that in Ron's test, despite the casualties, the taking cover/pinned rate was very low. Take into consideration the things Lewis said, and it appears even worse.

There should be a lot more going on here in the way of suppresion than what is shown.

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Pillar ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a clarification Pillar, the HQs/Squads I listed as Pinned/TakingCover etc. in the above tests(and below) were the only ones who had reached the *objective* in *good order*, ie every other German unit had either retreated back to the start line, was Broken, Routed, Panic or KIA.

Setup another test per the screenshot above except now Two VG SMG Companys(1 Green & 1 Regular - Total 190 troops) assault over ~210m of open ground to the US positions, consisting of a Rifle 44 Platoon(40 troops), Regular, and 4 x 1919MMGs w/HQs, Regulars. HQs are random, though I adjusted the German HQ Command bonus so all troops got off the line together. Ran it 10 times for two minutes each, the results are : "German casualties"; number of GE squads/HQs that were at the objective in *good order* at the end of two minutes, ie not Panic, Broken or Routed, wasn't concerned about number of men in the unit, just their 'state'; then "US casualties", status.

1 - 99 GE cas - 2 HQs Ok/2 HQs Shaken/1 Sqd Pinned : 6 US cas

2 - 80 GE cas - 2 HQs Ok/2 HQs Shaken/3 Sqds Pinned/2 Sqds Alerted/2 Sqds Ok : 15 US cas/1 Sqd Panic/1 Jam

3 - 86 GE cas - 3 HQs Ok/2 HQs Pinned/3 Sqds Alerted/1 Sqd Pinned : 11 US cas

4 - 72 GE cas - 3 HQs Ok/3 HQs Pinned/2 Sqds Shaken/3 Sqds Ok : 14 US cas/3 Sqds Panic/2 Jams

5 - 79 GE cas - 1 HQ Ok/2 HQs Pinned/3 Sqds Shaken/1 Sqd Alerted/2 Sqds ok : 18 US cas/1 Sqd Panic/1 Jam

6 - 82 GE cas - 3 HQs Shaken/2 Sqds Pinned-Taking Cover/1 Sqd Alerted : 17 US cas/1 Sqd Panic/1 Jam

7 - 93 GE cas - 3 HQs Shaken/ 5 Sqds Pinned-Taking Cover : 8 US cas

8 - 76 GE cas - 2 HQs Alerted/2 Sqds Pinned/1 Sqd Shaken/4 Sqds Cautious : 12 US cas/1 Sqd Panic/1 Jam

9 - 75 Ge cas - 2 HQs Alerted/2 Sqds Pinned-Taking Cover/4 Sqds Shaken/1 Sqd Cautious : 7 US cas

0 - 84 GE cas - 2 HQs Pinned/1 HQ Ok/2 Sqds Pinned-Taking Cover/3 Sqds Shaken : 6 US cas

Leave it to those who know to make of these results what they will. It seems to me though to be a costly way of doing business for the Germans.

Ron

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Ron ]

[WineCape]

Seems to me that all this (8 pages of sifting through to find the "facts") proves one thing and one thing only:

BTS has done *NOT A BAD JOB* of "simulating" MG fire - in fact I would say quite impressively, if not downright accurately!

Now, any conclusions based on the results from above forthcoming from the testers with regard to Homba's 1st post statement will be appreciated so that we can WRAP THIS POST UP.

Conclusions gentleman, conclusions - lets hear it!

Kind regards

Charl Theron

[WineCape]

BTS has done *NOT A BAD JOB* of "simulating" MG fire - in fact I would say quite impressively, if not downright accurately!

[Username]

"Setup another test per the screenshot above except now Two VG SMG Companys(1 Green & 1 Regular - Total 190 troops) assault over ~210m of open ground to the US positions, consisting of a Rifle 44 Platoon(40 troops), Regular, and 4 x 1919MMGs w/HQs, Regulars. HQs are random, though I adjusted the German HQ Command bonus so all troops got off the line together. Ran it 10 times for two minutes each, the results are : "German casualties"; number of GE squads/HQs that were at the objective in *good order* at the end of two minutes, ie not Panic, Broken or Routed, wasn't concerned about number of men in the unit, just their 'state'; then "US casualties", status.null"

I am at a loss as to why you are using a second coy that is green? If anything, we are exploring the lethality of MGs and the troops should be brazenly exposing themselves. At least keep all troops the same. I work with "scientists", so dont feel bad. They do alot worse.

How are you "assaulting" the position? Are you giving a RUN order into the flags? How long is the test? Are you targetting or letting the TACAI do its thing? Who has the most kills at the end?

Luckily Steve isnt here or he would gushingly agree that your tests are verification of his MG modeling.

Lewis

[Ron]

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

I am at a loss as to why you are using a second coy that is green? If anything, we are exploring the lethality of MGs and the troops should be brazenly exposing themselves. At least keep all troops the same. I work with "scientists", so dont feel bad. They do alot worse.

How are you "assaulting" the position? Are you giving a RUN order into the flags? How long is the test? Are you targetting or letting the TACAI do its thing? Who has the most kills at the end?

Luckily Steve isnt here or he would gushingly agree that your tests are verification of his MG modeling.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I could have used two Elite StormTroop Companys I agree, but proving what?

I ordered the VGs tp Run to the objective, two platoons per US squad. The TacAI handled everything after that, firing and moving. The TacAI would downgrade some of the VG squads from Run to Move after they had taken fire. The US MGs didn't always support the Rifle platoon as they were being overwhelmed, seemingly more interested in the fleeing Germans in the open. You should know by now how MGs in CM work, they 'prep and soften' the target and the squads finish them off. Of course the squads received the most 'Kills'.

If Steve is gushing from this, will I receive a free copy of CM2?

Ron

EDIT: The HQs used in the tests:

US HQs

Plt - +2Command/+1Combat/+1Morale

MG - +1Combat/+2Stealth

MG - +1Combat/+2Morale/+1Stealth

German HQs

Plt - +1Command/+1Combat/+1Morale

Plt - +1Command/+1Combat

Plt - +2Command/+1Morale/+1Stealth

Plt - +1Command

Plt - +2Command/+1Combat/+2Morale/+1Stealth

Plt - +2Command/+1Combat

Coy - +1Command/+1Combat/+1Morale

Coy - +2Command/+1Combat/+2Stealth

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Ron ]

[ASL Veteran]

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

Seems to me that all this (8 pages of sifting through to find the "facts") proves one thing and one thing only:

BTS has done *NOT A BAD JOB* of "simulating" MG fire - in fact I would say quite impressively, if not downright accurately!

Charl Theron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting post. So after perusing 8 pages worth of posts you have come to the sweeping conclusion that the MGs in CM are perfect simulations of the real thing? Even Steve has admitted that is not the case! :eek:

Now I'm going to borrow your initial phrase and add my own 'conclusion'

Seems to me that all this (8 pages of sifting through to find the "facts") proves one thing and one thing only:

Grazing fire is not modelled in CM. Everything else regarding firepower ratings or the effects of MG fire on enemy infantry are subject to each individual's world view on the effectiveness of MGs in combat - be that a pro BTS or anti BTS position.

I'm not sure why there is such a hurry to 'wrap up' this discussion since we are merely discussing the effects of MGs in combat. I don't have any personal axe to grind or any 'theory' to prove. Grazing fire is a fact - there is nothing to prove there (although some on this thread apparently do doubt its existance which I find incredible).

[Battlefront.com]

OK, I am back There is *no* way I can respond tit for tat as this post is already going to be too long. I think I will start with this comment from WineCape as the lead in:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTS has done *NOT A BAD JOB* of "simulating" MG fire - in fact I would say quite impressively, if not downright accurately!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has been my whole point since the start. And because of this, I have been fairly annoyed at the suggestion that we are arguing that everything is fine and/or that there is reason to doubt that there will be any improvement of MGs in CM2. So let me get this off my chest before I get back into the discussion...

Misrepresentation of my position RANT

As I have said MANY times before, the simulation of MGs is not perfect in CM. I can't think of anything in CM that is perfectly modeled. Therefore, even if I did not directly state that there are some problems with MG simulation (and I have in fact done this many times), the ramifications of such an admission should be obvious -> there is room for improvement in CM regarding MGs. So anybody, gamer or veteran, that presents arguments as if we are arrogantly claiming perfection, and therefore aren't listening, should put a sock in it. Such an attitude is insulting and counter productive to making CM a better game. We deserve, and in fact demand, better treatment than this at the very least. CM was not slapped together by 10 year olds who think they know everything and whose ears and eyes are glued shut.

End of rant and now back to the discussion

Restatement of our Position Regarding MG Effectiveness

MGs in CM are not ineffective. I can not understand, for a second, how anybody could rationally come to this conclusion. They generally do what they are supposed to do, and they do it very well especially when used correctly. Charges that MGs in CM are inept and no better than other small arms, as a general experience, are gross over statements which can not be backed up. Anybody interested in proving this point can do some tests, like Ron's, to show that MGs can do their thing. It was clearly shown with both sets of Ron's tests, using parameters suggested by Lewis and Pillar for the 2nd one, show that MGs are not to be taken lightly. Even if an attack ultimately achieves its intended objective, there is a butcher's bill to be paid that otherwise would not be if MGs were not used effectively. Other people's tests and game results also show this to be true.

However...

Abstractions

There are certainly, without question, situations where MGs are not effective enough. Situations where, in real life, the attacker would have been punished even more. I have never, and will never, deny this. CM contains, through necessity, certain abstractions. There is NO way around this, so don't even get started with me about this

Abstractions, by definition, mean that some specific cases will be better simulated than others. So long as the bulk of the situations produce generally realistic results, then the abstraction is on the whole successful. If certain aspects of the abstractions are found to be too abstract, and these aspects are serious enough, then further refinement of the system is necessary. I have even said that this is most likely true for anything in CM. But let me first identify some of the problems we have had discussing this specific issue over the last year and a half (since the Beta Demo):

Gamer Misperceptions

Some people arguing that CM's MGs are not effective enough generally have one (or all in some cases I have seen) of the following misconceptions clouding their judgment:

1. MGs are über weapons. The simple fact that they spit out lead faster than other small arms means that anything they fire towards is either dead or otherwise ineffective. We firmly blame Hollywood for this as their love affair with showing the lone hero mowing down droves of the enemy can be found in practically any war movie. Hehe... even though in movies like "Commando" 60 guys firing from 360 degrees full auto couldn't hit one huge target literally out in the open All depends on which side the audience is supposed to root for.

2. There is no practical difference between a LMG and a HMG. I will get into this a bit more below, but I will say that this misconception leads to false expectations, in some cases, of what should realistically result from a given situation. This is really underscored with the MG42 as the same physical weapon was used as both a standard part of the squad as well as a crew served tripod mounted unit.

3. Rounds per minute = practical rate of fire. Unfortunately, too many folks think that a 500 rounds per minute stat in a book means a gunner can crank out 8 rounds every second in a constant stream of lead. The fact that this is expressly forbidden by doctrine of the day, and today, is totally lost on such people. The reasons behind this training (ammo supply, heat, aiming, etc.) are sometimes not even known to individuals complaining about MG effectiveness. Hehe... one NCO I know mentioned kicking gunners in the helmet when they fired too long on the target range

4. Any MG position is a good position. In other words, the firepower capabilities of the weapon are not influenced by relative placement at all. Putting a HMG in FRONT of your infantry screen, or in line with it, is just as good as positioning it 300m-600m behind the MLR (as called for by German training doctrine of the day, for example). This might appear to be a subtle point, but there are real world reasons why one position is better than another. If the player doesn't understand this, and doesn't position well, then disappointing results are almost sure to follow.

5. Closer is NOT better. In theory, a defensive position should be set up with MGs in back of standard infantry formations. Mortars are also supposed to be available. If the position is not a hasty one, then barbed wire, mines, and fixed fortifications are also tossed into the mix. The entire concept of defense is to keep the enemy from closing in on your positions in good shape. That means keeping the enemy units as far away from your MLR as possible for as long as possible. If you can't prevent the enemy from advancing (which is the general type of battle CM was designed to simulate), then you must try and disrupt the attacking units as much as possible so that when the distance is closed the final attack will be less coherent. In the worst case the disorganized, bloody enemy units that get into the MLR should be fairly easy to wipe or push out with continued defensive fire or a local counter attack. Tests that have a company of well trained (i.e. Regular or better) infantry, in perfect and coordinated condition, assaulting from 100-200m means that you, as the defensive commander, would have already screwed up big time to let this situation develop. Perhaps factors outside of your control might let this happen, but the resulting situation is still clearly not favorable or desirable. Some folks think 100-200m is a huge distance. It is not. You want to mess up the attacker at 500m+ and finish them off at 200m as an effective fighting force. Just beginning to lay waste to the enemy force at 100m is in theory too late.

6. Testing myopia (blinders). Simulating a battlefield, with all its possible permutations, is very difficult to do. Armies around the world spend BILLIONS of dollars to create field and computer simulations that adequately simulate a particular combat situation. And having spoken with several senior level officers that do this for a living, I can tell you that even these professionals have serious shortcomings in their simulations both in the field and in trainers of various types. The important lesson here is to not take one situation and think of it as being representative. For example, in CM charging one type of squad against one type of MG in one type of terrain using one set of unit settings will not give you enough data to base conclusions on. CM simulates incalculable numbers of different possible situations, so testing just one (or even a couple) situations, no matter HOW many times it is replicated, is not a fair scientific basis to form conclusions. Period. You can find holes in any simulation, no matter how good it is, so at best all that has been identified is a singular situational event that may need to be looked at.

Concluding Statement and Misperceptions

I hope the above makes sense to you all and you have in fact seen what I am talking about in the 2.5 years this forum has been around, even if you don't like the way MGs are simulated *and* don't have any of the above hang ups. Before I get into the areas we are planning on looking at for CM2 I want to first pick up on Point #6 above.

Experience and Simulation are two different beasts

Anybody that thinks they have the definitive answer to such a complex question as MG effectiveness has obviously never made a complex simulation before. I don't care if someone has fired a MG in combat every day of his life for several years. While this certainly establishes credibility for the opinions expressed, it has nothing to do with simulation design and implementation. Heck, it doesn't even mean that such an opinion is beyond question. I can easily show you where two equally skilled and experienced veterans (or any two respected experts in any field) can have totally opposite opinions about some apparently simple element central to their particular area of expertise.

Again, military exercises and training systems are made by folks with experience out the wazoo, yet even they will admit that their simulations are not 100% accurate. Therefore, first hand experience in the field does not automatically mean the ability to understand how to translate that experience correctly into a simulated environment. If it were really easy to do this, CM would be only one of many great simulations out there, yet it stands pretty much alone (even when compared to US Army simulators). So anybody that thinks it is easy to translate experience into a simulation has a fundamentally flawed understanding about how the world works (i.e. that knowledge is a universal truth and can be easily moved around without error or need for interpretation).

The Difficulty of Simulation Tweaking

Tests are an important way to find out what does and doesn't work in a simulation. It is also true to say that not all tests are equally relevant to their tester's conclusions. Therefore, looking at one test and saying "Ah-HA!! There it is! That is the problem. Now go and fix it!" is pure folly if the intention is to help make CM a better game. Instead, the simulation as a whole must be looked at using as many different situations as possible before anything is changed. Why is this so important? Because of something we like to call the "knock on effect".

What Should we Change about MGs?

In this thread alone some have called for us to simply increase FP ratings. Some have called for us to increase rate of fire. Some have called for us to do neither and instead introduce better simulation of firelanes and grazing fire. Others have said units should move slower, others say the rate is fine but they are getting too much cover. Morale has also been pointed to as part of the problem. Etc. etc.

Folks! This is a LOT of serious messing around to do. It is good that people are tossing out suggestions for solutions, but sheesh... isn't anybody even remotely aware of how difficult it is to tweak even ONE aspect and judge its effect on the whole? Tinkering with a half dozen or more totally different (but obviously interrelated) systems, with no clear concept of why and to what degree change is needed, will almost certainly lead to a time consuming disaster. People can't even agree on what the problem is, not to mention what the possible solution might be. And nowhere have I seen comprehensive study to show how much factors need to be changed for any of these suggestions. So please... dispense with ANY notion that this is an easy, open and shut type of case. We need to get past that if we are to make improvements.

What are Our Plans?

We don't quite know yet. However, we have been giving this a lot of thought over the past year and think we have identified several factors that need tweaking/changing/adding in CM2. Some of them have nothing directly to do with MGs, yet will likely change the behavior of MGs in any case. Keep in mind that we haven't yet got to the point of doing any of this stuff yet, so this is just a starting point in our current design doc right now:

New Move Command Structure

Assault Move - We tried to keep move options simplified for playability reasons. However, it has become clear that we need a special movement order that will launch a squad at a particular point in a way that currently can not be simulated in CM. Basically it would allow the unit to move at a medium pace with medium covering fire, medium protection, and maximum ability to keep moving towards the destination. Experience, morale, and other factors will come into play here quite a bit. You can do a Search to see an earlier discussion about this proposed feature.

Move to Contact - Currently units don't like to stop and fire, even if that is probably the most realistic (and desirable) action once the enemy starts shooting at the unit specifically. This was done on purpose because units would otherwise have a hard time staying on the move (lesson from Alpha implementation of "Move"). So like the Assault Move, we feel that this will help out quite a bit by allowing us to do...

Move - the new "Move" order will likely allow fairly rapid movement with hardly any use of covering fire or terrain. When units in this mode are effectively fired upon they will either switch into Assault Move or will seek better cover, depending on the situation.

Run - the new "Run" will maximize speed and have the poorest use of covering fire and terrain. Risk of adverse results from effective enemy fire will be significantly higher than for any other move order. This will be the type of order you will use ONLY to dash from one friendly position to another, not against the enemy or as a general rule.

Withdraw - the new "Withdraw" will be a bit more flexible. We aren't sure in what way, but most likely it will put the unit into a "frame of mind" that will use Run, Move, and Crawl as needed to get from A to B. A good quality unit will likely use this type of move very effectively, a poor quality one not as well.

Possible MG Behavioral Changes

"Going for Broke" - as I and others have discussed every time this topic comes up, MGs are generally (as a rule) not trying to fire as fast as they can. However, there are times when this is the type of behavior that a gunner would employ. In some situations the risk of jams, overheating, and running out of ammo are pushed aside in favor of a sort of gamble that increased firepower is the way to solve a tactical crisis before the MG becomes useless for further action. This is currently not simulated, but most certainly will be in some way shape or form. The trick is how to do this since range is not the sole indicator.

Grazing Fire - CM's current treatment of Grazing Fire, which produces a Beaten Zone, is not as good as it should be. There are internal coding reasons for this, and we hope we can overcome them for CM2. At least we hope to make improvements over the current model.

Firelanes - we most likely will be implementing some sort of ability to designate an arc for a MG unit to stay focused on. We have to be careful to not make this too ridged, but we think we can do this with through a bunch of testing/tweaking cycles.

Seperate Morale Effect - one thing that talking with veterans and reading their stories has got us thinking about is a SPECIAL reaction that soldiers have to MG fire. There seems to be a case here that the sum of the parts does not equal the whole. What I mean by that is 20 rounds fired in quick succession from 20 rifles is somehow less "scary" than 20 rounds fired from a single MG. The poorer trained/experienced the unit, the more this factor comes into play. We are not sure if we can get this into the existing Combat Mission engine (there is NO support for this at the moment), so this factor might not come into play until we rewrite the CM engine. However, we feel that a combo of the other effects might make this factor rather unimportant in terms of producing the same results.

Conclusion

MGs are not inept or in general under modeled. There are, for sure, some situations where they do not perform as well as should be expected. There are also a whole host of situations where user expectations exceed realistic results, which only confuses the issue. Further confusion is caused by good meaning folks who think they have simple answers to this very complex question. This is not a black and white situation we are facing, so hammering away at us as if it is will get us nowhere in a hurry. We have acknowledged shortcomings with CM in general and have clearly illustrated that we are working towards improving these issues as we move along. MGs are no exception to this.

Hopefully this post will clear things up as we really don't have any more time to spend on this forum debating what we already are well aware of. We have all the materials and professional expertise at our disposal (i.e. our testers who include experienced grunts, NCOs, and officers) to get the answers and feedback we need. So please do not be surprised if you don't see much more from me on this issue until after CM2 is released.

Steve

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[StellarRat]

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

Seems to me that all this (8 pages of sifting through to find the "facts") proves one thing and one thing only:

Grazing fire is not modelled in CM. Everything else regarding firepower ratings or the effects of MG fire on enemy infantry are subject to each individual's world view on the effectiveness of MGs in combat - be that a pro BTS or anti BTS position.

I'm not sure why there is such a hurry to 'wrap up' this discussion since we are merely discussing the effects of MGs in combat. I don't have any personal axe to grind or any 'theory' to prove. Grazing fire is a fact - there is nothing to prove there (although some on this thread apparently do doubt its existance which I find incredible).[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one has proven to me why ALL small arms fire across the line of advance shouldn't have a chance to hit someone or why this should only be a magic power given to machineguns.

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Luckily Steve isnt here or he would gushingly agree that your tests are verification of his MG modeling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you want me to only agree with tests I don't agree with and disagree with those that I agree with? Or is it you don't want me to agree with anything you disagree with and automatically agree with anything you agree with? But in either case I shouldn't be thinking about things or looking at the whole situation objectively, just saying that CM critics are right and that we have done a piss poor job modeling [fill in the blank] feature. Do I have that right?

Steve

[WineCape]

Steve, thank you very much for taking the time to put BTS view and MG ideas forwardly.

BTW, did you and Charles (I send the parcel to Charles) received the Pinotage I send from South Africa? Should have arrived middle --> end of March? If not, let me know so that I can follow it up.

Kind regards

Charl Theron

[JPS]

Thanks BTS, its great to know better things are coming with CM2.

Well, anyway, I made a test of my own before reading your reply:

Map: flat, 300m wide open area between two straight lines of woods. Default scenario visibility.

US: 6xMMG, all reg, 30 men, 108 pts

Heer: 2xVG SMG plat, all reg, random leaders, 56 men, 186 pts

Placement and initial orders: MMGs at regular intervals in the treeline. No orders (i.e. ready to fire under TacAI). SMG platoons get a single run order over the 300m open area (squads have some 20-30m between each other).

Turn 1: SMG platoons advance 150m. MMGs fire a lot. 2 casualties (lucky?).

Turn 2: SMG platoons reach the treeline after crossing 300m in the open. Total of 11 casualties. Most squads are tired.

Turns 3-6: SMG platoons clear enemy resistance. Total of 20 casualties. All US troops (30 men) are lost/captured.

Analysis: A 300m rush in open terrain without supporting fire towards enemy MMG fire is a very viable tactic.