more machinegun follies-- yet another call for a fix

[Capt. Toleran]

Conclusion #2

We need realistic grazing fire (as demonstrated by X-00s diagram), extending far beyond what is currently modeled now.

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Capt. Toleran ]

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Capt. Toleran ]

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Capt. Toleran ]

[Maastrictian]

Good post Steve. After reading this thread I've become more and more convinced that while there are some problems with MGs, most specifically grazing fire problems, its not enough to undermine the athority of the game. Its certainly not enough to warent a patch for CMBO. Lets move on to CM2. The sooner its out the sooner we can gripe about it (don't worry, I'll be gripping too!)

I'm sure we all know what the literal translation of "grognard" is.

[Jeff Heidman]

Steve,

The changes you have talked about are great news. They address many of the issues I ahve raised in the past about movement and the "special" abilities of machine guns.

Jeff Heidman

[Battlefront.com]

JPS wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Analysis: A 300m rush in open terrain without supporting fire towards enemy MMG fire is a very viable tactic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

60% casualties is "viable"? I personally don't think so. Plus, when would you ever see a game where the defender only had MGs in play? If there had been even a squad or two of US infantry in front of those MGs I doubt the Germans would have "won" the scenario.

I guess this is yet another good example of a test that doesn't really show anything usefull from a simulation standpoint. It is a totally artificial example, done with only one set of variables, and only done once. Therefore, it tells us nothing even if we do agree that 60% casualties is some how a good end result for the Germans (which I for one think is not the case)

Not trying to pick on you JPS, but I want to show how I look at a situation like this and therefore why I don't think it means much...

Observation - One trial of the test resulted in 100% US casualties and 60% German Casualties. Specifically, the Germans had a 2:1 advantage in man power, 10:1 advantage in number of points of firepower (i.e. 30 US men, only 6 had weapons). The overall casualties in the end were about 1:1. 6 US units were eliminated, 8 German units reduced in strength to an average of 40% effective.

Analysis - All German soldiers were capable of firing back (eventually) while 80% of the US soldiers were effectively unarmed. Each US soldier armed with a weapon managed to kill five attackers while only one in two of the German soldiers managed to kill a US soldier. This in spite of having 2:1 advantage in overall manpower, 10:1 in invidivuals capable of firing at any one time.

Conclusion - Although the US MGs were not able to stop the German attack in this one time trial test, they were able to substantially weaken the attacking force disproportionally to the odds and ratios which were all statistically in the German's favor. By most standards, 60% casualties for a limited objective is not an example of good leadership and results in a fighting force unfit for further combat.

Steve

[The_Capt]

At cost of betting banned I think I should say something.

Steve: You gave a very comprehensive review of the problem and what you guys are doing to address it. By the tone of your post, I can also tell you are getting somewhat frustrated by the subject.

I would ask your patience and I to be frank I think BTS does owe us, the community, a little bit. We have supported, touted, ran free beta/bug/playtest, marketed, voted and generally sang praises to the world about CM. Add to that, the actual purchase of the game. I think that gives us all the desire to see CM2, that much better. Some of it is bone-idle "bitching" but some of it is honest concern and request for change.

I don't think you guys want to stifle that input as it does make the "eyes on" the game broader and deeper.

Your point is valid that CM is not perfect and neither is any wargame. But that should not discourage anybody who thinks they can make it better from trying.

Now while I have your attention let's talk about engineer obstacles...

[Battlefront.com]

The_Capt wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would ask your patience and I to be frank I think BTS does owe us, the community, a little bit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. That is why I spent almost an hour of my time composing that big response post, even though I have a million other things that need to be done. The problem is that there is only one voice for me and an unlimited number who wish to be heard. While some of those voices have been very reasonable and respectfull, others have not been either. I'm not just talking about this particular MG thread, but MG threads in general which have popped up. Therefore, people need to understand that I must be allowed to express frustration when I am not being treated fairly.

In the end none of this matters. We are going to improve the game no matter what is said here All of the suggestions (save one) that I detailed in my post were on paper LONG before this thread popped up.

So please... if anybody has to make assumptions about how we work, assume that we are our own biggest critic and our own strictest judge. We want CM to be the best out there even if it is the only thing out there.

Steve

[X-00]

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

What Should we Change about MGs?

Possible MG Behavioral Changes

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.

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve,

Thanks for addressing the only "complaints" I have about Machine Gun Modelling.

I for one do not have any complaints about the actual firepower factors of the Machine Guns. My concern is how that firepower is applied.

Like you I do not believe the machine gun is an "uber-weapon". It is however awesomely wicked in certain situations. Especially the situation depicted in the diagram I posted earlier this week.

Your opinion that a defender "screws up" if he allows the enemy within 100-200m is a gross oversimplification that doesn't take into account a variety of variables particularly terrain. There are many instances in warfare (reverse slope defense, defense in close terrain, cross-compartment defense, consolidation in preparation for a counter attack) where that is going to happen.

Anyway, thanks again for taking time to address the three core concerns about machine guns. While I'm not a computer programmer by trade, I can understand the difficulty in coding any of them let alone all three.

That said please don't underestimate the importance of these issues, they are vital to the proper modelling of machine guns and eventual perfection of CM.

[Determinant]

"Like most infantry subalterns trained in the UK for the invasion of Europe, I was convinced of the excellence of our Bren light machine gun. After 40 years, I still view the Bren with affection. It was excellent, particularly as a highly portable and accurate infantry section weapon invaluable in the attack. However when it came to a fire fight between a German and a British platoon, their MG34 and MG42 won hands down.

I remember my first reaction to actual infantry warfare in July 1944 was one of amazement at the crushing fire power of these very rapid firing guns. It seemed to me that the German infantryman seldom used his rifle. He was a carrier of boxes of light machine gun ammunition of which they seemed to have an endless supply.

Our Bren gunners usually fired in short bursts of around five rounds, which not only conserved ammunition but also avoided the gun barrels overheating. Our theory was that, unless one hit the target with the first burst, the opposition would go to ground and subsequent bursts would be unlikely to be effective.

The Germans thought otherwise, firing in long sustained bursts, the objective of which seemed to be to keep us pinned to the ground regardless of ammunition expenditure. Typically German - protracted and discordant. While we were usually attacking and therefore had to carry all the magazines for our Brens, the Germans, in defence, had the advantages of stockpiling belts of ammuntion for their Spandaus."

Sydney Jary '18 Platoon' ISBN 1 901655 01 6

[Wreck]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think MGs should be qualitatively different than normal small arms in terms of most effects. Firepower, in the abstract, is firepower. However, heavy or medium MGs are quantitatively different from small arms in that they produce substantial firepower at much higher ranges. So as a practical matter it is a reasonable implementation decision to say that squad fire only affects points.

To truly compute a firelane is a nontrivial task. You want to find all the terrain that a bullet travelled over, from 1 cm to 3m, say, with variable effects based on the aspect of the infantry near the lane, whether or not they can see the MG, distance, morale, etc.

[Battlefront.com]

X-OO,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks for addressing the only "complaints" I have about Machine Gun Modelling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem. Hopefully you will see that this is a big issue to us. We have been giving this a LOT of thought for about a year now. Probably one of the top 5 things we have been thinking about during this time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I for one do not have any complaints about the actual firepower factors of the Machine Guns. My concern is how that firepower is applied.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I partially agree. Yes, shortcomings in the abstractions we have now are in fact a result of employment limitations. The firepower numbers themselves are probably as "spot on" as they can be. However, some of problems seen in some situations are not directly related to MGs at all, and therefore apply to any sort of fire. Specifically, the types of movement orders we have.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Like you I do not believe the machine gun is an "uber-weapon". It is however awesomely wicked in certain situations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very, very true. It is also quite weak in others. Overall, I think it is a pretty "wicked" weapon and never select a force without plenty of MGs. And I would be very happy if my opposite number decided they were useless and didn't opt to bring them on the battlefield

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your opinion that a defender "screws up" if he allows the enemy within 100-200m is a gross oversimplification that doesn't take into account a variety of variables particularly terrain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true. I used the words "in theory" to account for all the situations where "in reality" it is impossible to keep the sort of distances you need to follow best defensive practices.

Wouldn't you say that if you regullarly game to game found the enemy 100-200m in front of your line, completely unmolested, that either you had the crappiest luck with terrain/unit combos or were not employing sound defensive tactics? I find that although I am often unhappy with the positions I feel I need to occupy, I rarely find myself in a situation where the enemy is allowed to get into jump off spots right in front of my nose. Well, at least without some of my heavy stuff crashing in on the party

As you say, terrain very often dictates deviations from sound tactical theory. That is the challenge of combat, is it not? The ability to adapt to unfavorable situations and still come out on top is what seperates the good leaders from the poor. At least this is my understanding of core tactical leadership skills.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> While I'm not a computer programmer by trade, I can understand the difficulty in coding any of them let alone all three.

That said please don't underestimate the importance of these issues, they are vital to the proper modelling of machine guns and eventual perfection of CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry, we certaintly aren't. In fact, this is one of my biggest "defenses" against the few that think CM's MGs are totally inept. MGs are so important to combat in WWII (and since, obviously) that if we had it totally wrong CM as a simulation would fall apart. I don't think anybody can take up that position with any credibility Therefore, they must be simulated "more right" than "more wrong" on the whole. And that has been my point since the very start of this and every MG thread.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Determinant,

I have seen quite a few quotes from Jary. In general I have enjoyed seeing what he has to say. Although I must say that some of the stuff I have read runs contrary to the observations of others. Again, this is most likely the problem with "put ten experts in a room, ask them the same basic question, and get 25 different answers" problem

I think he is, in this statement, blurring the distinction between emplaced, defensive, units vs. the everyday German squad. He is also ascribing the higher burst rates of the German gunners to doctrine. From what I have read these situations had more to do with the fact that German training standards had declined, not that they had changed. In other words, they were supposed to be firing in short bursts but were too inexperienced to do so.

One of the big drawbacks to the MG42. It was too easy to burn through ammo, and excessive expendature of ammo is a consistant problem with inexperienced troops. So... stick a guy with a MG that has a high rate of fire, don't train him too well, scare him to death, and what do you expect will happen? Poor fire discipline

That being said, if a MG is in a good defensive spot (i.e. well supported by others), has a lot of ammo, and the ability to keep the gun cool (air temp, # of spare barels, etc.) I think the gunner would be much more willing to do long pulls on the trigger.

Steve

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

[Abbott]

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

I don't think MGs should be qualitatively different than normal small arms in terms of most effects. Firepower, in the abstract, is firepower. However, heavy or medium MGs are quantitatively different from small arms in that they produce substantial firepower at much higher ranges. So as a practical matter it is a reasonable implementation decision to say that squad fire only affects points.

To truly compute a firelane is a nontrivial task. You want to find all the terrain that a bullet travelled over, from 1 cm to 3m, say, with variable effects based on the aspect of the infantry near the lane, whether or not they can see the MG, distance, morale, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone who has ever fired or been fired upon by MG's I think would disagree. The noise alone is enough to frighten a man to the bone until he is acclimated. Small arms do notproduce the same effects.

[Gyrene]

Without trying to inflame the situation here anymore, I'd also like to point out that yes, the MG34/42 is a nasty weapon, but the M2HB is a Nasty weapon. I think the big 50 is being misrepresented in the game, esp. when I comes to targeting troops in light buildings and scattered trees, where the heavy .50 slugs would be at their best.

It does a beautiful job on HT's though.

Any thoughts on that?

Gyrene

[Determinant]

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

Determinant,

I have seen quite a few quotes from Jary. In general I have enjoyed seeing what he has to say. Although I must say that some of the stuff I have read runs contrary to the observations of others. Again, this is most likely the problem with "put ten experts in a room, ask them the same basic question, and get 25 different answers" problem

I think he is, in this statement, blurring the distinction between emplaced, defensive, units vs. the everyday German squad. He is also ascribing the higher burst rates of the German gunners to doctrine. From what I have read these situations had more to do with the fact that German training standards had declined, not that they had changed. In other words, they were supposed to be firing in short bursts but were too inexperienced to do so.

One of the big drawbacks to the MG42. It was too easy to burn through ammo, and excessive expendature of ammo is a consistant problem with inexperienced troops. So... stick a guy with a MG that has a high rate of fire, don't train him too well, scare him to death, and what do you expect will happen? Poor fire discipline

That being said, if a MG is in a good defensive spot (i.e. well supported by others), has a lot of ammo, and the ability to keep the gun cool (air temp, # of spare barels, etc.) I think the gunner would be much more willing to do long pulls on the trigger.

Steve

[ 04-12-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely: Sydney Jary's experiences is very much 'one man's view' and it certainly wouldn't do to assume that his experiences as a platoon commander somehow encapsulated all fighting in Western Europe post Overlord. And yet... He is a first hand witness...

I don't think that the quote I used necessarily comes down either side of this ongoing machine gun thread.

Let's remember that there are more machine guns on the board in CM than those merely reflected in the specialist sustained role units (your .30/.50 cals, vickers, M42 HMGs etc): most every squad has a machine gun in the light role (be it Bren, MG34-MG42 fired off the bipod, BAR etc).

These machine guns are crew-served because at least two men operate them (not sure about the BAR though but certainly true for the Bren and the Spandaus). SLA Marshall says that these weapons will be fired effectively when the rifles/SMGs are cowering in cover because the firer and loader draw confidence from their close proximity to each other.

So when Jary talks about the German use of MGs he is referring to both squad _and_ specialist machine guns in CM terms. I am sure if the point was put to him (and it could be - he is still commenting on infantry in action within the pages of the British Army Review!) he might agree with the fire power factor of a German squad while disagreeing with how that factor was produced: He would probably say that a German squad in defence produces fire power through two men behind a bipod mounted Spandau firing long bursts while the other 6 men with slung K-98s/MP40s carry boxes of link forward to feed the gun...

But the important conclusion that Jary makes as an infantry platoon commander is that the Germans in defence could produce a devastating weight of fire through their profligate use of machine gun ammo. Now certainly this was probably poor fire discipline but it did make movement by the attacker simply impossible without overwhelming support fire (invariably Regimental Artillery for the British).

In conclusion: attacking does seem easier on the CM 'battlefield' in the face of defensive fire from automatic weapons. So what? If CM was made utterly 'realistic' (even supposing that such a thing was possible) I would not be interested in playing a game where it took 180 1 minute turns to identify, locate and neutralise a single machine gun in order for a rifle platoon to cross a field.

I enjoy CM, and while it is a really good approximation, it is not actually real life combat in Western Europe in 44/45. And thank God for that...

[X-00]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wouldn't you say that if you regullarly game to game found the enemy 100-200m in front of your line, completely unmolested, that either you had the crappiest luck with terrain/unit combos or were not employing sound defensive tactics? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Steve, IRL and in the game I much prefer having solid positions on a reverse slope. That sometimes means that the enemy can approach to within 100-200 meters unmolested. Once the enemy crests the hill WHAM. IRL there is the added benefit that it is extremely hard to coordinate an assault on a reverse slope defense. In CM, the you see we all see, and perfect command and control makes it much easier to successfully assault reverse slope defenses.

I'm truly bummed and feel unlucky in CM when I'm forced by Victory Flag's to assume positions on forward slopes Yes, this allows for long range fires with MGs as you suggest in your lengthy post above, however, it exposes the unit to return fire, particularily DF or Indirect (on or off board) HE . This means in the Game and IRL you expose an unit you're really going to need when the enemy is within 50-200m of your fighting holes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyone who has ever fired or been fired upon by MG's I think would disagree. The noise alone is enough to frighten a man to the bone until he is acclimated. Small arms do not produce the same effects <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, Abbott. As you suggest this is not a "irrational" fear. I would add that the survivoring soldiers have actually seen what a properly sighted MG (light or heavy) using grazing fire can to do to a unit which carelessly (runs) crosses a danger area whether it's 20, 40, 100 or 200m wide. So when they hear the "rip", it's find a dip (in the ground).

[Username]

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

JPS wrote:

60% casualties is "viable"? I personally don't think so. Plus, when would you ever see a game where the defender only had MGs in play? If there had been even a squad or two of US infantry in front of those MGs I doubt the Germans would have "won" the scenario.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"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."

Its 20 out of 56 or did I miss something? Is the Total a RUNNING total?

I

[Foobar]

Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to give a thorough reply on the MG matter. I am relieved after reading your post. I was tuning in for most of this thread just to get your thoughts on the grazing fire and firelanes specifically. Although noone at BTS has come off with the attitide that the game is perfect, I hadn't heard your opinion on the subject, and whether you thought it had room for improvement.

Its sounds hopeful that the changes you are planning will punish the hell out of the "aggressive smg squad players" in CM2....

[BloodyBucket]

I did my own test.

I set up two M-1919 MGs in open terrain, and started two Green VG squads towards them. I then turned the game off and tried to go cold turkey on CM for two days.

The result? I became a twitching, miserable tactics deprived shell.

Conclusions? MG's in CM are very effective in getting me to think about and play this game .

Outstanding response to some outstanding ideas by BTS. I want to see what CM2 is like so much my teeth hurt.

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

[ASL Veteran]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why should this be a magic power given to machine guns? Because this is how machine guns work that's why. That magic power is what they do. I just happen to have FM 7-7 "The Mechanized Infantry Platoon and Squad (APC)" in front of me, and guess what? They happen to have a few things to say about machine guns. Let's see what they say:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Machine guns and SAWs are the dismount element's main weapons to stop infantry attacks. As a rule, all the platoon's machine guns/SAWs are brought to the dismount element's position. The machine guns should be used on tripods with traversing and elevating mechanisms. Their positions should provide sectors of fire across the dismount element's front, interlocking with the carrier element and adjacent platoons, when possible. Machine guns are most effective when delivering enfilade fire down the line of the enemy assault formation. Where it can be done, machine guns are assigned a final protective line (FPL). An FPL is a line where, with interlocking fire and obstacles, the platoon leader plans to stop an enemy dismounted assault. Generally it is across the front of the battle position. A machine gun FPL should supply as much grazing fire as possible. Grazing fire is to be no more than 1 meter above the ground (about hip high). (snip)

A machine gun is always laid on its FPL or PDF unless engaging other targets. The FPL machine guns should be fired all at the same time and on signal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you see, I'm not just making this stuff up. Grazing fire/fire lanes is what the machine gun is all about. Why not let everything create firelanes? Well, regardless of whatever firepower calculations you want to make for every other weapon as far as grazing fire goes - it just ain't Standard Operating Procedure to use those other weapons in that fashion. But grazing fire is the essence of what the machine gun is, and it is the primary task that the machine gun is asked to do. If I haven't shed some light on this subject for you after this .. well, then I guess you either lack the fundamental knowledge required to understand the issue or you can't be convinced to change your world view on the way machine guns work.

[Battlefront.com]

X-00 wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, Steve, IRL and in the game I much prefer having solid positions on a reverse slope. That sometimes means that the enemy can approach to within 100-200 meters unmolested.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... I'm surprised to hear that. I would think, and reading of doctrine and AARs leads me to believe, that this is a very risky way to defend against a likely superior foe. In current times perhaps this is much more viable as the firepower at this range is so huge? Still, I was under the strong impression that the idea was to keep the enemy from getting near your MRL, not the opposite.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm truly bummed and feel unlucky in CM when I'm forced by Victory Flag's to assume positions on forward slopes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Victory Locations tend to be overrated by CMers. If you neither of you own them, and you kick the other player's ass all over the place, you will win the scenario. You just don't want to let the enemy control the flags if you haven't taken him to town first. My advice is take up the best positions and worry about the flags after the battle propper has started.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, this allows for long range fires with MGs as you suggest in your lengthy post above, however, it exposes the unit to return fire, particularily DF or Indirect (on or off board) HE . This means in the Game and IRL you expose an unit you're really going to need when the enemy is within 50-200m of your fighting holes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, if the enemy gets that far. I guess it is like any two plans - there are risks and trade offs inherent in each. If you engage at long ranges then you have the chance of sending him packing with little risk of having your MRL hit very hard. However, if the enemy gets in close and you don't have your MGs, then you are up a creek if your attempts to mess them up were ineffective.

The only thing I don't like about a short distance defense strategy (in CM of course) is that you are basically assured that there will be some degree of in close fighting. I often play as the Germans and don't want a full US rifle platoon any where near my MLR with the higher headcount and M1 Garands. I have had good results with mortars, artillery, and MGs messing up the attacker at 500m+ to the extent that my MLR can take the remainder less a few MGs if it happens I lose some. Each to his own though as I am certainly not trying to tell you how to soldier

Lewis, I thought each casualty count was per turn. So that would be 2, 11, 20 = 33. However, now that I look at it I can see it is also possible JPS meant 2, 9, 9 = 20. Obviously that affects the casualty % stuff, but I would still argue that 30% is not a good exchange. There are far less costly ways to eliminate MGs or avoid them.

Steve

[StellarRat]

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

If I haven't shed some light on this subject for you after this .. well, then I guess you either lack the fundamental knowledge required to understand the issue or you can't be convinced to change your world view on the way machine guns work.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand what you're trying to say here. MGs are purposely employed to fire a line of bullets down the line of advance and you want it have the effect that it should have in real life. That's great. I get it. I've understood this from the beginning. What I'm saying is that if this added to the game for MGs it should work for other weapons too. (Possibly not as well, but we can worry about that later.)

Here is my reasoning: Any weapon firing down the line of advance would have essentially the same effect even if it isn't done intentionally. There is a chance that those bullets would pass through squads down the line (other than the target squad) and could cause casualities/suppression to them. (Obviously you are more likely to hit someone when firing across the enemy line because there are likely to be more squads in the bullets path. This is also the reason it's a good idea place MGs on the enemy's flanks.)

So, while your manual says

"Machine guns are most effective when delivering enfilade fire down the line of the enemy assault formation."

I would argue that ALL guns are most effective when delivering enfilade fire down the line of the enemy assault formation.

In fact, from what I've seen in WWII combat footage and Vietnam footage it appears that in heavy combat small infantry weapons are fired by pointing in the general direction of the enemy and firing without much aiming. The troops "spray and prey" because no one wants to expose themselves long enough for careful aim, therefore "misses" probably kill more unintended enemy targets then intended targets, so taking stray rounds into account is important. If BTS writes the code to make it work for MGs then it will/should also work for other direct fire weapons.

This would also make it important that you keep in mind friendly units that are down range from your fire! What happens if an enemy unit is in the street with friendly units in the buildings on each side? Do you think it would be a good idea to cut loose with everything you've got? I bet well over half the bullets would end up across the street in buildings your friends are in!

See I do have a reasoning behind my

questions.

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Hmmm... I'm surprised to hear that. I would think, and reading of doctrine and AARs leads me to believe, that this is a very risky way to defend against a likely superior foe. In current times perhaps this is much more viable as the firepower at this range is so huge? Still, I was under the strong impression that the idea was to keep the enemy from getting near your MRL, not the opposite.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the idea is that in a forward slope defense, a superior attacker can usually bring most or all of his superior fire power to bear on the defender at once, while in a reverse slope defense the attacker is only able to engage with a fraction of his force at any given time, and is then forced to commit his forces piecemeal. The defender can have support fires from units overwatching his front line, while the attacker is denied this.

Of course this works much better if you have a proper defense-in-depth set up which is hard to do with the shallow QB maps (hint, hint .) I think this is what X-00 was refering to when he was lamenting about where the VLs are.

[ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[JPS]

Steve and Lewis,

let me clarify: it was 2 casualties in

the first turn (150m advance in the open), 9 casualties in the second turn (150m advance in the open to the treeline), and 9 casualties in turns 3-6 (close combat within the woods).

I know there are better ways to attack MGs. However, this rather simpleminded test approach seemed to result in surprisingly few attacker casualties (the point ratio 108 defender - 186 attacker seems reasonable IMO for attack situation; losses are 30 men for defender, 20 men for attacker). I know I should repeat the test some 100 times or so with various parameters...

I think the problem will be solved with the modifications BTS is already planning for CM2 - slower "assault movement" alone would be of great help.

Regarding combat distances: In the terrain in which I got my platoon leader training (Finnish forest, swamp, and some fields mainly) a great many infantry contacts will be made at distances of 150m or less, and that's it.

[Wesreidau]

Steve

Thanks for the insight on CM2. I have no trouble winning, what's everyone else complaining about?

Look forward to the next piece of Artistry from you guys

PeterNZ

[ASL Veteran]

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

Here is my reasoning: Any weapon firing down the line of advance would have essentially the same effect even if it isn't done intentionally. There is a chance that those bullets would pass through squads down the line (other than the target squad) and could cause casualities/suppression to them. (Obviously you are more likely to hit someone when firing across the enemy line because there are likely to be more squads in the bullets path. This is also the reason it's a good idea place MGs on the enemy's flanks.)

So, while your manual says

"Machine guns are most effective when delivering enfilade fire down the line of the enemy assault formation."

I would argue that ALL guns are most effective when delivering enfilade fire down the line of the enemy assault formation.

[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, well that's different. Okay, well it does make some sense to try to account for the ... call it residual effects ... of the other weapons in a squad. The problem then goes to one of volume of fire. Your standard issue bolt action rifle will not produce a volume of fire that is effective enough to have a game worthy result on any unit other than the target of that fire. Ten men all firing across an area with rifles is going to produce fire that will be more ragged (in terms of when each man chooses to fire) and less concentrated (because each man is aiming at his own target) than an MG fired by one man that is concentrated in an area that the gunner alone is aiming at. So, the area and the concentration of fire is going to be more dispersed with rifle fire, thus lessening the effects of residual fire - dispersing it to the point of making it ineffective at influencing the enemy. Sure, the enemy will be aware that random rounds are flying around, but if it isn't a burst of ten rounds all impacting at once right next to your face it probably wouldn't influence you very much.

Another factor is ammunition. A standard load out for a German infantryman is between 45 and 60 rounds of ammunition. He is not very likely to be 'spraying and praying' with his precious 45 rounds of ammo - especially with the weak volume of fire that a bolt action rifle will produce. He is most likely going to be aiming at a man - or the suspected location of a man - and trying to hit him. The odds of hitting someone in between the firer and the target are just too small.

It is my opinion that this would fall into the realm of random casualties that are caused because the battlefield is a dangerous place to be. However, the concentration and volume of fire from an MG creates a suppressive effect that can only be produced with grazing fire.

How's that?

BTW, thanks BTS for the comprehensive post about plans for CM2 and MGs. We all appreciate your efforts - heck, I appreciate your efforts everyday (by playing)