more machinegun follies-- yet another call for a fix

[Berlichtingen]

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

Now give it all a fricken' break! You've given your ideas, you've made the bread. Give it a rest and let it rise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your advise is a little late. I think it has already become stale

[Foobar]

I think I have found closure, and my new sig...

[Username]

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

2. If you aren't satisfied with MGs how they are, TO FRIGGIN BAD. Learn how to use them in their current setting and deal with it. BTS has said they will work on it. LEAVE THE TOPIC ALONE SO THEY CAN. Maybe bts will have the time to fix them in the future if they don't have to explain every little thing they were forced to extrapolate because of xxxxxx. THIS WHOLE GAME IS BASED ON EXTRAPOLATIONS AND LIMITATIONS>>>GUESS WHAT, I LOVE MGs HOW THEY ARE, THEY KICK ASS WHEN I USE THEM, so they don't have grazing fire, big deal, if you set up your defense right, that makes no difference in THIS GAME. In cm2 that will be very important, and GUESS WHAT THEY WILL FIX IT FOR CM2

DAMN BUNCH OF WHINY BABIES<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While you may view people here that share thier real world experience and ideas as "whiny babies", I view your post as a somewhat "hysterical teenie (female sort)". It is replete with contradictions such as "I like the way things are" and "It will be fixed". So it suits you broken and it will more than suit you when it is "fixed"?

I like alot of the ideas that BTS is kicking around. But it looks like its tough titty as far as CMBO MG effectiveness. In my opinion, the MMG and even the HMG are not worth the points spent on them. The only situation where they are of any value is when they outrange a defender that cant move and cant respond with equal firepower. Their real world main attribute, holding ground against infantry attack, isnt modeled.

Thats the only issue thats left for me. Is BTS going to do anything else with CMBO besides sell it?

Lewis

[MrSpkr]

I agree with Night guant. Stop whining and learn to use them in this game, or don't buy them if you can't or won't learn how to use them. Sheesh.

MrSpkr

[Thomm]

I just finished L'Abbey Blanche as Allies and achieved a tactical victory in this quite difficult scenario. I transfered the .50 cal to a heavy building in the city where it blasted away at the Germans until it was low on ammunition.

In the debriefing it had caused ONE casualty at a mean distance of 150 meters. Now, I do not know if only confirmed casualties are given in the debrief mode (this is what I suspect), but this result was a little bit disappointing for such a heavy weapon. Fighting nearby was a squad with 14 confirmed kills!

Remark: I would really like to see ALL caused casualities in the debriefing map mode, including those of artillery observers ...

On the other hand, the two employed MGs kept the Germans out of town until I could bring in an infantry platoon. The town remained contested in the end, which I did not expect when I first spotted the mass of enemies approaching.

So, against the AI, the MGs were useful enough. A human player would certainly have overran my position with a massed attack!

Anyway, it was a very entertaining game. Excellent scenario with lots of movement!

Regards,

Thomm

[Username]

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

I just finished L'Abbey Blanche as Allies and achieved a tactical victory in this quite difficult scenario. I transfered the .50 cal to a heavy building in the city where it blasted away at the Germans until it was low on ammunition.

In the debriefing it had caused ONE casualty at a mean distance of 150 meters. Now, I do not know if only confirmed casualties are given in the debrief mode (this is what I suspect), but this result was a little bit disappointing for such a heavy weapon. Fighting nearby was a squad with 14 confirmed kills!

Thomm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unbelievable as this may seem; I agree with Steve's views on MGs as far as the 50 cal is concerned. In my mind, it is not the infantry stopper that a water cooled or a quick barrel change weapon is.

It is great at anti-lt.vehicle tasks and is great at clearing infantry out of houses, bunkers etc. In other words, it is more like a light flak gun in the ground role than a true HMG (at least to me). Its also awesome at long range shooting.

Ive carried ammo boxes for this weapon and if I remember right, you only get about half the ammo for the same sized box as a 30 cal MG.

Heres a website where Canadians do a study and proclaim it a loser.

web page

[Battlefront.com]

OK,

I think we have gotten all that we can out of this thread and it is probably just going to continue to be bashed about until it is locked down for that reason. Because of that, I am going to lock it down now.

Some final thoughts...

1. Isolated Testing - it has some value for sure, but any conclusions from it can only be applied to those isolated circumstances. This is Science 101 here, not something we are making up. If you run a Regular SMG squad at a Regular MMG at 200m over open ground conclusions from such a test only apply to that given situation. Any conclusions that are stated which go beyond this situation are by scientific definition invalid. There is no room for arguing this point as it is the fundamental foundation for scientific testing and analysis. Such a limited test *might* have larger implications, but it is not by any stretch of the word "science" guaranteed. At the very least the "data" gained from such a test is woefully too small a sample of the range of variables to base code changes on (i.e. how does a Green SMG unit do in the same test).

2. MGs are not useless - anybody that thinks this should put their money where their mouth is and go into a battle, on the defensive, against someone who is at least as skilled as you are. Opt to not have any MGs. If you get some, put them in a harmless corner of the map and give them Hide orders.

3. Victory Ratings - I obviously didn't make this clear enough. The Victory Rating is a complicated and at the same time simplistic set of calculations. If wipe out all the enemy right off the board you are almost always going to get a "win" of some sort. The assumption is that wiping out the enemy is the ultimate test of victory. Only horribly unbalanced friendly casualties to enemy will cause you to so much as Draw. Simplistic logic, perhaps, but it works very well when a real scenario is played out with realistic troop mixes. It totally doesn't work when putting one platoon against a company. It was never designed to work for such an unlikely mix of units.

4. MG behavior will change in CM2 - As I have said earlier in this thread, and in others, we are working on making some changes for CM2 that will improve the general functioning of MGs, especially in "stress test" situations. In correct combined arms use we don't expect to see a radical change in performance from CM1.

5. Changes to CM1 - As we have said, we are not planning to do any more work on CM1. It is done, finished, completed. Not perfect, of course, but no game ever is. We have already delivered far more improvements and new features than any software company should be reasonably expected to produce, so no matter what state the game is in now we have gone far beyond the call of duty to the customer. It has also harmed our schedule for CM2, which must not be allowed to happen any more.

6. Feeback is welcomed - We have a strong record of listening and responding to customer requests. That does not mean that we automatically agree with either the feedback or how it is presented. Sometimes there is no one "right answer" and gamers need to accept that CM might not always do what they think should happen.

Thanks,

Steve