MG team recommendation

[JasonC]

Gentlemen:

Here is my proposal for the way MGs and rushes are handled. Comments on whether you think they would help, or not, and why, are all welcome. But please, we already have 10 pages on another thread to rehash the whole issue, and you can start your own topic if you have a completely different idea, or think there isn't any issue yet.

1 - tie the % exposed number to the movement state. When running in the open, the % exposed number would be up in the 90s. It drops on a delay timer when a unit slows or stops, reaching the best the cover can provide if motionless for 15 seconds or so, about the same scale as movement delays now.

2 - allow an "acquisition" bonus for crew served weapons putting out infantry firepower, for fire at the same target several times in succession, *if the % expose number is high enough*. E.g. multiplier for firepower is 1+(exposed - (say) 75%, 0 if negative)^number of shots already taken. The maximum benefit is 2 times effectiveness. The acquisition is lost if the target's % expose number falls to (say) 75 or below, or if another target is engaged.

This makes *covered* rushes possible. It makes *multiple* rushes possible, with several attackers all spread out. It makes *short* rushes relatively easy to accomplish. It does not excessively penalize troops in cover, troops not moving, or short "snapshots" at squads crossing narrow areas of open ground.

But if e.g. an MG is firing 4 times in succession at a charging squad with 95% exposure, then the first shot would be .95. The second would be 20% more effective (95-75). The third 44% more effective. The 4th 73% more effective. The range is also dropping, increasing the fp.

The reduced effects of cover for moving troops would apply to all weapons types. But the acquisition effects would be specific to crew served MG type weapons. They would be far more powerful (up to a maximum of twice) against *long* rushes across *open* ground.

Moreover, the effect is a believable one. It depends on the exposure of the enemy troops, and the length of time the gunner can "spray" them. Flanking becomes important, teamwork to tackle an MG from two directions becomes important, use of cover becomes more important.

That is my suggestion. Comments welcome.

[aka_tom_w]

I'm not sure if your suggestions address the issue of "non-targeted" units moving through the LOF without taking casualities?

If a MG position is advanced on by multiple units then the MG can only target one incoming unit at at time (I think) This makes the bum rush particularily effective.

Again I would like to suggest that we focus on how the reality of MG fire is ABSTRACTED in the game.

Don't forget the fact that in the game the MG's don't actually fire any bullets. As I understand it, what happens is the effect of their role or action is calculated on a narow ONE target area OR just one opposing unit. They have a firepower factor (they don't shoot bullets) and that factor is calculated as an effect on the unit the MG is targeting. So what I think we are saying is that the effect calculated is limited in that it happens to only one squad at a time AND some here would say the way the effect of the firepower of an MG is modeled on its ONE target, is NOT leathal enough, especially at close range.

Is this issue not identical to that fact that tanks fire right through other tanks both friendly and enemy to have the EFFECT of the result of a fired shot calculated ONLY on the target intended?

What (I think?) we want is for MG bullets to spray over an area, or cut down multiple squads with grazing fire at the knees. Many folks here are talking about how REAL MG's work in real combat. So my point is as long as the abstracted effect if MG fire is ONLY calculated against one target or one squad, rushing on MG with multiple squads will ALWAYS be effective as I have never seen an MG in this game attempt to effect abstracted injury from firing "bullets" at mulitple squads in one turn.

I have seen the diagrams here with mulitple squads and mulitple parallel MG bullet paths, but as I understand it, there is no effect on other squads in the LOF if they are not actually being targeted by the MG. There are no bullets flying out of those abstracted MG's ONLY project abstracted "firepower" ratings which are calculated against ONE target or one small area, so that any unit "non-targeted unit" in the LOF will not be affected at all.

I think we are being told that "grazing fire" is somehow abstracted, but I have never seen the effect on an MG on a squad in the LOF if a more distant squad is actually being targeted.

Am I way off base on this one? Or have other folks seen mulitple squads in the LOF of a MG receive fire and injuries from one one MG in a turn?

-tom w

[Username]

Are you proposing a CM fix or a CM2 redesign?

Personally, I think its a bit much for a fix. And like aka, I dont think it addresses the reality issues.

I think the best quick fix is just to increase the engagement rate as a function of distance. Targets far away?, fire short bursts, targets get near, go for broke. This would allow at least some meaningful bursts at the onrushing mob. I would also like the MG to quickly switch targets once a target has "gone to ground".

I have seen tracking problems also where I run a squad PAST the MG and the MG TURNS AROUND facing his back to 6 other squads that are rushing in. I think a defined covered arc could handle this.

[L.Tankersley]

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

Am I way off base on this one? Or have other folks seen mulitple squads in the LOF of a MG receive fire and injuries from one one MG in a turn?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen a single MG fire on a unit and had a couple other units moving nearby become alerted or suppressed. I don't remember seeing actual casualties taken by other than the targeted unit.

[JasonC]

"I'm not sure if your suggestions address the issue of "non-targeted" units moving through the LOF"

Nope, because I think such complaints aren't really justified and the solutions are more cumbersome than any gain in accuracy they'd involve. I don't want penetrating fire. I am not interested in making MGs uberweapons or making the game more cumbersome to play, or turning it into some single game of "optimise the angles".

I am only interested in making long rushes without cover more dangerous, because they are too easy to get away with in CM as it is now.

Another fellow suggested more rapid fire as the range drops. That is functionally equivalent to just raising the firepower as the range drops. I am dead-set against such changes, as a "blanket" matter, based only on range.

Right now, there is a realistic tactical difference between MGs and small arms, in that the MGs retain more of their firepower at long range, while infantry firepower rises much more steeply, making them more effective at the closest ranges. MGs are long range, especially "pinning" weapons as a result.

But if they fired twice as often at *anything* at 100 yards, then you might as well just double their firepower. Then they aren't especially ranged weapons at all. They are just slow squads with more ammo and fewer men. I don't think there is anything accurate about that.

MGs beat infantry if they can stop them at long range. But in close, infantry should beat MGs, just like they do now. Everybody knows the MG is right over there, because it is loud. There are fewer men and all clustered around it. The guys with the small arms, once in range for those to be deadly, should smoke the MGs, and they do.

The only unrealistic thing, is the ease with which infantry gets through the whole range "envelope" of MGs, even without cover or any care taken in the movement. And that is what my proposal is meant to address.

It raises the effectiveness of all infantry weapons against "rushes", by reducing cover for those moving rapidly. This will effect more shots in the case of MGs, because of their superior range. It will not make the MG any more powerful in a short range firefight against a squad in good cover nearby. But it will make it harder to run through the MGs whole, range-extended "envelope" of firepower.

In addition, the effect will be multipled in the case of units with no cover for *extended* periods, in the LOS of the same MG. In a *long* rush, the MGs firepower will be up to double what it is now (a bit less, since the first few shots are not doubled). This bonus will only apply, if the attackers are not in cover or are moving rapidly or both.

It will tend to ensure that at least one attacking unit is badly hit in any long rush over open ground. Which will probably drive that unit to ground or kill it. It will not be much easier than now, for an MG to handle a rush by multiple squads, reflecting the ability of the attackers to spread out. But certainly cases like 4 MGs rushed by a couple of platoons over open ground, will become much more expensive, and will be more likely to be broken up by pins and routs and thus fail altogether.

As for what I am proposing it for, I'd like to see it in CM2. I'd like to see the cover system even in CM, but I realize that is probably not practical, because it is probably too big a programming change. Whether the MG fire bonus vs. long rushes is practical in CM as a sort of patch change, I do not pretend to know.

The key idea of my whole proposal is that the item that is somewhat out of whack now, is how much *exposure* increases the firepower of MG type weapons. Specifically, that the effect of prolonged exposure is greater for MGs - they can play their beaten zone and penetrating fire and lanes games, to good effect, *when* the target is infantry in the open for long periods.

That is the only place I see a serious problem. Specifically, *not* MGs at short range. And *not* any particular need for angle games and the associated complexity. Just, MGs should be more effective at pinning moving troops, and they should especially be more effective against troops long exposed to their fire, without cover.

C'est tout. I am not trying to rewrite CM. Just to tweak 1-2 game systems to correct what I see as a single, readily exploitable, limited area of unreality. (To wit, the over-long open bum-rush).

[Username]

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

Nope, because I think such complaints aren't really justified and the solutions are more cumbersome than any gain in accuracy they'd involve. I don't want penetrating fire. I am not interested in making MGs uberweapons or making the game more cumbersome to play, or turning it into some single game of "optimise the angles".

I am only interested in making long rushes without cover more dangerous, because they are too easy to get away with in CM as it is now.

Another fellow suggested more rapid fire as the range drops. That is functionally equivalent to just raising the firepower as the range drops. I am dead-set against such changes, as a "blanket" matter, based only on range.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really are confusing. I dont understand your delayed exposure suggestion and think its a bad abstraction.

You seem to think that realistic grazing fire (calling it uberweaponry) will ruin your playtime? Sorry bud but its realism I want not bad abstractions. MGs hold ground and thats a fact.

Having an MG engage targets that are in a narrow covered arc in quick succesion is NOT the same as just raising the FP value. Actually, its something that BTS might consider.

I hope they do and dont go into bad abstractions like time warps or slow motion grounding of units.

[Wilhammer]

My 2 cents on these threads.

An MG team could target a specific location/field of fire. It would declare a limited arc to a certain range and anything that entered that region took fire. This would be a special MG area sweep fire command. Area sweep target a point in space, and anything and EVERYTHING to the right, left, up or down in a limited arc can get whacked. This option should consume a lot of ammo.

Another additional way to handle them could be parallell fire; if another unit at the same time was in the line of fire in front of and beyond a targeted unit, and the LOS traced marked intercepting elevations in this line with a small plus/minus variance, then those units took fire based on the range of the fire and a reduced fire since they were not aimed at. This would be just a change to the current fire rules.

Also, it could be done to all kinds of direct rifle or auto fire, but MGs would stand out due to the far larger number of bullets they shoot.

This is kind of like how gun fire is done now, in that a missed round has got to land somewhere.

[grunto2]

i don't know about this whole debate, but having once played a lot of squad leader, here is what i do know:

i miss the 'thing' in squad leader where a couple of machineguns could literally wipe out a platoon of enemy infantry in a heartbeat.

in cm, it seems like infantry are almost never in that kind of danger from machineguns, particularly at longer ranges.

in squad leader, even at longer ranges a platoon could get hosed from time to time.

i miss that aspect of squad leader.

andy

[von Lucke]

This thread (and the several other like-themed threads that have popped up recently) all stem from the single abstraction that is the heart of the CM combat system (at least for infantry weapons): It's based on point-to-point Firepower Factors. One MMG (or squad) can only target a single other unit (albeit a vehicle, gun, squad, whatever) and then expends the entirety of it's FP against that single unit. Rather unrealistic, granted, but for simplicity of coding's sake, it had to be done.

If we're talking major re-coding --- which is what re-doing the HMG effects would result in --- why not apply it to all infantry weapons.

My suggestion would be to make it possible to split available FP factors among whatever targets are within said units firing arc (say 90 deg. arc forward). Your single squad of 150 FP's being rushed by a full platoon? Allocate 50 FP pts to each attacker --- or 150 to one of 'em. Obviously this splitting of FP's would have to be limited by the number of men left (hard for 1 man to split fire three ways), so it would be necessary to code the effects of each individual weapon. Very time consuming (coding-wise), and rather micro-managment intensive (player-wise).

Something similar could be done for HMG's: Have an Area Fire command, where you set the arc, and all targets in said arc receive a base percentage of the available FP's from that gun. 3 targets recieve 33% each, or 4 recieve 25%, etc --- with the FP percentage adjusted by cover, movement, distance, etc.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

This thread (and the several other like-themed threads that have popped up recently) all stem from the single abstraction that is the heart of the CM combat system (at least for infantry weapons): It's based on point-to-point Firepower Factors. One MMG (or squad) can only target a single other unit (albeit a vehicle, gun, squad, whatever) and then expends the entirety of it's FP against that single unit. Rather unrealistic, granted, but for simplicity of coding's sake, it had to be done.

If we're talking major re-coding --- which is what re-doing the HMG effects would result in --- why not apply it to all infantry weapons.

My suggestion would be to make it possible to split available FP factors among whatever targets are within said units firing arc (say 90 deg. arc forward). Your single squad of 150 FP's being rushed by a full platoon? Allocate 50 FP pts to each attacker --- or 150 to one of 'em. Obviously this splitting of FP's would have to be limited by the number of men left (hard for 1 man to split fire three ways), so it would be necessary to code the effects of each individual weapon. Very time consuming (coding-wise), and rather micro-managment intensive (player-wise).

Something similar could be done for HMG's: Have an Area Fire command, where you set the arc, and all targets in said arc receive a base percentage of the available FP's from that gun. 3 targets recieve 33% each, or 4 recieve 25%, etc --- with the FP percentage adjusted by cover, movement, distance, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Splitting of firepower is a neat idea, but given that turns are one minute in length and a squad will be given many different target opportunities in the course of that turn - well, as you suggest, you would have many calculations to make (since it would be the AI doing them, not the player) as to how much firepower to allocate to each new target encountered, etc. The more you leave for the AI to do, the unhappier players will be, since it will be that much harder to get the computer to give the appearance of intelligent, logical (ie real life) thought.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

This thread (and the several other like-themed threads that have popped up recently) all stem from the single abstraction that is the heart of the CM combat system (at least for infantry weapons): It's based on point-to-point Firepower Factors. One MMG (or squad) can only target a single other unit (albeit a vehicle, gun, squad, whatever) and then expends the entirety of it's FP against that single unit. Rather unrealistic, granted, but for simplicity of coding's sake, it had to be done.

If we're talking major re-coding --- which is what re-doing the HMG effects would result in --- why not apply it to all infantry weapons.

My suggestion would be to make it possible to split available FP factors among whatever targets are within said units firing arc (say 90 deg. arc forward). Your single squad of 150 FP's being rushed by a full platoon? Allocate 50 FP pts to each attacker --- or 150 to one of 'em. Obviously this splitting of FP's would have to be limited by the number of men left (hard for 1 man to split fire three ways), so it would be necessary to code the effects of each individual weapon. Very time consuming (coding-wise), and rather micro-managment intensive (player-wise).

Something similar could be done for HMG's: Have an Area Fire command, where you set the arc, and all targets in said arc receive a base percentage of the available FP's from that gun. 3 targets recieve 33% each, or 4 recieve 25%, etc --- with the FP percentage adjusted by cover, movement, distance, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

GREAT POST

This is exactly what I was trying to say and I thank von Lucke for his eloquence and insight, in stating the problem.

I'm not sure I support the suggested solution, as it is still an abstraction of sorts.

I like what Lewis had to say about this one:

"I dont understand your delayed exposure suggestion and think its a bad abstraction.

You seem to think that realistic grazing fire (calling it uberweaponry) will ruin your playtime? Sorry bud but its realism I want not bad abstractions. MGs hold ground and thats a fact.

Having an MG engage targets that are in a narrow covered arc in quick succesion is NOT the same as just raising the FP value. Actually, its something that BTS might consider.

I hope they do and dont go into bad abstractions like time warps or slow motion grounding of units. "

I'm concerned this situation will get worse if an even more complicated abstraction is layered on the problem of firepower being targeted against only one opposing unit at a time.

This is the issue with HMG's right here:

"It's based on point-to-point Firepower Factors. One MMG (or squad) can only target a single other unit (albeit a vehicle, gun, squad, whatever) and then expends the entirety of it's FP against that single unit."

In reality they do not JUST limit their firepower effect to one unit during a minute of real life combat action. The LOF "should" be an equally effective kill zone when ANY other units beside the one targeted pass through it.

Thanks to von Lucke for the insightful description of the problem, at least the way I see it anyway.

-tom w

[Username]

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

By the way, why have you guys gone and created a second thread on this issue? It's already pretty much been resolved in the first one, and Steve has made his commitment to changing some things for CM2.

This should be pretty quiet on this front until we make it to the East. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that BTS is on the right track for CM2. But I would like some kind of fix for CMBO. In any cse, its good that BTS get alot of input while they are creating CM2.

Something needs to stop the russian mobs from just over running everything in sight. MG Bunkers that can fire across the advance of infantry should be the backbone of defense.

[Wesreidau]

God! We're not starting this thread again are we? I hope BTS don't waste time responding to yet another MG thread (when they could be working on CM2).

I mean, BTS have said they're changing things for CM2, that CM1 is done, what more needs to be discussed?

And please, let's NOT change the game to be more like Squad Leader. I prefer reality.

PeterNZ

[JasonC]

"One MMG (or squad) can only target a single other unit (albeit a vehicle, gun, squad, whatever) and then expends the entirety of it's FP against that single unit."

Wrong, that is not the problem. The MGs don't kill the units they *do* shoot at. They drop a man or two and sometimes pin them. In a long attack they will half-squad one unit.

Spreading their fire over more units would reduce their impact on each, or multiply their firepower into uberweapons. They don't deserve the latter, because 1 MMG does not have the firepower of 3 BARs and 30 rifles.

Some simply want MGs and presumably everything else to kill everything they shoot at, and will conclude "this isn't realistic" if they don't. But CM fights are bloodier than the real thing overall, as it is.

The problem is that movement does not make units as vunerable as they really became when moving, and in particular when moving in the open and for long periods.

One fellow did not understand why there should be a delay about "going to ground". The answer is that it is not one man going to ground, but a squad, and they then move around for decent firing positions as they "settle in". Changes in the % exposed number primarily reflect the *portion* of the squad that the enemy can see. It is entirely reasonable that that portion would drop after movement, and not all at once.

The squad does not all reach positions at the same time, instantly go to ground in perfect positions, and have the full benefits of cover that split second. In fact, NCOs spend a lot of their time in combat, repositioning individual men, which is exactly such a "settling in."

One fellow will not be satisfied with anything but the "realism" of fire lanes. How is he going to program the tac AI to pick fire lanes? What shall we do next in the name of realism, have the player aim each M-1 rifle in a "sniper" simulator? How about if we make the player pull on the soldiers' socks, and penalize movement rates if they are allowed to get wet? After all, blisters are realistic.

Game design is not the same thing as making a sim. A sim of Guadalcanal would be somewhere between excruciating torture and mind-numbing boredom. If you aren't interested in the playability of a game, then re-up and go eat snakes.

[Username]

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

God! We're not starting this thread again are we? I hope BTS don't waste time responding to yet another MG thread (when they could be working on CM2).

PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope they dont waste "time" responding to this but rather just decide if a quick fix is desired for the still for sale CMBO.

If not, just say so and put this to issue to bed. I like the CM2 ideas. Some I have mentioned way back.

Jason's idea (has anyone else said they liked it?) is too way out. He is getting extreme now, claiming that people want MGs to mow down everyone, etc. No one is saying that but rather a line of squads rushing across its firelane should all recieve a dose of firepower. Jason, just drop it. BTS is going to do what they want for CM2 and your idea isnt exactly along the lines of what they are thinking of.

Lets see if CMBO is going to be updated or not.

Lewis

[ 04-15-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

--BTS, from the now blissfully-dead MG thread.

Purty well sums it up, I'd say.

[ 04-15-2001: Message edited by: Mark IV ]

[Username]

So are there M1917 water cooled MGs or not?

Anyway. I still say that MGs are offensively modeled weapons and that BTS undermodeled them as defensive weapons (their primary mission).

Lets hope for the best as far as CM2.

Lewis

[ASL Veteran]

In the last thread that dealt with MGs I was discussing the subject from the point of view that what machine guns do is common knowledge. My discussion / disagreement with Marlowe has shown me that I may not be communicating effectively – and that some readers have no idea of the significance of what we are discussing. I am going to start with some definitions that I have taken from FM 7-7 and FM 23-7:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Cone of Fire: This type of fire is the cone-shaped pattern formed by the paths of rounds in a group or burst of rounds fired from a gun with the same sight setting. The paths differ and form a cone because of vibration, wind changes, variations in ammunition, etc.

Beaten Zone: This zone is the pattern on the ground formed by the rounds in the cone of fire as they fall.

Dead Space: This is an area, within the sector and range of a weapon, that can neither be hit by fire from that weapon nor seen by its gunner

Grazing Fire: is fire in which most of the rounds do not rise over 1 meter above the ground

Plunging Fire: is fire in which the path of the rounds is higher than a standing man except in its beaten zone. Plunging fire is attained when firing at long ranges, when firing from high ground to low ground, and when firing into a hillside.

Danger Space: This is the space between a weapon and its target where the trajectory does not rise above the average height of a standing man (1.8 meters). It includes the beaten zone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, now I’m going to assume that we all know the difference between point and area fire as well as the difference between enfilade, flanking, and frontal fire. I will add those items into the discussion later in this post where necessary. For now though, let’s flesh out these definitions a little and place them in the context of CM. Specifically the beaten zone, grazing fire, danger space, and plunging fire. Right now in CM, you target an enemy squad with your MG and you place a beaten zone on that enemy unit. There is no danger space other than where your beaten zone is located. This targeted squad is then effected by the fire of your MG. If we transpose that situation in CM into reality and apply our definitions, you are basically using plunging fire on your target since there is no danger space located anywhere other than inside the beaten zone. In this instance, when the machine gunner is manipulating his machine gun by traversing and elevating it, he is moving the beaten zone around on the ground and adjusting the impact point of the cone of fire. Marlowe pointed out that a machine gunner is trained to engage any size target through the manipulation of the machine gun’s elevation and traverse mechanisms – and this is true. Simply put, if the target you are engaging is larger than your beaten zone, you can manipulate the traverse and elevation mechanisms and through that manipulation change the location of your beaten zone until you have engaged all parts of your target. The only limitation of plunging fire is that you are only able to engage a target when your beaten zone is actually on that target. The obvious result of this is that if your beaten zone is not located on a target, that target is not being engaged by your machine gun.

Okay, now let’s look at grazing fire. Grazing fire, per the definition, is fire in which most of the rounds do not rise over 1 meter above the ground. What is the practical significance of this? The practical significance of this is that the danger space is extended along the entire line of fire. Where is the beaten zone with grazing fire? At the end of line of fire – the maximum range of grazing fire for the M60 machine gun is 600 meters, so ideally the beaten zone will be located 600 meters down the line of fire if you are firing an M60 machine gun.

If we compare plunging fire to grazing fire then, we have plunging fire that is effective against targets located in the beaten zone only, where with grazing fire you have effective fire against targets located in the beaten zone and located within the danger space along the line of fire between the machine gun and the beaten zone. How does the machine gunner engage a target with grazing fire when the enemy enters his sector of fire? He can do one of two things really – he can move the beaten zone onto the target by manipulating his elevation mechanisms (thus shrinking his danger space down from 600 meters long to wherever the new beaten zone is located), or he can continue to fire at the beaten zone at the end of the line of fire (600 meters away) since he can engage the target by using the danger space created by said line of fire. Under what circumstances would the machine gunner do one or the other? Let’s look at the machine gun in defence as described in FM 7-7:

<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 elements position. The machine guns should be used on tripods with traversing and elevating mechanisms. Their positions should provide sectors of fire across the dismount elements front, interlocking with the carrier element and adjacent platoons, when possible. Machine gun positions should have frontal cover. Machine guns are most effective when delivering enfilade fire down the line of the enemy assault formation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Common sense to most people right? Assign a weapon a sector of fire across the dismount elements front. I can easily manipulate the elevation mechanism on the machine gun to adjust the location of the beaten zone so that my enemy is engaged through the use of plunging fire along the entire front of my position. I believe Marlowe mentioned this – and that is true. However, when you are using plunging fire you are only engaging enemy units located within the beaten zone and enemy troops not located in the beaten zone are not being engaged. This leaves gaps in your coverage – not necessarily because there is dead space in front of your machine gun, but because you aren’t capable of engaging more than one target at a time. This leads us to the next paragraph:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let’s roll that around on our tongues for a moment … A machine gun FPL should supply as much grazing fire as possible. Why is that important? Does this mean that you use grazing fire when possible but it is no big deal if you can’t use it? No!! It means that you specifically sight your MGs to use grazing fire if it is at all possible to do. Obviously if it isn’t possible to use grazing fire then you can’t use it – you have to use plunging fire instead (with all its limitations). Why the emphasis on grazing fire? The emphasis is there because grazing fire engages enemy targets along the entire line of fire and not just those targets located within the beaten zone! The use of grazing fire leaves no gaps in the machine gun’s coverage of the FPL. The FPL, in its entirety, is covered at all times using grazing fire unless … the machine gunner specifically targets an enemy unit by moving the beaten zone onto that target. Of course, this sacrifices any coverage the machine gun has over those parts of the FPL located beyond the beaten zone. This is a bad thing because enemy troops beyond the beaten zone can bypass your assigned sector when you are engaging a closer target. Leave no gaps in your coverage lest the enemy get through! So does the machine gunner specifically target enemy troops located in his FPL? No! He just continues to fire the grazing fire along the FPL at a 1 meter height without specifically targeting anyone, yet this fire is still effective because the enemy is engaged by the danger space created by the line of fire. This gets us to a part that I snipped before, but that I will include this time:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Dead space is any area along the FPL that cannot be hit with grazing fire. Dead space is found by having a man walk the FPL. The machine gunner eyes the man walking down the line and records on his range card areas grazing fire does not cover. Dead space should be covered by fires from the grenadiers using the M203. Additionally, indirect fire, such as mortars, can be planned on dead space. Where possible, FPLs should overlap so that the loss of a machine gun will not leave a gap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, let’s roll another sentence around on our tongues. Namely, that the machine gunner eyes the man walking down the line and records on his range card areas grazing fire does not cover. It should be apparent from this passage that the machine gunner is specifically attempting to use grazing fire if at all possible for the reasons I outlined above, and that the combined arms defense is not necessary because the MG can’t get the job done by itself, but because other weapons are only needed to cover areas that the MG cannot cover with grazing fire. What if grazing fire cannot be used to cover the front of your position?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Sometimes a gully or ditch may lead into a position. If so, a machine gun may be positioned to fire directly down the approach rather than across the team’s front. This machine gun will be assigned a principle direction of fire (PDF) down the approach.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, so if the enemy has a covered approach you assign the MG a PDF instead of an FPL. What’s the difference? It assumes that the machine gunner using an FPL is firing across the front of his squad’s position and that if the gunner is not firing across the front of the position then that is described as a PDF instead. So, the normal use of a machine gun is through the use of grazing fire across the front of your position – grazing fire in enfilade. I assumed that this was common knowledge, but I guess that was my first mistake in the last thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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. (snip) The two SAWs should be positioned to cover gaps in the machine gun’s sector. If there are no gaps, SAWs should be assigned sectors that overlap the machine gun’s sector. This will insure coverage throughout the team’s sector.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The parts I want to emphasize here is first that the machine guns should be fired all at the same time and on signal. This ensures that there will be no gaps in your fire that can be exploited by enemy infantry. The other part is that the two SAWs should be positioned to cover gaps in the machine gun’s sector. Once again, the supporting weapons are not necessary to support the machine gun because the machine gun can’t get the job done by itself. The supporting weapons are necessary to cover gaps that the machine gun can’t cover with its grazing fire.

Okay, that about covers the basics I should think. Why not have grazing fire in a wide fan shaped arc in front of the MG rather than just a relatively narrow lane along the FPL? This gets to volume of fire and the purpose of grazing fire. The purpose of grazing fire is to exert a volume of fire along an axis (FPL) in order to prevent the enemy from getting into your defenses. If the arc is too wide, the volume of fire that the machine gun can apply to the area it is assigned will be diluted and its effectiveness will be diminished to the point of being ineffective. To be effective a certain volume of fire is necessary, and this volume is best achieved through the use of a machine gun that is firing along an FPL. Why wouldn’t I use grazing fire to fire directly at the enemy? Well, I suppose you could, but if you are firing directly at the enemy the main purpose of using grazing fire would be defeated since the purpose is to extend the danger space along the entire line of fire. You would be better off using point fire, which would be the application of your beaten zone onto the actual target itself.

What does this mean to CM? Since CM only models plunging fire, the machine gun cannot be used in the way it was intended to be used. Namely, firing grazing fire along the FPL. What will happen to CM when BTS gets grazing fire into the game for CM2? This will become a completely different game. You won’t even recognize it. If your experience with machine guns is limited to CM, then all your notions of how the machine gun is properly used will be thrown out the window and you will have to learn again from scratch.

Finally, for Jason, I appreciate your comments, but I think the main problem is the lack of grazing fire. This isn't some vain attempt to make the MG an uber weapon by giving it qualities it doesn't have - this is how MGs work (as I have hope I have demonstrated in this exhaustive post). Marlowe - still not convinced about the importance of grazing fire? I certainly hope not since everything I am discussing is coming straight from US field manuals. I am assuming that you know all this already and that we just had a simple misunderstanding.

[Username]

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

What does this mean to CM? Since CM only models plunging fire, the machine gun cannot be used in the way it was intended to be used. Namely, firing grazing fire along the FPL. What will happen to CM when BTS gets grazing fire into the game for CM2? This will become a completely different game. You won’t even recognize it. If your experience with machine guns is limited to CM, then all your notions of how the machine gun is properly used will be thrown out the window and you will have to learn again from scratch.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think that BTS will model them as you describe. Steve has even said as much. They might quicken up the pace of engagements, burst length , etc. But he really thinks that belt fed, water cooled, quick-change barrels cant hold a line.

Its like WWI doesnt count as a basis for firepower reality. He feels that testing is unrealistic unless every type of weapon system is represented so that its fogging up the tests.

Whatever. Ive fired MGs and Ive been under fire. Even an aircooled belt fed like a bipod MG42 or a US MMG can fire a short lived wall of death. But a water cooled weapon like a Maxim, Vickers, Browning M1917 can put a crimp on an infantry assault. Its what they are designed for. The germans could reach near continuos fire with quick change barrels. Its either you get it or you dont. Cant wait to see what CMG2 is like.

Lewis

[Battlefront.com]

The topic that would not die Misc. comments...

The major problem with CM1 as is has to do with Run movement being too generous with cover. Knock that down and you would see a significant reduction in effectiveness from dashing over an isolated position by fresh forces.

The other problem is that at very close ranges MGs aren't allowed to "go for broke". This means that in some situations the MGs aren't allowed a final defensive fire that may, or may not, break the enemy's attack. At the very least it would mess up the attacker more than it does right now.

Grazing fire is also not simulated as well as it should be, but we don't think this is causing big problems on the whole. Certainly in some situations grazing fire is being under modeled, but we think people over estimate how easy it is to achieve effective grazing fire and under what circumstances.

What is not a significant problem in CM right now is propper use of combined arms. Use MGs, infantry, and other support weapons as they were intended and things are pretty much on the ball. However, the two noted problems above do need to be addressed.

Lewis, I clearly told you that the M1917 .30cal water cooled MMG is not in CM. Only the M1919A4 is simulated for the US forces. You must have missed that or not cared for my answer.

I also "get it" about what MGs can actually do. What the propoants of "MG wall of death" don't get is that MGs do have their limitations. Or at the very least they don't think about what those limitations mean in terms of realistic battlefield results.

The WWI thing that keeps getting dragged up here is silly. IIRC, on average there was a higher density of MGs in WWII than in WWI. Heck, practically every squad had some sort of crew served automatic weapon in WWII, but the same could not be said for WWI. The Germans even had a true MG with each squad. So if you subscribe to "1 MG can hold down a Platoon under any circumstance" line of reasoning, how is it that there was more tactical motion in a WWII battle than a WWI battle? If a single MG were that powerfull then WWII should have looked even worse than WWI by extension simple logic. Obviously this is not the case, so there is no doubt that SOMETHING curtailed the theorehtical ability for an MG to mow everything in front of it into the ground.

And I very much question the "baseline" standard of WWI, at least as used in these discussions. The problem appears to be that folks think that WWI was just a bunch of MGs mowing down helpless infantry standing around in the open. So they conduct a simple, but highly abstracted, test in CM2 based on this flawed thinking. CM2, which is not a WWI simulation, can not replicate the imaginary results. No surprise to me.

The results we all know about from WWI were due to combined arms tactics (although very different from WWI in many ways), not from just dumb infantry advancing against lone MGs barking away. In WWI you had artillery, MGs, and rifle fire being used at the same time. There were also wire and other obsticles to get through. All the while the infantry tactics of the time were to simply march/run shoulder to shoulder through the long established firezones to get to the next trench. And guess what... they did in fact manage to take trenches in WWI in spite of all the MG, rifle, and artillery fire.

So if someone wants to use WWI as a baseline, then set up a realistic WWI type scenario in CM2 and see what happens. Someone already did and posted the results in the last thread on this topic. The attacker was devistated. Others are welcomed to try their hand at it.

Isolated tests in CM, compared to combined results in WWI or WWII are just flawed science. Period. As I have said over and over again, conclusions can only be based on the validity of the conducted test. If you test for one situation then your conclusions can only extend, with certainty, to that one test situation. If you want to make broader conclusions then you need to broaden the tests. It is as simple as that. Hey... I don't make the rules for scientific testing folks, I just try to apply them.

As for grazing fire, it is only an issue for up close and personal engagement ranges in defender ideal terrain. Even a high velocity MG like the MG42 has a significant arc to its shots. I just saw an image of a chart from a MG1 (postwar adopted MG42) manual showing the angle of shot over distance. To get rounds to hit targets at even medium distances (500m or so) there was a significant arc necessary. And this is with a perfectly flat target range as the basis. Getting maximum grazing fire effects in the real battlefield are a lot harder, and over some range impossible. So yes, this feature is very significant but I bet a lot less so than some think. Close range, optimal ground conditions are necessary for grazing fire to work effectively.

Steve

[ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[ASL Veteran]

Indeed, I would not characterize grazing fire as a wall of death - mostly because it is not aimed. It would be more of a wall of suppression where the enemy infantry would be forced to go to ground when they encounter it - this would then allow the squad members to bring fire to bear on the suppressed attackers. Of course, if the enemy chose to run through the grazing fire people would get hurt. I should think that the firepower rating for grazing fire would be less than the firepower ratings for point fire, but I'm not going to go into the firepower rating business. BTW, I took the maximum grazing fire range for the M60 straight from the FM. They say that the .50 cal max grazing range is 1000 meters. Visual hinderances such as smoke and grain would have no effect on grazing fire, and scattered trees would have some effect, but shouldn't block it entirely. I doubt if very many maps in CM would allow a 600 meter long FPL anyway since some type of terrain or elevation change would likely limit the length of any FPL.

[Username]

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

Lewis, I clearly told you that the M1917 .30cal water cooled MMG is not in CM. Only the M1919A4 is simulated for the US forces. You must have missed that or not cared for my answer.

]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I clearly see a M1917 HMG with a speed of slow in the list of support weapons for quick battles with US forces. Its distictly different from the M1919A4.

It looks like a water cooled weapon in the graphic (kind of vickers like). I referenced a website about Korea and this weapon was still tapping away and holding the line.

Go check it out. You never take my word for anything anyway so just play a quick battle and pick a M1917 HMG.

Lewis

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis,

When you asked the first time I double checked. Since I only helped make the game, I decided to tripple check because you are so very rarely wrong about anything.

There are two, and only two, different MG teams available for the US. One is the MMG unit which has the .30cal M1919A4. The other is the HMG unit which has the .50cal M1917. I have no idea what Mods you have been using, but the graphic we shipped with CM is of the air cooled .50cal MG. I don't even need to tripple check this because I did the original graphics for all the weapons and don't even have a side shot of the water cooled M1917 in color.

As for use in Korea, I do not doubt what you are saying. Lots of outdated weapons are used during war, but from what we can tell there were very few M1917s in Western Europe 1944-1945. Were there some? Most likely. But since the M1919A4 replaced the M1917 in the 1920s as the standard weapon, it is doubtfull that there were enough to justify their inclusion. So far nothing you have said has made me think we were in error to decide this.

BTW, we left out craploads of small arms for the Germans using this same "we can only simulate so much" logic.

Steve

[Ellros]

For whatever it's worth... the M1917 HMG is only available in the game during 1944, along with the M1919 and M2 .50 cal. Any battle/scenario set in '45 removes it. Only choices then are the M1919, and the M2.

(just did a check through the scenario editor for it)

[ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: Ellros ]

[Username]

I am using 1.12 and no mods.