I Can "Knock Out" A Gun. Why Not An MG?

[Lady Roxanne]

It's been my experience that my opponents have no trouble knocking out the AT guns I put in trenches with their onboard mortars. Thrilled with my new knowledge on how to combat trench defenders, I began buying onboard 81-82mm mortar.

It doesn't work for me! Why? The trench defenders I've been trying to kill are HMGs. What I didn't realize is that HMGs cannot be "knocked out". Their crews must be killed or routed to put the gun out of action permanently.

If I can physically destroy a light AT gun, shouldn't I be able to physically wreck an HMG?

As it is now, a vet MG with a morale bonus or two is an uber soldier if there ever was one. Put a trench on some open high ground so arty isn't too effective and stick that MG42 in the trench. Audie Murphy ain't got nuthin' on those guys!

We don't need no stinkin' pillboxes with the much more durable trenches available. Go ahead, throw some big HE, direct or indirect, at the MG in the trench in the open. See where it gets you.

[ July 13, 2003, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: CrankyKris ]

[Sublime]

They are really effective... but They still get whacked if you or your opponent knows what they're doin. With mortar fire or fire from a tank, they dont last long..

[Lady Roxanne]

Sublime,

I don't think you've tested your assertion. The quantity of 82mm mortar fire it takes to permanently knock out an HMG in a trench in the open is enormous. You must kill or rout the crew.

Throw in some experience and a morale bonus and the problem becomes much worse.

As for direct fire, well....you need to run some tests yourself. Using Soviet equipment and regular crews it's tough to get direct hits on trench defenders at 500 meters or so. MGs suppress infantry much further than that.

EDIT: Also, trench defenders on level ground at a higher elevation are tough to hit with direct fire, especially if they're back a bit from the slope.

Even if you are right, and I just don't know what I am doing, I still think HMGs should be "knockoutable" like AT guns. My mortar rounds have no trouble turning them into twisted wrecks. Surely, HMGs are not any tougher.

[ July 13, 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: CrankyKris ]

[Kingfish]

Keep in mind that AT guns (and all other guns) carry an average of 20-30+ shells. Even in a trench those shells are exposed and thus very vunerable to something like a mortar round or direct fire HE. The ammo of a HMG (which btw is a much smaller weapon than a gun, and thus harder to hit) is carried in metal ammo boxes and divided amongst the 6 man team.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CrankyKris:

If I can physically destroy a light AT gun, shouldn't I be able to physically wreck an HMG?

That's a point. As a couple of posters have already indicated, MGs are intrinsically less vulnerable in real life, so that isn't so far fetched. But I think in addition to that, the game engine treats MGs the same way it does infantry, so that means no knockout is possible at all. If anybody knows differently, I hope they will speak up.

Michael

[Lady Roxanne]

Your points are well taken. I agree now that MGs should be more difficult to physically destroy than guns for the reasons mentioned. Also, a PBEM buddy says that in his reading he has come across many stories where the dug-in MG crews have pulled their guns to relative safety when they were under direct HE fire. This would not be nearly as easy to do with a gun.

Still there should come a point where the MG is finally destroyed. You would not believe how much HE I've thrown at entrenched MGs. As long as they don't rout, they're OK; and they won't rout if they're vets with a morale bonus.

To answer Michael's question, you cannot knock out an MG like you can a gun. You can tear apart 5 of the 6 crewmen, and still not hurt the gun. This is the reason MGs in trenches are an order of magnitude more difficult to put out of action than guns.

To see the uber nature of HMGs in trenches, a few factors must be in play:

1) Entrenched on open high ground so arty has minimal effect and direct fire HE has accuracy trouble due to firing uphill.

2) HMG crew should be at least Regular with a Double morale bonus (Crack with no bonus)

3) Range to trenches should be at least several hundred meters. This degrades direct fire HE accuracy, especially for the Soviets.

4) Defender should probably be the Germans due to the less accurate weapons of the Soviet side. IOW, the Germans would probably have a little easier time knocking out Soviet HMGs in trenches than the other way around.

Notice three of the conditions mentioned above are at least partially related to causing inaccuracy in direct fire HE.

Now that I've spelled out the conditions, I guess I've spelled out a fairly ideal situation for the defender. Perhaps an uber situation SHOULD yield uber results.

I still want to "knock out" an HMG however. I deserve it after expending hundreds of rounds of various HE.

[Doodlebug]

Well even light mortars can be knocked out and I would have thought they were more durable than a HMG. None of the moving parts, feed mechanism, sights and so forth that could get damaged on an HMG. Let's face it the simplest mortars were just a barrel and base plate and the rest was done by hand, eye and experience. Perhaps someone can explain why HMG's should be considered differently to mortars when they would seem intrinsically more complicated and fragile.

[Lady Roxanne]

Great counterpoint, Doodlebug!

[Runyan99]

In the current CM engine, MGs are treated the same as infantry, and are not subject to knockout. This is a limitation of the engine, and something I would like to see changed in the future.

Occasionally, a well placed tank shell, artillery round, or grenade should be able to K.O. a MG position.

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

In the current CM engine, MGs are treated the same as infantry, and are not subject to knockout. This is a limitation of the engine, and something I would like to see changed in the future.

Occasionally, a well placed tank shell, artillery round, or grenade should be able to K.O. a MG position.

So mortar crews are not treated as infantry? They are different how? I cannot see the logic in that at all. It's clear that guns and mortars can be KO'ed so why not an MG? The KO you talk about must be by the total elimination of the crew and not by the wrecking of the equipment. That makes the MG a very unique bit of equipment. Everything else from truck to tank and gun to mortar can be damaged or destroyed. Any crew casualties are incidental to the event.

Through out all the carnage and destruction the MG stands inviolate. No harm may befall it! When the guns fall silent there it stands with a dead crew around it but not a scratch or dent.

Hell! On that basis you only need make a dozen or two and keep recycling them for the duration.

" Nip over there lads and retrieve that MG. Don't mind the bodies. You'll find it in perfect working order. Only one careless owner!"

[kenfedoroff]

He-he

My opponent thinks he can buy his uber-big Soviet assault guns and stand off at a distance and blast me out of my holes.

Let me tell you young man... It takes more than that to break the fighting spirit of the German soldier.

Come and get me. Prepare yourself for some hot lead and cold steel...Grrrrrr

(and Yes, I agree MGs should be crewed like other heavy weapons).

Sincerely,

Kapt. Unconscious

[ July 13, 2003, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: kenfedoroff ]

[Lady Roxanne]

Doodlebug,

I think I've stumbled on one of your pet peeves, eh? The uber HMG in a trench. It's an awesome sight to behold. You should see the condition of the hilltops I've been laying waste to in order to make the HMGs stop firing. I'm literally removing the hilltop ; but the MGs keep firing.

I think my IS-2s are getting some results now. I managed a couple direct hits. Are the MGs out of action? Naah, they're just a little spooked for now. I might be able to charge a platoon across the open spaces right now; but I'd need to be quick. BTW, I believe I've been wholeheartedly after these HMGs for about 15 turns now. Almost all HE from all direct fire weapons has been expended. Mortars are running low too.

My dear opponent Fedoroff,

Your HMGs will be knocked out! Nothing else matters now. Not the objectives, Mother Russia, the girl I left at home, or my own survival. I will not lose another night's sleep over your HMGs either.

[Ex Bellator]

Fair point, but may be difficult to implement. If you make it so MGs in HMG teams can be knocked out then what about the MGs intrinsic to the squads, they would have to be KO'able as well, and if an MG can be KO'd, why not a rifle?

[Guest Mike]

Mortars are not treated as infantry because they have a BLAST factor - so each individual shell has to be tracked to a point of impact from a point of firing - hence the wepaon itself has to actually exist so that there is a point from which the shell originates.

Machine gnus and infantry only use a firepower factor - a generic representation of bullets - this is a simplification, as is not representing teh MG as a seperate item.

Once holodecks are standard desk-top equipment all these limitations will be fixed!!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Rex Bellator:

Fair point, but may be difficult to implement. If you make it so MGs in HMG teams can be knocked out then what about the MGs intrinsic to the squads, they would have to be KO'able as well, and if an MG can be KO'd, why not a rifle?

I was about to mention that, but from a slightly different angle. In answer to why MGs are treated as infantry, it's probably because squads also (usually) have MGs, and it was easier to use the existing code for squads and just treat MG teams as a special kind of squad. The actual difference in play, though annoying to nitpickers like most CM players are, was no doubt thought to be too insubsantial to worry about.

A well-placed HE shell on an MG team of average experience etc. will have approximately the same effect as the same shell on a gun team. At least that has been my experience.

Michael

[ July 13, 2003, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Lady Roxanne]

EDIT: I didn't read carefully enough. I'll need to prepare a better response.

[ July 13, 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: CrankyKris ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CrankyKris:

...the difference between a squad and an HMG is that the squad loses weapons and firepower as its members are disabled, the HMG does not.

Are you quite certain of that? My understanding was that it had been established quite a long time ago that as an MG team took casualties, it lost the firepower equivalent of the lost members' personal weapons. Also, if the team moves, it will have to leave more of its ammo behind than if it were full strength.

Squads can even lose their LMG, I think. Also, the HMG has a much greater suppression capability at range than any squad. The destruction of an HMG can easily become a priority task in a battle.

So? It's generally agreed that that is as it should be. It was a considerable amount of pressure by players that led to BFC increasing the effectiveness of MGs.

I think the main point here is that it takes a boatload of HE to take an entrenched HMG out of the action permanently. Much moreso than any other support unit, including pillboxes. Considering the potency of HMGs, I think they should be crewed like other support weapons. They should be able to be separated from their weapon. At the least, they should lose ammo like mortars do when they take casualties. Surely all that HE is wrecking a few ammo boxes.

While I agree with you in principle, I think you are making a much bigger issue of this than it deserves.

I've already addressed the issue of losing ammo. If you think they do not, you need to examine the phenomenon more carefully.

Michael

[Lady Roxanne]

Hehe....you responded before I could edit out my not-well-thought-out post. You make some good points. Now I will respond thoughtfully (most of my PBEM turns are out).

A squad, a gun crew, and an HMG crew all suppress the same as far as I can tell. The difference is that the gun crew will actually have its gun wrecked in the process, and the squad will lose weapons and firepower as it suffers casualties. The personal weapons of an HMG crew I don't care about any more than a tank crew's personal weapons. I want the HMG crews to lose HMG ammo, even without moving. Actually, I want the gun to be knocked out.

With the HMG, nothing is lost as a result of casualties unless the HMG moves. In the case of HMG trenches, getting them to move is all I need to do. If they are regulars with a double HQ bonus (not an uncommon combo), it takes a great deal of HE to make them move (rout). They are much more durable than pillboxes to the very same variety of weapons except for very big arty.

Because HMGs in CMBB are a potent force to be reckoned with, they need to be destroyable if in fact the hardware was destroyable in real life. If a squad can lose an LMG (and I think they can), there should come a point where an HMG crew can lose their weapon too.

It has been stated that HMGs are the way they are because individual rounds don't have to be tracked. This was fine for CMBO because HMGs were nothing more than afterthought units to the player. Now, HMGs need to be killable or their prices need to be greatly increased.

You are probably right that I am blowing this out of proportion. I listed the special circumstances that must be in play for the uber HMG effect to be significant. The circumstances are certainly ideal for the defender. Still, if you saw how much HE I've pumped into these HMGs you would probably agree that some kind of tweak would probably be in order. I think a reduction in available ammo with each crew casualty would work. You may not "knock out" the HMG, but it will run out of usable ammo before your tanks run out of HE.

An entrenched AT gun may very well be easier to silence than an entrenched HMG; but not as much easier as it is in CMBB. We're talking about an order of magnitude here.

[ July 13, 2003, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: CrankyKris ]

[kenfedoroff]

He-he

All Hail the Machine Gun, "Queen of Battle".

My "Hitler Saws" will teach you a thing or two, young man.

Come and get me.

Sincerely,

Dug-in Dummy

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CrankyKris:

I want the HMG crews to lose HMG ammo, even without moving. Actually, I want the gun to be knocked out.

Heh. And I want to get laid by twenty gorgeous women every day. Somehow I don't think either of us are going to get what we want any time soon. It's a cruel world.

You are probably right that I am blowing this out of proportion.

Glad you are finally coming to see the light.

Still, if you saw how much HE I've pumped into these HMGs you would probably agree that some kind of tweak would probably be in order.

Not at all necessarily true. One thing all CM players need to understand, and it should be emblazoned on the first page of the manual:

In CM unlikely things are permitted to happen.

In most games, unlikely events are simply filtered out. You get a more or less average result for those particular odds every time. CM doesn't do that, or at least does it a whole lot less. This also includes a whole string of unlikely things happening in any given game. Or even in a series of games. Players unused to that can feel like the programmers have played a dirty trick on them, as you do here. But it's just the way that real life works too.

Now, as I have already stated, you have convinced me that there may be something here that BFC ought to take another look at when doing the engine rewrite, but it may not be as bad as you are presently making it out to be. Might very well be that you could play this same scenario over again a dozen times and every time knock that MG out promptly. Or maybe not. Like I said, unlikely things are permitted to happen.

Michael

[Lady Roxanne]

They're routing!! It takes some dead-on accurate shots though, even with my big guns. I still say the HMGs perform well beyond the price paid for them if deployed on barren high ground in trenches. That's a special case however.

Until I ran into some barren hills with Mr. Fedoroff defending I had no problem with HMGs. It's all his fault. For that, he will be crushed. I will personally choke every last one of those HMG crewmen just as soon as I can get this new HMG that just popped up, which is causing me to eat dirt.

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by CrankyKris:

Doodlebug,

I think I've stumbled on one of your pet peeves, eh? The uber HMG in a trench. It's an awesome sight to behold.

No actually not. I have never encountered this situation personally.

My only observation on the problem (and it has the potential to be a problem) is that once a certain weapon system and terrain/fortification combination is recognised as being particularily favourable or over strong and thereby having the potential to be abused then it ain't long before it is being abused. (For the diplomatic amongst us substitute the word "deployed" for abused). I would be immensely disappointed to think that games would be skewed by the overuse of such match-ups.

There has been comment made to the effect that if you allow HMG's to be KO'ed then why not squad MG's and then logically extend the arguement to individual rifles. Where do you draw the line?

To answer the last question first I would have expected there to be the possibility of retrieving a personal weapon from the dead and wounded in the event of your own equipment becoming damaged or jammed. This is surely so obvious a reaction that it can be considered as happening automatically and does not need to enter the discussion.

As for squad LMG's these are more akin to an individual weapon than to a HMG team in my opinion. They were a WW1 innovation included into squads to boost firepower locally during assaults or defences. I believe that the game already assumes that another squad member is likely to pick it up in the event that the gunner is incapacitated and it therefore remains in action for longer. Could not the situation where the LMG is KO'ed early represent the fact that it is damaged and therefore unusable rather than the fact that no-one has bothered to grab it?

HMG's are a very different beast to a LMG. They were conceived and deployed originally as artillery pieces. To a large extent they continued to be so used in the direct fire mode. If you consider the sophistication of the mount, the sights they were fitted with and the tactical use to lay down continuous suppressive fire then the case remains that they must be more akin to an artillery piece than a squad weapon. On that basis, then, the argument stands that they should be capable of being KO'ed and abandoned by their crews rather than rendered inoperative by the death of the crew alone.

It is necessary (vital one may say) for HMG teams to be re-examined and recoded in CMAK to be treated in a fashion similar to gun crews or mortar teams and to permit abandonment rather than remain as they are now - an infantry unit.

[Major Jerkov]

If they were KO'-able... they would be considered more or less worthless once again, then we'd be back where we started...

[Monty]

Dont forget about 10 % of all units are "fanatic"

This means they are very hard to panic and or rout.

So if you happen to meet a fanatic hmg ( you cant see if they are fanatic btw ), you have a tough nut to crack.

Monty

[Beta1]

Cough... SMOKE......Splutter.....