birdstrike Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 Not quite sure if this was already brought up earlier, but as it is really hard to move AT or LMG teams together with the rest of a platoon through enemy fire - running makes them easy targets, sneaking is too slow - how about anything in between? Is it possible to include some kind of 'advance' command for support weapons in the next patch?No 'shooting on the move', just the 'move from cover to cover' thing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Atreides Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 Sounds like a good idea... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Well, I could see Advance for LMG teams (certainly), and more slowly for HMGs or mortar units (reasonably), but I don't see it working for anything that's really on wheels. I would draw the line at AT or Infantry guns, and probably also the Russian wheeled MGs (Maxims?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 Actually I only had infantry support weapons in mind - no vehicles. Sorry for not making that clear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 if you think you need an 'advance' command for your support weapons, odds are good that you are using them wrong. BTW, the wheeled maxim is a spt wpn, not a vehicle. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 It's stuff like LMG, AT and light mortar teams that need advance, as these ought to be able to keep up with the rest of the infantry platoon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 Agreed, definately, although only LMG's would be able to fire effectively on the move. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 The idea of the "advance" order is that a unit is capable of covering its own movement; it's not only the ability to move from cover to cover, but also the ability to have one firing element, and one moving element. Something like an LMG team is too small for that (and/or the weapon in question might not even be capable of doing it because it's too bulky, needs to be assembled first etc.) Martin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 The thing is that a unit using advance is, as far as I can tell, harder to hit and has a more resiliant morale. Platoon mortars, AT teams and LMGs become, relatively, far more vulnerable when crossing gaps of open ground. An ability to make an advance-like move without firing back would be the ideal - movement that makes use of the 'micro-cover' - the stuff that is abstracted like sub 5m dips, hillocks etc. that aren't represented specifically on the tile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 dont forget that whatever changes bfc makes that helps you, helps your enemy as well. lots of threads in this forum about the effectiveness of the other guys stuff. better to learn how to deal with it as it is, than complain that the fix works too well for the other guy. jmho. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted June 12, 2004 Author Share Posted June 12, 2004 The key phrase is "without firing back". Nobody expects something like a bazooka or 60mm mortar to fire on the move, but there's no reason why the guys carrying it should not be smart enough to keep their heads down when shot by an enemy MG from some 600 meters away, just like the rest of the guys in their platoon. And as flamingknives stated, there does exist cover that not adequately represented by the current engine - cover that could be used by those support teams. Maybe there was some confusion about the term 'advance' for the kind of movemment requested for support weapons. Perhaps I should have refered to it as 'move from cover to cover' instead of 'advance', to prevent misunderstandings - but it takes twice as long to type that in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 So, in essence, a movement command that causes tiring (unlike move) yet allows good use of cover (unlike run). If the team can run (even for short periods) it should be able to make short dashes from cover to cover. If the team cannot run, then sneak should be the only alternative. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 This has been mentioned before but a Commonwealth section with a Bren gunner is able to 'advance' but a Bren gunner solo can't. That need further explanation? Maybe more repetition then. There is also plenty of contempory recorded material available to show that real life Bren gunners did 'advance' and 'assault' in CMAK terms. Doesn't take much research to find it either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Originally posted by sand digger: There is also plenty of contempory recorded material available to show that real life Bren gunners did 'advance' and 'assault' in CMAK terms. Doesn't take much research to find it either. Well, but perhaps they could either 'advance' or 'assault' but not necessarily do either together? And your sources? I'm sure that won't take much research to quote, at length, and not merely make reference to the fact that almost any fecking idjit could come up with some sort of reference showing what you think is all too apparent? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 It is recorded because it was the exception: There are plenty of stories that a single German Tiger could destroy whole armored columns or kill a company of T34s in one encounter. There were about 2000 Tigers (I+II). How many Allied tanks were killed since the end of '42? There are plenty of stories of US Armored btns destroying German armored brigades - enough that somebody on this forum once said "US armored btn destroyed them routinely". Yet there were less German armored brigades than US Armored btns (and sometimes those btns did just vanish, which is as wel documented). The problem with all this? a) It is not representative: What you see/read is not a "representative" sample of the whole picture. It is the mentionable examples where a certain action led to success. How often die Bren gunners just get killed trying to do that and achieved nothing? And who writes about that? The home front needs heroes and anybody dying while achieving great success for "the cause" is a perfect tool for propaganda. Try it yourself: Have somebody set up 12 paper targets in cover that are hidden from your initial position. Now advance for 100m in 45 second wearing a backpack to simulate ammo weight and wield a 13 kg stick. And while you do this, aim towards each paper target, yell "boom" and have a friend record whose you shoot at. If you missed one you're dead. It may be exaggerated: If I was officer and somebody died while saving the a** of the plt I'd make damn sure he gets any credit I can reward to him - even if I had to err... hmm... enhance the truth a bit. You just need to put together all the tales of the individuals that saw the action and if two eyewitness accounts on the same aspect differ, than it was two deeds. It shows your (surviving) men that you care for them even after they died. And you bet they all will tell the enhanced story... and soon even believe it themselves. That horse was beaten to death long ago. If you need to move support wpns thru beaten zones, my suggestion was: A "morale enhanced" move order as a matter to tell them you need to cross that open ground - yes. But only for 40m to simulate crossing streets or something. And more like "move to contact" with a very small covered arc disregarding incoming if it ain't from nearby. Or just use MTC with a small covered arc and some smoke just like most decent players will probably do now. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Well I can only talk about what I have concentrated on learning about, NA 41-42 mainly AIF, plus my own experience in using a Bren gun. Which is quite an easy weapon to carry in a slung firing position so there is no mechanical reason at all why it couldn't be used on the move. There is also combat film around showing the Bren being fired from the hip plus still photographs of it being fired in various positions other than prone. There is nothing new in using magazine LMG's on the move, in WW1 Lewis guns were on occasion so used. The point relevant to CMAK is that historically it was used in the assault weapon role, how often is not really relevant. Therefore the gamer should have the option of using it that way too. Which would also resolve the section use contradiction previously mentioned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Sure. Advance means using cover. Ie diving into cover. Did you do this with a Bren gun? Or were you just moving/running. Advance gets a cover bonus. Move/Run does not. How much incoming was there? When the press is around, there are often staged photographs. How good are the spotting abilities when advancing with a bren gun? Can you shoot (aimed fire, that is!) while running or are there short halts for firing? If they program it so an LMG moving upright in open ground is an easy target and thus gets killed regularly - I could live with that. Few gamers would use it that way then, but they would have the option. IMHO what you call advance is modelled by running/moving a fanatic Bren gunner in short bounds. So this is already modelled. Tough luck you never know whether a team is fanatic or not. Just like reality - I seldom found a statement "Soldier, get that LMG and rush that objective single-handedly. Kill at least 10 enemies." in those reports. They did it on their own initiative. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 well by that logic the squad LMG/SAW should be the first soldier to drop because he can't possibly use cover! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 And the LMG is less likely to be lost in CM because usually someone else will pick it up at the expense of his own weapon. I find this logic believable. Actually, I am under the impression that the LMG is more likely to be lost if the squad is running. Dschugaschwili 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 The LMG guy can run and drop. But not provide covering fire in the process. Run. Drop. Gun in firing position. Stand up. Gun in slung firing position. Run. Drop... While sorting out the gun to a slung firing position he is a tempting target. Run. Drop. Gun in firing position. Up. Run. Drop. Gun in firing position might work. But this does not provide covering fire for the whole process. During the "run" parts the LMG guy is extremely vulnerable. That's where his squad mates cover him. Once he drops wounded, they pick up the LMG. The LMG goes with the first group, so the second has a chance to pick it up. Only for the final advance on an objective the LMG goes last - the rifle guys do the charge with the LMG covering them. Once the objective is taken, the LMG strolls forward. The last squad LMG of a squad is usually only lost when the squad panics while moving or it gets decimated. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
With Clusters Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Um, I'm sure this has been covered somewhere (but I'm too lazy to look), but does a squad's firepower drop off when 'advancing' or 'assaulting' vs fireing from a stationary position? If so, does it depend on the kind of squads (say, an SMG squad's fire would drop of hardly at all, at least compared to a squad armed mostly w/ rifles)? If it does, perhaps part of the drop off would be due to the MG not being able to fire as accurately and/or rapidly while on the move (whether that means firing from 'the hip', or having to take time for getting it ready again at every 'dive' for cover)? Perhaps LMGs (and some other crew weapons perhaps) should be allowed to advance, but with a drop off in firepower (how much of a drop off depending on type of weapon, I would immagine)? Would this kind of 'split the difference' in your various arguements? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 If a LMG or HMG has 0 fp while advancing - yes, I could live with that. Advancing just as a morale enhanced move/run would be ok with me. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Sure sometimes it will be better for the LMG man to run-drop-run-drop along with the rest of the section. The thing is there is no fixed or 'right' way. In a final assault by a section over a few meters the LMG man though often joined in to add extra firepower and intimidation. Consider also how is he otherwise going to provide effective support, without being likely to do a blue on blue? To illustrate that there was no right or wrong way and that truth on the battlefield can be hard to believe I had a quick look at the NA relevant AIF official history, 1966 edition, for some examples, as follows from fighting in July 1942. P.559 'One platoon of Bryant's company, for instance, charging with fixed bayonets, overran a battery of four guns, capturing 106 prisoners, mostly German. Here Corporal Hinson led his section with bayonets fixed straight at two guns that were firing point-blank and whose crews did not surrender until the Australians were in the gun-pit.' (Try doing that in CMAK, that sort of action is just not recognised.) P.560 'Throughout the advance Lieutenant McNamara's platoon preceded the main body with the "commando role" of clearing the dunes of any enemy troops; the carrier platoon also ranged ahead. The carriers charged and overcame machine-gun posts and two anti-tank gun detachments whose Italian crews did not fire a shot. At White Knoll a strong nest of machine-guns was encountered but was overcome by McNamara's men and the carriers, reinforced by a platoon from the reserve company.' (Carriers were often used in a sort of cavalry/assault role) P562. 'When one [German tank] crew leaped out and sought to escape Sergeant Longhurst of the 2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion tried to fire on them, but they were behind a slight rise. Longhurst then lifted the entire [Vickers machine] gun and tripod and, with the help of another man, brought fire to bear on the enemy who promptly surrendered.'(Modelling that would be going a bit far?) P.562 '..... but as soon as Captain Shillaker's company arrived it charged, firing from the hip, and forced the enemy back over the railway........When the fight was over Shillaker's company had lost only one man killed and one wounded..........' (Don't try this with CMAK, unlike Shillaker your losses may well be your entire company.) P.573 'The right company advanced 2,500 yards across ground torn by shellfire before meeting with small-arms fire from an enemy position. The troops marched on, firing from the hip, and the enemy surrendered.' (One might assume than the Bren men were also firing from the hip, if only to keep up with the company.) Thats enough, if anyone thinks I've been cherry picking or whatever read it yourself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Originally posted by sand digger: Sure sometimes it will be better for the LMG man to run-drop-run-drop along with the rest of the section. The thing is there is no fixed or 'right' way. In a final assault by a section over a few meters the LMG man though often joined in to add extra firepower and intimidation. Consider also how is he otherwise going to provide effective support, without being likely to do a blue on blue? On the last meters you have hand grenades and these things. On the last 50m I would feel much safer if the LMG would be in a good overwatch situation, concentrating on targets popping up and aiming well. I just would not want somebody behind me that is standing upright with an LMG finger on the trigger in grenade range of the enemy. To illustrate that there was no right or wrong way and that truth on the battlefield can be hard to believe I had a quick look at the NA relevant AIF official history, 1966 edition, for some examples, as follows from fighting in July 1942. P.559 'One platoon of Bryant's company, for instance, charging with fixed bayonets, overran a battery of four guns, capturing 106 prisoners, mostly German. Here Corporal Hinson led his section with bayonets fixed straight at two guns that were firing point-blank and whose crews did not surrender until the Australians were in the gun-pit.' (Try doing that in CMAK, that sort of action is just not recognised.) P.560 'Throughout the advance Lieutenant McNamara's platoon preceded the main body with the "commando role" of clearing the dunes of any enemy troops; the carrier platoon also ranged ahead. The carriers charged and overcame machine-gun posts and two anti-tank gun detachments whose Italian crews did not fire a shot. At White Knoll a strong nest of machine-guns was encountered but was overcome by McNamara's men and the carriers, reinforced by a platoon from the reserve company.' (Carriers were often used in a sort of cavalry/assault role) P562. 'When one [German tank] crew leaped out and sought to escape Sergeant Longhurst of the 2/2nd Machine Gun Battalion tried to fire on them, but they were behind a slight rise. Longhurst then lifted the entire [Vickers machine] gun and tripod and, with the help of another man, brought fire to bear on the enemy who promptly surrendered.'(Modelling that would be going a bit far?) P.562 '..... but as soon as Captain Shillaker's company arrived it charged, firing from the hip, and forced the enemy back over the railway........When the fight was over Shillaker's company had lost only one man killed and one wounded..........' (Don't try this with CMAK, unlike Shillaker your losses may well be your entire company.) P.573 'The right company advanced 2,500 yards across ground torn by shellfire before meeting with small-arms fire from an enemy position. The troops marched on, firing from the hip, and the enemy surrendered.' (One might assume than the Bren men were also firing from the hip, if only to keep up with the company.) Thats enough, if anyone thinks I've been cherry picking or whatever read it yourself. This is cherry picking. Not by you, but by the author. These actions are noteworthy of a honorable mentioning in the official history. The history is probably a "Best of" AIF deeds. What do you mean with "keeping up with the company?" The whole company in one line? And again: The firepower on target of a well deployed LMG is definitely better than that of a walking LMG. When closing I'd make sure I'd bring as many suppressive fire to bear as possible. And I'd make sure I'd have something to cover my retreat if necessary. I might be lucky if I hit a weak or unprepared enemy. If not... "Corporal Hinson led his section with bayonets fixed" Do they have bayonets for LMGs? Sergeant Longhurst shot at one crew trying to escape. They lifted the gun with two men and fired at the crew. The crew surrendered but apparently was not hit. Lots of firepower in the general direction. Interesting ideas. Some of them are even in CM - like charging with bayonets (or a more effective spade). In general ammo expenditure rises when the distance closes in CM. From 10m distance you can empty whole magazines at pinned squads in good cover without hurting them. Issue an advanced command next turn directly upon them, and the ammo expenditure drops while the pinned squad surrenders or gets killed. There is even a German soundfile "Nahkampf!" (here: hand to hand combat) for those moments. My sig is a quote from a survivor of the "Tiger oepration" who fought later in France. He got that warning and he believed it. Do you believe it? One of the first "official histories" is "De bello gallico" by G. Julius Caesar. He was attacked by 250000 when laying siege to Alesia. He often fought in the first line. At least according to his book. Do you believe it? Or rather "How much of it do you believe?" Gruß Joachim [ June 17, 2004, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spears Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 U cant assualt using a bren gun there heavy awkward and clumbsy, thats why they made the LWS version of the SA80, this can keep up but firing a bren from hip at a dug in enemy is a fools game. Soon to be dead game. Ever tried diving with a bren attached to yourself........ no didnt think so. U need to be prone to fire effectivly. Only idiots fire from hip. And the soon to be dead. An advance with no fire would be good for this option to be as realistic as possible i belive. As with the vickers as a assault weapon. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.