CMBB MG Lethality, Not So FAST!

[kump]

I've seen mention that MG's will be increased in lethality for CMBB. Its been my experience that CMBO does quite well with MGs, which are lethal as they are. If MGs become even more deadly, you could just set a few as defender and sit back and relax, gleefully waiting for the bodies to pile up. Lazy!

Of course, forcing the attacker to use combined arms to suppress the MGs is a good thing, but I think there is enough of that in CMBO as it is. What is this mentality that MGs must get 100+ casualties before some are happy. My after game review show MGs racking up many kills as is in CMBO. Proper placement is the key.

I can see increasing "suppression" effects for MGs for CMBB. Not lethality.

Everything stated in this post is the opinion of this poster and is not based on written fact, fiction, or Hollywood movie experience.

[JasonC]

Try putting 4 Allied HMGs (M-1917 or Vickers) in cover and assaulting them at move speed with a vanilla company of rifle-based infantry over a full kilometer of open ground. You will kill them easily. In the real deal, that ground would not be crossed against that opposition without the shooting MGs being suppressed. You cannot deny open ground areas at range just by covering them with a few MGs in CMBO, against more than token (one squad or half-squad) forces.

This matters more for CMBB because small strong point defenses in relatively open terrain were a much more important part of fighting in the east. Infantry heavy weapons, especially MGs, provided the ranged open area denying firepower between the strongpoints. In steppe terrain, single battalions often covered half a dozen kilometers of ground. And succeeding in holding off unsupported infantry attacks at 5 to 1 and occasionally even 10 to 1 odds.

There is no way MGs as modeled in CMBO are currently up to the challenge of fufilling their historic role in eastern fighting. I am sure the modifications of CMBB - to run behavior and other systems as well as to MGs proper - will go a long way to fixing that.

[kump]

But making the MG more lethal just for that example is the wrong solution. Its my opinion that you can break things by letting MGs wipe out a platoon at distance with a couple of CM shots. Should suppress, and once suppress, the MG should move to another unsuppressed exposed target, increasing its chance of getting more kills and causing further suppression.

Maybe the better solution is not making platoons and HQs so damn hard to kill off when they reduce to a single or couple individuals. These advancing units serve nothing except for MG and HE gun magnets, making these assets waste their ammo and time when there are bigger threats advancing behind the single man units.

[YankeeDog]

Read the CMBB FAQ thread. There's a link on it to a thread where BFC directly addresses the MG modeling issues. I think you'll find that MGs are not simply being made more lethal. They are being made more lethal in some specific situations, and their ammo usage and fire distribution modeling is being tweaked.

I suspect you'll find that the changes being made are more along the lines of what you're taking about.

[kump]

I had already read the FAQ, ten or twelve times I think. But there isn't a whole lot there to specifics. But you are absolutely right, it does imply that MGs will be adjusted in a manner that at least makes me very happy. Well, I certainly hope so.

But even with the FAQ, there is still this push/begging/demand to get MGs lethality increased. BTS (Charles) is very good at listening to customer input and evaluating if last minute changes are warranted. So far, I've trusted every decision and it has come out to the better. Just making dissenting voice in the other direction so it doesn't appear too one sided.

If the CMBB FAQ remains true to what is released, I think I'll be very happy. I think I'll just shut up now and get ready to enjoy whatever is in the final CMBB release. In the mean time, I'm off to enjoy the best game ever released for WWII tactical enthusiast, the all time great CMBO, which is yet to touched by any other release, period.

[lcm1947]

JasonC

Member

Jason C. Wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Try putting 4 Allied HMGs (M-1917 or Vickers) in cover and assaulting them at move speed with a vanilla company of rifle-based infantry over a full kilometer of open ground. You will kill them easily.

-------------------------------------------------

What about switching that around to German HMG's and an American regular company attacking? I didn't test it but I bet it would be different. I also feel that the German MG's especially the HMG's seem far too hard to kill. I notice this every time I play. You really think they are not over modelled? Just asking. You know more then I do that's for certain but I really question this one area. :confused:

[ASL Veteran]

Fascinating - a thread about MGs that thinks they are too effective. Well, the problem isn't in their lethality vs a point target, but in the basic modeling of the weapon overall, along with the basic characteristics of infantry under fire. There is both a tactical and a technical problem.

I can only imagine that people who use the time honored tactic of human wave assaults in CMBO would be satisfied with MGs as they are. There is nothing lazy about a defense with a properly modeled and deployed MG. It just gives the defender more 'options' for his or her defense. Regardless, the new 'fixes' will not address all of the issues anyway, as the current engine is not capable of addressing them. However, I'm sure it will improve matters to some degree.

[Michael Dorosh]

Using machineguns to set up crossfires and properly defend a piece of ground is now "lazy"?

One might want to go back to the manuals and see what a machinegun was supposed to do, tactically, on the defence, in the Allied and German armies.

[Schrullenhaft]

I think that 'increased lethality' is probably not the best term to describe the improvements to MG modelling in CMBB. The idea is that MG's will no longer (or at least not as often) fixate on one target and instead spread out their SUPPRESSIVE effects across several attacking units. I don't have the exact details on this, but I don't think that the improvement is an increase in the number of casualties for each burst of the MG.

[lcm1947]

OK just to satisfy myself I ran 5 games with a lone German HMG against two squads and one platoon HQ attacking across a empty level terrain of 628 meters. Now I would think that 28 guys would be able to knock out a 6 man HMG nest. But no not one time. 3 of the games lasted 8 turns, with one only going 7 turns and the last one running only 4 turns. All 5 games resulted in all 6 of the MG squad team surviving except one game where they lost 1 guy. All games resulted in all American's being either killed or ran off the board. Bunch of damm chickens. Anyway, this can't be right? I say BF fix or do something. Now I'm not much of an arguer so I might get out arguered here but I can't believe this is correct. I believe that some may believe that this is modelled correctly but I can't help but wonder if those people don't always play the German side and therefore are kind of biased. Hope this isn't taken the wrong way. I'm certainly not trying to be a jerk or hardheaded. Simply wanting to get what I think is modelled incorrectly corrected and BF won't do that unless they see that it is an error.

[The_Capt]

Gents,

I have run the tests..MGs lack the suppresive power, which actually equals stopping power in CMBO.

An entire Coy dies not sprint past an HMG..they duck because if they don't they die.

So what we have are two things..the effectivness fo the MG and the behaviour of the target.

If you run at MGs in the Real World you will die BUT if you can lay down fire and assault you will take much fewer cas but move much slower.

Now the last word from The Boys is that MGs in CMBB will act more like the real thing.

This will make a huge difference on the infantry play.

[kump]

Good gosh, talk about taking something and ignoring the rest.

I did not say that using MG in their proper role was "lazy".

I stated that if MGs become too lethal, like super MGs, that folks can become lazy. Here, I'll just setup a few extra lethal MGs and watch with delight as each MG fire phase knocks out a CM squad. Oh goody, didn't have to move any of my support units. Thank goodness I know BTS will not let this occur (exaggerated liberty on my part). I don't think the pro MG lethality group is pushing for this kind of over the wall result either. Just using it to strengthen my point on how far it could go, as was the intent of using the word "lazy". I wasn't labeling anyone who uses proper MG setups as being lazy.

I don't think anyone that has posted here promotes making MGs unrealistic. However, all threads I've seen promote pumping up the capabilities of the MGs.

I guess my biggest problem is I like to play Germans and the MG42 HMG seems pretty effective. The only thing I have against it is how CM gets target fixation with it. That is all. I believe if it became even more lethal, it would become too dominate on the CM battlefield, at least in infantry slug fests.

Its all moot. My trust is BTS will improve it the right way in CMBB, play test it, and deliver the best solution within the constraints of the CM engine.

However, you will not please everyone. And just to let those folks who push for greater MG lethality know that they are not everyone, I say improve suppression and avoid target fixation, not lethality (lethality = greater % to kill + more kills per CM burst). Unless they are Allied of course, then they may have an axe to grind, or MG to kick

A I'm happy with my MG42 HMG, why is everyone else complaining? Customer,

[kump]

The_Capt,

You hit it right on the head. I don't need the MG to be more lethal by racking up greater casualties in CM. We need better behavior from the targetted troops.

Plus better behavior from the MG, which means suppress as many squads as it can and stop trying to knock off the single individual who is rolling around like crazy on the ground.

Okay, maybe that single person rolling on the ground dodging bullets and HE shells is another subject all together.

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

OK just to satisfy myself I ran 5 games with a lone German HMG against two squads and one platoon HQ attacking across a empty level terrain of 628 meters. Now I would think that 28 guys would be able to knock out a 6 man HMG nest.

What do you base this assumption upon?

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by kump:

You hit it right on the head. I don't need the MG to be more lethal by racking up greater casualties in CM. We need better behavior from the targetted troops.

It's both the target's reaction to fire and the characteristics of the MG fire that is not accurately portrayed, not just the target's reaction alone. Both halves need to be improved.

[Berlichtingen]

Now I've seen everything... arguing about the characteristics of MGs in a game that hasn't been released

[kump]

Ah-Hum. Were debating about MGs in CMBO. Its been released. I don't think anyone is "arguing" about how MGs are "modeled" (past tense) in the yet released CMBB, since I must agree with you, we can't know. So I guess you haven't seen everything. Not yet, anyway.

I've been accused of calling proper placement of MGs as being lazy and now I'm nuts too. :confused:

Okay, I surrender. I prefer death by MGs.

[lcm1947]

I base my opinion on what I would think would happen if 28 guys with M1 rifles were shooting at 6 guys behind a MG. Surely, some of the 6 would get shot. And I'm not calling you Surely. Now spread these 28 guys out over a wide area that's doing the attacking and it sure seems that MG's are overmodelled to me. I mean a MG is certainly deadly but I would think that while the MG is concentrating on some of the guys the others would be shooting back and hitting the MG. Does that not seem realistic? I really wouldn't be complaining so much if I played the German's ever but I don't so yeah I'd like to see them a little less powerful in the game. Now if they are modelled correctly which I don't think but let's say that they are at least they're way too cheap money wise. Either way I'd like it.

[Michael Emrys]

lcm, it sounds to me like two things are at issue here and none of them are over-modeling of MGs. The first, and you may argue this, is your assumption that two squads of inf could assault an MG over open ground with reasonable hopes of success at little cost. I think in the real world this would be seen as a sure sign of an officer gone 'round the bend.

That said, I think there is some ground for arguing that the effectiveness of aimed rifle fire is slightly under-modeled. Although I expect your attacking troops would in reality be reluctant to stick their heads up long enough to get accurate rifle fire off, you are probably right in saying that there should be at least some suppressive effect in turn. But then, I also believe that five trials is not enough to allow all the possibilities built into the game to emerge. Another ten trials (if you have the stamina to go that far) might have also produced an instance where the MG was overrun and wiped out. Still not a good tactic though.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

lcm -

I don't really have enough information about how you ran your test to give an opinion as to whether your results were 'realistic' or not.

Here are a few of the things I would need to know:

1) Was the MG team dug in, or just deployed in open ground?

2) When you say "empty level terrain", I assume you mean open ground with no relief??

3) What were the experience level of the troops in involved?

4) What kind of assault drill did you use for the attacking rifle squads? Or to put it another way, what orders did you issue to the attacking units?

Depending on the answers to the above queries, I could say your results are either dead-on, slightly unrealistic, or very unrealistic. If you set up an HMG team in a foxhole firing across perfectly level open ground (and, yes, I know open ground is not pool table flat in CM) at green rifle squads that were ordered to simply run at the MG in a mass (i.e., a "human wave" attack) then I'd say your results if anything show a slight undermodeling of the MG's suppressive/killing effect.

OTOH, if you just had the MG team set up in open ground with no cover, and the assaulting rifle squads were were regular or better and moving across more 'realistic' terrain (i.e, open ground, but some relief), AND they were following a good assault drill (i.e., squads keep wide separation; one squad moves while the other lays down suppressive fire, squads make use of what cover they can find in terrain relief), then I would say your results do show a moderate overmodelling of MG performance under the conditions you mention.

IMHO, some of the problems with MG modeling in CMBO (see, I'm talking about CMBO, NOT CMBB ) have to do with orders available to other units. for example, you can order the rifle squads in the aforementioned example to "move" (which is more or less a march), to sneak (where they will stick to cover, but they will stop and return fire as soon as they are fired upon), or "Run" (Which is mostly (but not completely) modeled as a flat-out sprint with almost no attention to cover). None of these is really satisfactory for how a squad would move while assaulting an MG position. In other words, the problem is not with MG firepower modeling per se, but rather is a movement under fire issue. Hopefully, the new "Assault" movement order in CMBB will fix this (OK, now I'm talking about CMBB, but I'm only speculating!! )

Since there's been a lot of speculation about what is and is not going to happen with MG modeling in CMBB on this thread, I went back to the CMBB FAQ thread and located the best information I could find "from the horse's mouth" i.e, from BFC). The thread linked to below is liked to on the CMBB FAQ thread, but the link is very easy to miss unless you read through all the posts on the FAQ thread very carefully.

Topic: Proposed cover-based MG firepower modifier

Most of the thread deals with a proposal JasonC made for the modeling of MGs in CMBB, but there is a long post from Steve regarding what is going to be changed for MGs in CMBB, the logic, and the engine/harware limitations. If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it.

Cheers,

YD

[kump]

YankeeDog,

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I missed that thread. I scanned that thread and carefully read Steve's response.

PERFECT. It sounds like the MG changes that are being put in place should make everyone happy. Well, that may be a stretch. But I'm very pleased with what I saw described by Steve.

The effectiveness of MGs would be improved without making them more lethal (lethal = more kills per CM shot). Of course, if lethal means more effective to some folks, than call it more lethal. They will definitely get more kills, but it would mean due to proper deployment, not just getting a couple of shots in.

Thanks again for the very timely and effective reference. Consider me educated.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

The thread linked to below is liked to on the CMBB FAQ thread, but the link is very easy to miss unless you read through all the posts on the FAQ thread very carefully.

Topic: Proposed cover-based MG firepower modifier

Thanks YankeeDog!!! I missed that JasonC/Steve thread also. Wow! CM:BB will do MGs justice to be sure. I especially like the variable rates of fire bit. MGs do have a unique ability to really spray at "OMG, they're assaulting our position" kind of RoF. Looks like BFC will give us good machine guns in CM:BB.

On that note, I will no longer complain when my tanks become fixated on MG nests to the detriment of all else!

-Sarge

[ July 01, 2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[lcm1947]

Oh darn! Here I was all ready to argue till the cows came home until I read your post all the way through YankeeDog. I was all ready to reply to emrys and your post when I got to the part where you explained about what BF is going to do to correct this MG thing. Sounds great to me. I will be looking forward to it being - better/realistic. So I'll just have to live with these super German MG's in CMBO I guess cause I sure am not giving up it up even when CMOO comes out. I love this game. And thanks Michael emrys and YankeeDog for trying to make me understand instead of getting hostile about it. You guys are gents.

[Archibald]

ICM - Unfortunately your test ignores the fact that in a well sited defence a machine gun isn't responsible for the defence of it's own frontage. This would be the responsibility of another defiladed machine gun in mutual support enfilading the expected enemy approach from beyond the reach of squad level weapons (about 600m). Given this, I think your squads would have a much harder time.

From personal experience I would agree that CMBO under models sustained machine gun fire in three major aspects:

1. The machine gun's beaten zone (that area under which 90% of man sized targets should be hit) is not modelled. Rather than denying an area several hundred metres long across the enemy's advance, machine guns in CMBO can only engage targets singly.

2. Machine guns cannot pre-record targets. This denies them the ability to fire on obscured targets.

3. The ammunition supply for machine guns seem to be undervalued. As an example the first line scales for a a British Army GPMG (SF) is 5,000 rounds per gun. This is sufficient for 25 minutes rapid fire or 50 minutes at the normal rate; enough to keep a gun firing continually throughout the average CMBO battle. The Germans were especially fond of using vast amounts of ammunition, and there are many accounts of German infantry being regarded as primarily portage and local defence for the MG42.

[YankeeDog]

And my hats off to everyone on this thread for discussing the matter in a generally civil and thoughtful manner.

In the past, many discussions about MGs have degraded into name-calling and mudslinging. Nice to see that that doens't necesarily have to happen.

Glad you all liked the link. I found it very informative myself.

A couple more thoughts regarding Archibald's post:

Archibald: I agree with all your points. I would, however, qualify my agreement with your "ammo undermodeling" point. To wit:

I remember a discussion about this in the past. Someone brought up questions about the number of rounds a German HMG squad carried. Apparently, on the march MG crews actually had a wheelbarrow-type cart that they carried the gun and a whole mess of ammo.

The thing is, they probably wouldn't be wheeling that cart into combat, so the amount of ammo an HMG team is meant to reflect the amount the team could actually carry around on the battlefield. Indeed, the reason why an HMG42 team has 6 members is largely to have more backs to hump ammo. A 7.62mm round weighs 27g, which comes to 37 (roughly) rounds per kilo. So 5000 rounds of 7.62mm ammo (which an MG42 could theoretically burn through in less than 5 minutes of cyclic firing!) weighs a whopping 135 kilos, and we haven't even started to account for the weight of the MG, extra barrels, the tripod, sights, tools to clear jams, etc. It's no wonder that the Germans saw infantry grunts largely as MG ammo porters!

The problem is not quite as severe with the lower ROF allied MGs, but I think the point remains clear: Infantry is not going to carry much more ammo on their backs than you see in CMBO.

Ideally, an HMG team would have more ammo stashed somewhere in a area a bit rear of the line (i.e, the aforementioned cart) and could send runners back to bring ammo forward as needed. But since CMBO doesn't model ammo resupply, this gets lost.

So I don't see your point about ammo 'undermodelling' and mine about the weight of the ammo as necessarily contradictory - IRL, MG teams don't necessarily have to rely just on the ammo they can carry on their backs.

The thing is, with the exception of American Airborne (3-man) LMG teams, the American .50 cal. (whose ammo is REALLY heavy), and the German LMG42 teams, I rarely ever run out of ammo for my MGs. I guess if I was into playing really long scenarios this might be more of a factor. It might also be more of a factor in CMBB with the ability of MGs to 'go cyclic' at closer ranges. We'll just have to wait and see.

Cheers,

YD