Cant suppres the syrians!

[Hev]

Hi all, I did some testing yesturday with US snipers and MG's and not once did i manage to supress the enemy.

I did my testing on two empty "lanes" of terrain, one with sand and one with short grass, 500 meteres long.

On all tests (played wego) i ordered syrian squads to hunt for thier first two turns, on the US second turn i gave the fire order, and for the syrians remaining turns i ordered an assault move the rest of the distance. The firing troops were firing from ground level.

All troops involved were normal, or the middle selection, for all veriables.

Not once did i suppress the enemy as they moved towards my possitions. Infact with the sniper units (taken from the compaqny level) i could cause upto 50% cassualities in the squad and they would keep moving.

The m240's faired even worse. Even "deployed" which im guessing is supposed to be in sf mode my mg's could barely cause a cassualty. And even more supprising every time i performed the mg test both syrian squads would actualy make it too the US lines. (eventualy they would get close enough to the mg's that the mg's themselves would get suppresed and take cassualties)

Also, with the snipers, NOTHING i could do would just make the sniper engage targets, even at 430 meters! Target, target light and cover arcs all meant that all three men would fire at the approaching hostiles.

I also couldnt get the snipers kit to change, i tried all five "equipment" options and thier rifle stayed the same.

Now, i dont want to end on a bad note so heres three cool things i noticed. Firstly, i had a harder time keeping visual on the guys on the sand then on the grass, im guessing that the game is simulating the fact its easier to "bury" yourself in sand then soil with a crust of grass.

The second thing i noticed (which may not have been something changed in the patch but is so cool its got to be mentioned) was that at about 300 meters (in one test) one of my US guys was managing to get m203 rounds on target. Now these nades were landing realy close (within 5meteres) to the stationary part of the squad and werent hurting anyone, but during thier bound a nade landed at about 15 meters out and wounded one runner and killed his running partner

The third item was something that pleaseed me alot, in EVERY sniper test i conducted the snipers first kill, and in alot of cases first shot, was ALWAYS someone with a long barreled weapon, and that was usualy a machine gunner.

I was also realy impressed with how the snipers would switch targets realy quickly when loosing eyebal on the original target, very impressed tbh!

Its things like this that make the problems worth living with.

[kipanderson]

Hev, hi,

That does sound odd…. will try to reproduce your test.

Sounds like you have found something…

If it is OK with you I will copy your post to the beta area to bring it to the attention of all.

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Hev, hi,

Yup… I agree I have been able to reproduce the problem…

The Brain/Charles will no doubt soon have it sorted out .

All the best,

Kip.

[Andro]

And I thought my plans to surpress the enemy troops was only bad. Now knowing that there is a problem lower the frustration a litte.

[Hev]

Cheers Kip

[thewood]

Is it just certain situations that suppression isn't functioning, or is it overall. Kind of a killer if its overall.

[Secondbrooks]

Not once i've faced same thing. With quick-order (i'll return to assault later) couple of casualities was enough to bring squad hugging ground.

What was you mission setting? I used following:

-No wind

-Time was 12.00 (sun in north -> no sunshine to eyes of machinegunners :cool: )

-civilian density set to none

And what do you know! Fire was quite effective at 400 meters. I gave them waypoints moving back and forth so they remained in range of 400-500+ meters from machinegunners. 2 minutes was enough to cause 15 casualities to company with quick order. About 20-30% of troops was hugging ground

If those mission settings were in default:

-small wind

-time 9.00 (sun in SE, slightly shining to machinegunners eyes :eek: )

-Spare civilian density.

Then accuracy was much more worse. 6 minutes caused 17 casualities, and all of them were still jogging. I gave them waypoints moving back and forth so they remained in range of 400-500+ meters from machinegunners.

I don't know what changes did have effect on accuracy but it seems that there was an effect.

Assault has effect on morale, but bad leadership (-2) + couple casualities was enough to bring squad to halt. Squads with normal leadership (0) were much more able to take casualities.

[ February 10, 2008, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[Pandur]

Not once i've faced same thing.

similar for me, i play RED pretty often and they are supressed and pinned most of the time as soon as they get shot at.

strange enoug also units pin in the sourounding wich dont get shot at.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I have no real idea what is going on. Only Charles will know.

But if I speculate it may be that it is something to do with the volume of fire.

Such that if there is a reasonable volume of fire coming down, whether causing casualties or not, units are suppressed. But if there is just the odd shot, even if causing casualties, the target unit is not suppressed.

Of course I have no real idea.

Sure it will be dealt with.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Hev]

That seems to be right, i ran the same test with a US infantry squad and they almost suppressed the enemy, almost!

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

I have no real idea what is going on. Only Charles will know.

But if I speculate it may be that it is something to do with the volume of fire.

Such that if there is a reasonable volume of fire coming down, whether causing casualties or not, units are suppressed. But if there is just the odd shot, even if causing casualties, the target unit is not suppressed.

Have to agree that we can throw just "educated" quesses.

I don't know how Hev has been able to gain that kind results (maybe attacker had severe advantage in numbers, being abe to suppress attacker). In my testings squads with moderate leadership (0)and regual experience will halt it's assault from 2-5 casualities. Volume and accuracy of fire has big meaning of how easily this will happen. Also if leaders get hit it seems to generate more suppression. And strong randomness is involved it seems.

Nowdays each squad wields many times that firepower which MG-teams can put down (infact i don't see the greatness of GPMG-teams nowdays. All are having automatic weapons + longrange explosive ordinances). Syrian riflesquads happens to have RPG-7s which seems to be very good weapon (much better than GPMG) to deliver strong suppression effect for short moments and by thus allowing better changes for manuver and reaching fireoverpower.

[Hev]

You cant say that a whole squad should be more effective then a H/M mg in a sf role.

And realy dude you lose all credability when you say things like "the rpg-7 is much better than the gimpy" Im going to type this as clearly as i can so you get it.

An rpg is an anti-tank weapon and the gpmg is a machine gun, one is for killing hard armoured things, the other for killing soft squishy things. How exactly can you say one is better than the other! Your an idiot! How about you try telling me why cheese is better than ham in a samwhich, oh wait, you cant!

Lets try an easier one for you shall we, would you care to explain how even ten guys with rifles could put down the same weight of fire as an MG at over 400 meters?

Seriously people, lets think before we type please.

[thewood]

I know I am one to not talk, but if you call someone an idiot, try spelling the entire sentence correctly or have proper word usage.

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by Hev:

And realy dude you lose all credability when you say things like "the rpg-7 is much better than the gimpy" Im going to type this as clearly as i can so you get it.

An rpg is an anti-tank weapon and the gpmg is a machine gun, one is for killing hard armoured things, the other for killing soft squishy things. How exactly can you say one is better than the other! Your an idiot! How about you try telling me why cheese is better than ham in a samwhich, oh wait, you cant!

I suggest you look what RPG is nowdays: "A poor mans artillery". Even Soviets used it that way. Even someones in US military are writing about it's great effect as suppressive tool and that they should shove new bullet-based weapons and focus on them to place where sun doesn't shine and instead try to revive things like OICW. From CMSF's RPGs i said this: strong short suppression effect which can enable Syrian squad having few advantages. In this GPMG isn't competetive. RPG can send whole squads hugging ground and losing will to fight temoporarily in matter of seconds (and this happens even without causing casulities!) while GPMG can't.

Lets try an easier one for you shall we, would you care to explain how even ten guys with rifles could put down the same weight of fire as an MG at over 400 meters?

First, open CMSF and look what weapons regual Syrian squads are having then make bit of a math to get firepower of 6 AKs + 2 RPK/RPD (not much different from GPMG after all) + 1 RPG (or pistol). As can be seen, your 10 rifles-argument getting pretty weak. And really in where did i mention 400 meters?

Seriously people, lets think before we type please.

Yes, i do encourage to do that. If someone truly can fill insight about value of GPMG in modern battlefield then i'm pleased. But this far i can see it only minorly better than LMG/SAW with bibods when it comes to firepower.

[ February 11, 2008, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[flamingknives]

Range.

A GPMG on a tripod will shoot anything up to a kilometre further than a squad automatic. It also has a higher sustained rate of fire, so two guys plus some ammo can lay down long-range and sustained fire far in excess of squad infantry.

Plus, of course, it can be used off the bipod like a squad automatic but with heavier bullets and a bit more range than assault rifle calibres.

[thewood]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Range.

A GPMG on a tripod will shoot anything up to a kilometre further than a squad automatic. It also has a higher sustained rate of fire, so two guys plus some ammo can lay down long-range and sustained fire far in excess of squad infantry.

Plus, of course, it can be used off the bipod like a squad automatic but with heavier bullets and a bit more range than assault rifle calibres.

But at less than 200m, would the GPMG put out a volume of fire that much greater than 8 or 10 assault rifles with grenade launchers. Thats over a minute or two. I am genuinely curious.

[Secondbrooks]

Yeah. Range is defindely one plus-side. It seems that i just tend to think that all A. Effective infantry engagaments happens closer to 100 than forexample 600 meters. And B. infantry firepower closing 500 meters is almost worthless (better to give task to longer and bigger tubes and save ammo for closer distances).

Well yeah, it can be possible that i'm ... eh... wrong ... ... Damn that was painful.

EDIT: No sarcasm involved.

[ February 11, 2008, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[flamingknives]

Less than 200m, volume of fire would almost certainly be less, but the question is then one of effectiveness.

One of the War Office documents in John Salt's Snippets describes bullets passing within 3m as "Sounding dangerous", and obviously bullets that hit have a significant effect.

However, numerous studies, and not just Marshall's, show that not all men in a section will engage the enemy, even if they are able, whereas those with special weapons (like MGs, grenade launchers etc.) were more likely to fire than their comrades with rifles.

When MGs were first introduced, they were considered to be worth a battalion with rifles, and this was a Maxim firing at 500 rounds per minute or so against more than five hundred men capable of firing around 10 rounds per minute each. The main reason, as far as I can tell, for this effectiveness is that the men on the gun could be directed to best effect with minimal training, while training a unit of riflemen to the same standard was very difficult.

[Childress]

A good scenario to test suppression- or the lack thereof- might be the very fist one on the list: Abu Susah. Dismount the platoons and send them off down the road towards the village crossroads. They appear pretty oblivious to Syrian fire, despite the odd casualty, until the last couple of hundred meters.