Jump to content

Why has concealment changed so much?


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

Although this does not prove the matter, certainly the Germans in this 1944 training film thought that MG's were pretty hard to locate.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Ve11A9Yr4&feature=related

Points of interest: It is a training film where real life experiences were dramatically staged, it had to be realistic, otherwise its training value was limited/counter-productive.

It portrays the Russians as highly adept at field craft, brave and resourceful, this maybe to give the sniper a worthy opponent, but again could reflect reality, you choose.

The platoon commander tries to spot the DP, with binoculars, but fails, note the rest of the platoon are in cover, not trying to all spot. Modern SOP's might be different here with the widespread adoption of combat optics, but the film shows the observer very nearly killed, when he exposes himself to see clearly. Again SOP's now might encourage multiple observations but surely this not only helps your chances of spotting but also your opponents. Note also the film shows that even after firing the commander is unable to locate the exact position.

The LMG is considered a platoon threat at 300 metres (the map shows the suspected location, relative to the platoon). I think a SFMG would be another magnitude of threat and certainly not something that requires some skirmishing to neutralise it.

Again, does not prove anything, though the perceived threat does maybe shed somelight on this debate, though given it was made in 1944 I wonder if caution is being stressed, due to manpower shortages. The trouble with CM games is the unrealistically fast tempo, forced by having ludicrously short turn limits, a reflection of most wargaming (I've painted the little sods and their damn well going to see some action, syndrome). Troops move very slowly and cautiously and will always try to use support units when applicable, not think, "seven more turns to go and my snipers going to take 6 turns to get there, sod it lets advance!" A realistic game would, I doubt, be a commercial success, otherwise Battlefront would have allowed games lasting 300 turns!!! Because of this spotting might be artificially boosted to fit in with the other compromises made to gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes.

Also, this lethality issue, caused by unrealistic shot tempo (way too little ammo expenditure going on for targets THAT exposed), was once nonexistent. I think one of the patches actually fudged up the accuracy of all the small arms, probably to compensate for the fact that CMSF's terrain is in a sort of limbo between abstraction and 1:1 representation...

Adam: It's interesting to note that BFC backed off ROF for troops that were firing at distant targets, but to my knowledge have not increased that ROF for highly exposed opportunity targets. This could be especially useful for MG's.

I've felt for awhile now that the US M240 is substantially less potent than it should be in the game, even though it is technically only a an "MMG".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...