Jump to content

Heavy machine guns and suppressive fire


Recommended Posts

Look, this isn't a disagreement about whether Coke or Pepsi is better. Grazing fire and beaten zones ARE IN THE GAME. As they say; you're free to have your own opinion, but you don't get to have your own facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grazing fire and beaten zones ARE IN THE GAME.

I can clearly remember playing closing the pocket in the demo as Germans; I spotted a couple of mortars and an HQ in the church courtyard, got a HMG

in a flanking position yet it wasn't spotting the enemies behind the low walls, so I ordered the HMG to area-fire a spot some distance down the road directly past the courtyard from the gun, so the fire passed right over the spot I suspected the enemies were.

I couldn't see anyone being hit at the time, but I watched the tracers raking the area at about head-height for a few turns, rubbing my hands with demonic glee - sure enough there were 7-8 bodies there when I moved in later on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I can help moderate the debate with the following statement, which I believe to be accurate:

Grazing fire and beaten zones for MGs are in the game; even the simplest of tests shows that this is the case. However, some players feel that the current player interface makes it difficult to control MGs in a way that creates the results they would like to achieve with regard to beaten zones and grazing fire.

Acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I want is something more than an approximation. Artillery can already fire at a defined circular target area or alternately within a defined target line. HMG's should be able to do something much the same. Is that so unreasonable?

You probably mean a "sweeping burst", intentionally extended to the left and right of the aiming point, in order to "catch" more troops attacking in a nice line.

With <=10 rounds per burst fired by HMGs, the effect on a larger beaten area would be even less than it is now on a "point target". Short bursts in quick succession at neighboring targets would achieve a similar effect, but between burst intervals are too loooong in the game, as is target switching speeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grazing fire and beaten zones for MGs are in the game; even the simplest of tests shows that this is the case.

Is "plunging fire" in the game? Sometimes the discussion seemed to use "beaten zone" when "plunging fire" may have been the actual thing in question.

(I'm guessing it is, if ballistics are modeled, and it comes down to giving unit orders that'll resort in the most effective fire.)

Here's the definitions I'm using - this is from globalsecurity.org, which is the first thing that google handed me:

a. Grazing Fire. Grazing fire occurs when the center of the cone of fire does not rise more than 1 meter above the ground. When firing on level or uniformly sloping terrain, the gunner can obtain a maximum of 600 meters of grazing fire.

b. Plunging Fire. Plunging fire occurs when the danger space is confined to the beaten zone. Plunging fire also occurs when firing at long ranges, from high ground to low ground, into abruptly rising ground, or across uneven terrain, resulting in a loss of grazing fire at any point along the trajectory.

5-3. CONE OF FIRE

When several rounds are fired in a burst from any machine gun, each round takes a slightly different trajectory. The pattern these rounds form on the way to the target is called a cone of fire (Figure 5-2).

5-4. BEATEN ZONE

The beaten zone (Figure 5-2) is the elliptical pattern formed by the rounds striking the ground or the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can clearly remember playing closing the pocket in the demo as Germans; I spotted a couple of mortars and an HQ in the church courtyard, got a HMG

in a flanking position yet it wasn't spotting the enemies behind the low walls, so I ordered the HMG to area-fire a spot some distance down the road directly past the courtyard from the gun, so the fire passed right over the spot I suspected the enemies were.

I couldn't see anyone being hit at the time, but I watched the tracers raking the area at about head-height for a few turns, rubbing my hands with demonic glee - sure enough there were 7-8 bodies there when I moved in later on.

...and as well works the old CMX1 "cheat", where you plaster an area short of a concealed target with direct fire HE, in the hope that some shells fall beyond the aiming point and yet "effect" the target behind. Did that on a 57mm AT gun with a Panther in "Closing the Pocket". Both units didn´t have LOS to each other, but I knew the AT gun was there, as it foolishly engaged some my infantry shortly before. Took 5-10 rounds of 75mm HE to "silence" the gun during gameplay, but only after the scenario quit to the map review, I found the whole gun crew KIA/WIA, with the gun still intact. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is "plunging fire" in the game? Sometimes the discussion seemed to use "beaten zone" when "plunging fire" may have been the actual thing in question.

(I'm guessing it is, if ballistics are modeled, and it comes down to giving unit orders that'll resort in the most effective fire.)

Here's the definitions I'm using - this is from globalsecurity.org, which is the first thing that google handed me:

Yes. Once again, ballistics of all projectiles are literally and very specifically modeled. So if an MG is firing at such a range where the bullets would be descending into the ground at a steeper angle of attack at the end of the trajectory, you will get "plunging fire."

What you don't have is any kind of indication in the player UI that the effect of a given target order at a given range is going to be "plunging fire", other than just watching the tracers and noting the trajectory and angle of impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been learning a few things from a QB today.

It was infantry battle in bocage, only 1 Sherman, destroyed with panzerfaust easily.

The Hmgs inflicted in average 6 losses to attacker.

it's possible to nail infantry but at too short distance i think.

On the open ground at about 300 m of HMG positions.

Attacking infantry started running and then crawling, with a few soldiers trying to return fire with very less efficiency most too supressed to shot which feels really realistic to me. It was not a question of casualties but they were trying to find cover down on the ground.

I had infantry squads with HMGs so it helped a lot.

I found that at short range, about 200 m, the delay between HMG burst can go down to 3 seconds.

At about 300 m it was more 5 or 6 seconds.

For me, the problem is that they switch to short delay bursts at a too short distance, allowing the infantry to return fire (200m).

so, i don't think it's a game engine problem.

If BFC could turn down the delay between burst at 1 or 2 seconds at longer range : 500 m or more instead of 200 m i think the results would be more convincing. Maybe a little adjustment in supression caused by HMG and it could be perfect. Maybe keep longer delay bursts (5/ 6 seconds) for long range targets, more than 500 m i think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, another test result, and some diagnosis of what needs tweaking.

The Americans get a single rifle platoon, regular quality but with "low" motivation. Their bazookas have been removed. The Germans get a single MG squad with 2 MG42s and a 3 man HQ section, also regulars, also "Low" motivation. No HQ bonuses for either. The Germans are 600m away in a patch of weeds, no actual cover. The Americans move out toward them on Quick. What happens?

The eventual outcome is that the attackers lose 24 men but wipe out the defenders. Which is incorrect, too strong a result for the attackers. However, by watching carefully how it played out I was able to pinpoint the remaining issue, I believe.

On "low" motivation the results of taking MG fire seem exactly correct. When a single man is hit, the unit typically goes to ground immediately. Some single bursts hit 2 men in file in "grazing fire" fashion. While the attackers were not spotted until 50 second in, and took their first hits at 410 meters, and quickly closed the following minute still on "Quick", they took 6 additional casualties in that move and everyone was forced to ground as a result.

And then they wallowed there, appropriately, and their losses so far quickly escalated to17 men hit. The left squad routed and withdrew 100 meters. The HQ had one man hit and stayed down; when eventually ordered to get up and continue the other 2 were hit quickly. The middle squad had taken 4 hits and the rest were in panic. 3 men hit in the right squad pushed them to shaken; when ordered to continue after a little rally they went to 6 men hit and pinned again. Over this period they had only inflicted a single casualty on one of the defending MGs from a long rifle grenade shot.

All of that was entirely correct. In particular, the effect of a burst hitting a man in "low" motivation squads was spot-on. Outgoing fire was very low, as whole squads were out of command and cower was general.

If the test had been stopped there I would have called it a perfect result and said all that is needed is for players and designers to tweak motivation to using "Low" as a standard setting.

But I continued, and there the problem arises. The men recover too rapidly from suppression, even when already pushed to broken once. And even when the squad leader has been hit. And even when the platoon HQ has been wiped out.

Eventually, a half squad that had a team leader with Thompson and its BAR gunner both up and functioning, on the left hand side, was about 125 meters from the right side German MG. And it wiped it out rapidly. From there the outcome snowballed, as that one live BAR was able to keep the other MG team heads down, long enough for all the other remnants to rally.

I noticed there were periods in all of this in which a full minute passed without firing by either side, as both sides had so many men heads down they actually lost sight of each other - even with the only cover being low weeds that the Germans were in. That too fits my own tactical memories of MILES engagements. When both sides are heads down nobody sees anything, even at quite close ranges.

However, the way those pauses interact with rally is "off". A minute when the available defender firepower is on a different attacking unit, or is pausing heads down itself, allows way too much rally for the rattled and leaderless half squads.

Basically the *permanent* morale impact of losses and previous breaks is too low. Similarly, loss of the squad leader, and being out of command of the platoon leader, and the platoon leader being dead, should all have more *permanent* morale impact, especially slowing the rate of rally from suppression effects.

*Initial* reactions to enemy hits are too robust for units on full "normal" motivation, but look entirely correct for units on "low" motivation. But rally still needs to be tweaked, with men hit, previous lowest morale state reached in the fight, loss of team, squad, and platoon leaders all causing *permanent* slow downs in the ability of the men to recover from suppression.

I hope this is helpful...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I can help moderate the debate with the following statement, which I believe to be accurate:

Grazing fire and beaten zones for MGs are in the game; even the simplest of tests shows that this is the case. However, some players feel that the current player interface makes it difficult to control MGs in a way that creates the results they would like to achieve with regard to beaten zones and grazing fire.

Acceptable?

No, that misses the point.

Control or not, if people feel that a HMG cannot hold back infantry running across open ground (for some amount of such infantry they feel it should hold), then the solution space is much more than just controlling what is there.

Control is the least of the suspects. If there is a problem here it is probably more on the sides of (1) firing, in that the HMG never lets loose closer to it's maximum rate of fire and (2) the morale of the people coming at it not being affected enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Initial* reactions to enemy hits are too robust for units on full "normal" motivation, but look entirely correct for units on "low" motivation. But rally still needs to be tweaked, with men hit, previous lowest morale state reached in the fight, loss of team, squad, and platoon leaders all causing *permanent* slow downs in the ability of the men to recover from suppression.

En route from CMBO to CMBB, the devs iirc, hugely amped up the effects of infantry suppression and the resultant routing, cringing, and cowering.

The result? Wailing and gnashing of teeth from many posters. "It wasn't fun'. The softened these factors somewhat in CMAK but Some believe the depiction in the 2nd game was the most accurate yet. Maybe BFC doesn't want to go there again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that misses the point.

Control or not, if people feel that a HMG cannot hold back infantry running across open ground (for some amount of such infantry they feel it should hold), then the solution space is much more than just controlling what is there.

Control is the least of the suspects. If there is a problem here it is probably more on the sides of (1) firing, in that the HMG never lets loose closer to it's maximum rate of fire and (2) the morale of the people coming at it not being affected enough.

I think we agree, and perhaps the point I was trying to make was not clear enough. To elaborate:

Some people have made comments that grazing fire, beaten zones, etc. don't exist in CMBN. This is incorrect.

It may be that grazing fire, beaten zones, etc. from MGs are not "strong" enough -- that the suppression and/or casualties caused are below what they should be etc. But these effects are definitely in the game. That's my point. So we are talking about what the appropriate magnitude of effect for beaten zones, plunging fire, and grazing fire should be, not whether the game models them at all.

In game patching terms, we are talking about tweaking existing features (perhaps increasing MG ROF, and/or increasing suppression effects, etc.), not adding entirely new features.

The UI/player control issue is another, albeit related subject. Some people are advocating for additional commands for MGs, to allow the player to do things like set an arc or other type of larger area target for MGs. These kind of requests would require adding new features to the game. And I think you are correct that UI/player control additions like this wouldn't, in and of themselves, change how "powerful" an MG is in terms of casualties or suppression caused per round fired, but such changes might give the player more flexibility in how they used MGs, which could be considered another kind of increased effectiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this is helpful...

Jason, your results mirror what I was seeing. Rallying is turned up, one possible way to tackle that is to dial leadership way down in the editor. You should see slower rallying

What is truly good news is that CMBN, if dialed properly can achieve some pretty accurate results. I don't think everyplayer out there is going enjoy playing this way but I like the option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

En route from CMBO to CMBB, the devs iirc, hugely amped up the effects of infantry suppression and the resultant routing, cringing, and cowering.

The result? Wailing and gnashing of teeth from many posters. "It wasn't fun'. The softened these factors somewhat in CMAK but Some believe the depiction in the 2nd game was the most accurate yet. Maybe BFC doesn't want to go there again.

I am sorry but you have incomplete knowledge (or memory) of this.

CMBB tried to solve the problem of HMG being easily overrun without realistic support requirements with a bunch of code hacks, and some of them were underengineered and worked badly. More importantly, it combined very badly with the crawl-of-death syndrome. The latter was exhaustion as a result of movement you never ordered and it mostly got ordered by the TacAI without asking the player as a result of the various HMG hacks. I am not saying that CMBB was overall the worse tradeoff than CMBO was realism-wise, it probably was better, but it was introducing issues it shouldn't have.

The purpose of this discussion is to find solutions for our new toy to what seems to be a problem similar to CMBO's (which seems to be less severe than CMBO's, still) - but without getting into a CMBB mess of unintended results when mixing game features.

That is why people carefully speculate about burst fire rates and morale differentials, and don't suggest anvil-on-fly solutions like CMBB had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In game patching terms, we are talking about tweaking existing features (perhaps increasing MG ROF, and/or increasing suppression effects, etc.), not adding entirely new features.

Right. I think this is important so that we don't get into the CMBB zone either.

The UI/player control issue is another, albeit related subject. Some people are advocating for additional commands for MGs, to allow the player to do things like set an arc or other type of larger area target for MGs. These kind of requests would require adding new features to the game. And I think you are correct that UI/player control additions like this wouldn't, in and of themselves, change how "powerful" an MG is in terms of casualties or suppression caused per round fired, but such changes might give the player more flexibility in how they used MGs, which could be considered another kind of increased effectiveness.

Other games also have player controls to directly tell the unit whether it should conserve ammunition. I would hate to make the CMBB interface more complicated but it would be elegant. You could have the player "unlock" maximum sustainable rate of fire on the HMG (which still is != max rpm of course), which solves the tactical problem. And it is under player control so they can't come back and complain about the TacAI wasting ammo.

Having said that, I still think that a solution in the space of morale differential and/or automatically going into emergency firing more based on simple conditions can be found.

Why not have a XML file where we set our own parameters. Har har :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't think that new feature or order is necessary.

And i don't think that developers would do it.

When i did some tests with bunkers, i believe that a good result could be obtained by changing some game parameters.

The closer the enemy, the shorter the time between bursts. Unfortunately, this happened too late, allowing the infantry to come at good range, suppress the bunker and win the battle.

3 seconds intervals are possible in the game but it happens at less than 200 m.

I guess that we may all agree on 2 things now :

1 reduced delay between bursts at long distance

2 more suppression effect on the attacker

I think BFC should look at this because it was in CMSF and it will come again. In CMBN you may notice it less because of bocage, but in more open terrain (Easfront), it will be more a problem.

I hope they would at least give this solution a chance to see if it works and if it's more realistic and satisfying.

If it works it could be applied to CMSF and other games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally haven't seen any changes in MG ROF (in numbers of bursts per minute) at all. It is conceivable that there are slightly longer bursts (more rounds per burst) but the numbers of bursts per minute seem pretty consistent to me. If this is the case, it would please me if they upped the numbers of bursts per minute or, better yet, made the bursts longer when the gun and its crew were in dire straits. I would think an MG crew about to get bayoneted would be pressing that trigger for all its worth.

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...