What's wrong with the M10's .50 cal?

[TheBlackHand]

Unrealistic, no. As many (including myself) have noted, it was definitely done, sometimes.

But it is also currently impossible for the game engine to realistically depict this behavior -- the engine just doesn't currently have the capability for soldiers (be they crew or nearby infantry) to "tank ride" and man a rear-pintle AA MG.

It's a game and there are limitations; this is certainly not the only one. If this particular shortcoming is more than you can accept, your only options are to just not play with M10s, or go play some other game entirely.

This answer is honest and sensible. No excuses, just the facts. I can accept that the game mechanics make the use of the fifty an impossibility. I will also take the beta testers word for it, since he saw this first-hand. I hope that this is something that can be rectified in a future patch or release.

As to the other suggestions about sensitive crews, sneaky stugs and sniper shots . . . I ain't buyin' it. These are poor excuses, particularly in the situation in which I found myself. I've been playing this game (or type of game) long enough to know that there are times when rationalization is necessary. In this instance, I could see no reason why it would have been impossible, or overly risky to man the fifty and put rounds across the valley. To the contrary, any commander with a lick of sense would have ordered the first trooper he saw up there on the gun . . . if he didn't take the initiative and man it himself. Only an idiot/a-hole would sit there and watch his men get shot while a perfectly good suppressive weapon went unused within reach.

[Battlefront.com]

This answer is honest and sensible. No excuses, just the facts. I can accept that the game mechanics make the use of the fifty an impossibility. I will also take the beta testers word for it, since he saw this first-hand. I hope that this is something that can be rectified in a future patch or release.

Not even remotely planned. Why? It's simply NOT WORTH IT. We have never, ever found it good for the game to spend large amounts of time on putting in features which, in real life, were hardly ever used. It's a really piss poor use of our time to simulate something that doesn't really need to be simulated.

In fact, it's bad to add a feature which is used out of proportion to real life. This distorts reality and makes the game LESS realistic. Since we aim for realism, and not "I want it because I want it", this distinction is quite important.

As to the other suggestions about sensitive crews, sneaky stugs and sniper shots . . . I ain't buyin' it. These are poor excuses, particularly in the situation in which I found myself. I've been playing this game (or type of game) long enough to know that there are times when rationalization is necessary. In this instance, I could see no reason why it would have been impossible, or overly risky to man the fifty and put rounds across the valley. To the contrary, any commander with a lick of sense would have ordered the first trooper he saw up there on the gun . . . if he didn't take the initiative and man it himself. Only an idiot/a-hole would sit there and watch his men get shot while a perfectly good suppressive weapon went unused within reach.

Drop the abrasive posture and not all that clever work arounds for the anti-swearing feature on this Forum or you will be bounced out of here. Got it? Good.

Dismissing real world limitations of the use of the .50 is a non-starter argument to make. The truth is the .50 was not designed for engaging ground conditions. That's not an excuse, that is a fact. You need to understand that fact, as unhappy as you might be about it, does drive the whole concept of how the gun is used in the game.

To summarize... in a perfect world we would have the time to properly simulate the possible use of the .50cal, including the negatives of attempting to use it. But this world isn't perfect and I can think of hundreds of things that would improve the game far more than catering to one type of MG mounted on one type of vehicle for a very limited purpose.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

oooo... rare double post!! Haven't done one in years so I'm below the quota

Steve

[TheBlackHand]

Their .50-cal. machine guns were constantly employed. Targets were personnel, houses, strong points, machine guns, vehicles, and towed guns, as well as tanks and SP guns.

Shall I repeat it? Ok.

Their .50-cal. machine guns were constantly employed. Targets were personnel, houses, strong points, machine guns, vehicles, and towed guns, as well as tanks and SP guns.

One more time.

Their .50-cal. machine guns were constantly employed. Targets were personnel, houses, strong points, machine guns, vehicles, and towed guns, as well as tanks and SP guns.

[winkelried]

Don't fight the problem - was one of the first things I learned in the service. CMBN is modelling combat in WW2 - and there are compromises to be made. And they were made. So I think we have to get along with these.

Maybe we should put our energy into something more productive.

[Battlefront.com]

TheBlackHand,

Did you not read where I said you need to tone down your attitude? Or should I repeat it three times in bold in the event that's the only way you communicate? I'm serious, if you can't have a mature, polite debate you will be able to debate yourself in comfort instead.

Understand?

To get back to your original post, it is typical "makes for good reading" reporting. I can cite examples of GIs using a herd of cows for cover while assaulting a MG42 position. I can cite an example of a British Squad that armed itself almost 100% with MG42s during a night raid. But does that mean that such things are representative? Does it mean that they should suck up our development resources?

I will say this again, as clearly as I possibly can. The .50cal on the M-10 was designed for AA work and was not regularly used in combat. Your citations simply prove it was used in the ground role, which is a position nobody here contests. So they do not change the equation, especially when there are easily far more important things to put our limited resources into addressing.

There will be no simulation of the .50 cal on the M-10s being fired by ground based infantry, there will be no simulation of a crew member jumping out onto the back deck to man the weapon.

The discussion is closed because there's no discussion left to have. And therefore the thread is locked. Though my warning to TheBlackHand remains in effect.

Steve