MP40 Effectiveness

[Michael Emrys]

I've sometimes wondered how wise it was to eliminate the hull MG and gunner. I don't doubt that there were viable reasons for doing so, but it seems to me that an extra dedicated MG, especially one well situated to provide gazing fire, might come in handy from time to time.

As for the high velocity cannon, yeah that's a bit of an overkill for infantry support. Something with about half to two-thirds the muzzle velocity would do the job just as well without so much muzzle blast to make the crunchies uncomfortable.

Michael

[Redwolf]

I've sometimes wondered how wise it was to eliminate the hull MG and gunner. I don't doubt that there were viable reasons for doing so, but it seems to me that an extra dedicated MG, especially one well situated to provide gazing fire, might come in handy from time to time.

It weakens the bow armor, that's a strict no-no now that you can't easily cut holes into armor plates anymore.

Also, of course there's only one guy sitting in front now and he's busy obeying traffic rules.

As for the high velocity cannon, yeah that's a bit of an overkill for infantry support. Something with about half to two-thirds the muzzle velocity would do the job just as well without so much muzzle blast to make the crunchies uncomfortable.

Michael

That's why the Israelis have a 40mm automatic grenade launcher on some of the Merkavas. Best weapon against stubborn guys in holes.

[Fūrinkazan]

[quote=JonS;1378592

If you're depending on the firepower of the SMG in an HMG team, you're doing it wrong.

Overall, you post seems consistent with a common, but misguided, theme of complaint. Many players seek to extract the maximum possible efficiency out of every single thing under their command. They want to be able to dial up exact artillery attacks that only use an exact number of rounds on an exactly defined target. They want every single weapon in every single unit to always and only fire at the exactly range they think is perfect for each weapon. They want their men to move exactly from one location to another. They want to know exactly how much fatigue their units will accumulate and exactly how long it will take to recover. They want to be able to order on-map mortas and tanks to fire an exactly defined number of rounds at an exactly designated target. And the list goes on.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for such views.

[Vark]

Thought one of the reasons the section commander/squad leader was given an SMG was so that he would not spend time firing at targets but giving vital fire commands. As the section closed to assault range the commander would be forward for control and communication and then his SMG's firepower could be used to help close those last few vital yards. Same with AT teams, the SMG was used to button a tank or surpress its close infantry support, both functions carried out at close range. CM1 modelled this range aspect very well, what it did not do was model the lethality well. CM 2 should model both well, especially as the Bagration game is coming with whole platoons of SMG troops, not a handful here and there.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Excellent post Furinkazen with a well reasoned explanation of why it seems that HMG's appear nerfed compared with other automatic weapons.

Regards

KR

[Fūrinkazan]

Excellent post Furinkazen with a well reasoned explanation of why it seems that HMG's appear nerfed compared with other automatic weapons.

Regards

KR

Thanks, Kanonier Reichmann, i really appreciate.

To finish with this :

In Cmx 1 things are logical in my point of view, let me explain.

Definition of FIREPOWER

a : the capacity (as of a military unit) to deliver effective fire on a target b : effective fire

One lmg 42 as 50 of firepower an abstracted number but that gives an idea to the player. This is the firepower of the mg42 the second men is the loader and is not supposed to open fire.

For hmg42 we have 155 fp : 2 MP40 =72 + 3 rifles = 19 = 91 fp

this leave 155 - 91 = 64 fp for the hmg (shooter and loader).

The advantage for hmg is 64 - 50 = 14 fp (30% advantage for hmg)

This makes sense for me even at 40m the hmg has more ammo and a tripod that allows a gain in firepower.

If we transpose to CMBN :

lmg at 50 m 26 bursts, hmg 41 advantage something like 58 % better for hmg.

Here, it seems that hmg is better evaluated in CMBN at short range.

But there is note a huge difference.

Now at 500 m we have only mg 42 firing :

In CMX1 : lmg 18 and hmg 52 almost 300 % advantage to hmg

Transpose to CMBN :

lmg 8 bursts hmg 9 something like 12 % advantage for hmg only.

To have more equivalence hmg should shoot something like 24 bursts mn i think.

Does it make sense ? For me yes, in CMX 1, developpers took in count, tripod, optics and ammo. And the conclusion is more firepower for hmg.

It's not the case i think in CMBN.

It's the same with pistols and smgs.

Pistols degrade highly at 100 m in CMX1 from 8 to 2

and smgs from 36 to 9 for mp 40.

Again, for me it's coherent a man with a pistol at 40 m as a little advantage on rifle (firepower 8 pistols againts 6 rifle) but at 100 m you have 2 against 5.25.

In CMX 1 it seems that smgs are more 50/100 m weapons and pistols under 40 m or less. Why not in CMBN ?

I don't know the values for halftrack but i guess that it should be between lmg and hmg since the weapon is more stable, has ammo, but no optics.

So, if i did not any mistakes i think this shows that some tweaks are needed on small weapons.

For me it's like having a Panther with 80 mm front hull armor in CMX1 and 60 mm in CMBN. The games simulate the same things, in differente ways but the result should be roughly the same, a Panther is a Panther and an mg 42 is an mg42 in both games.

I notice that nobody answered me on those points .

So it would be really nice if some people could give their point of view on this, especially developpers or beta testers.

For those who are interrested i found that video on youtube :

A comparison between mg 42 and russian sg 43 that i think is very interresting.

You'll see weapon characteristics, change of barrel, loading etc...

And a quiet impressive assault use of mg 42.

The guy is shooting from the hip and shoulder and i was very astonished on how the weapon is stable.

Take a look and say what you think of it

Regards

[womble]

In Cmx 1 things are logical in my point of view...

So.

What?

Just because it's easier to grok doesn't make it more right.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I believe Furinkazen's point is that the old CMx1 games (excluding CMBO) better simulated the effectiveness of HMG's when firing at their targets. Under the older game system, the ability to advance over open ground against an emplaced HMG with even a platoon of infantry was no easy task whereas in CMBN... not so much. In fact, just a squad can overcome an HMG in similar terrain without too much trouble.

Therefore the obvious question that arises from the discussion is, which system better portrays the reality of such a situation. If historically it wasn't that easy to advance against a properly emplaced HMG position with just a squad of men across open ground then perhaps CMBN needs some tweaking?

Regards

KR

[Redwolf]

I believe Furinkazen's point is that the old CMx1 games (excluding CMBO) better simulated the effectiveness of HMG's when firing at their targets. Under the older game system, the ability to advance over open ground against an emplaced HMG with even a platoon of infantry was no easy task whereas in CMBN... not so much. In fact, just a squad can overcome an HMG in similar terrain without too much trouble.

Careful here, CMBO behaved much like CMBN. There is no "CMx1" HMG behavior.

A "fix" went into CMBB and stayed in CMAK, but it was somewhat of a hack. It was suppression zone 50 meters around the impact point of a firing HMG. It wasn't all that highly developed, for example the 50m suppression was still in effect when the receiving unit was in a trench, or if there was a solid wall or a building between between impact point and units. Furthermore, there was so suppression zone along the path of the flying bullets even if they were flying low over the ground and would historically have caused "great concern" for units in an open field.

Then of course there was the crawl of death caused by several other pieces of underengineered code.

So let's not overglorify "CMx1" or even CMBB/CMAK specifically.

While I was as disappointed as everybody else that the problem of being able to overrun a HMG was back from CMBO to CMBN I wouldn't say I want the CMBB hack back either.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Careful here, CMBO behaved much like CMBN. There is no "CMx1" HMG behavior.

Hence why I stated in my first sentence...(Excluding CMBO).

Regards

KR

[Fūrinkazan]

Hi,

I 'll try to explain my point of view better.

First is the game realistic ?

I think so. Yesterday i watched the very interresting video n°4 that Lt. Col. (ret) Jeffrey Paulding put online. If you look at is comment on the game and what is says on the vidéo CMBN is a good representation/simulation of combat. He uses the words "combat simulator" and that's the best compliment for the game. When i see that it takes him 3 hours of thinking before playing to prepare is troops i must say that he is much more involved in the game than i am.

Now does it mean that everything is perfect ? BFC made strong historical and technical research but some things may need adjustment.

They patched the game to change a few things ( soldier behaviour etc...) Each time the game is better.

Now, about smgs hmgs.

I had more time in the past to play CMBO/CMAK and when i went to CMSF and CMBN i noticed differencies about the effect of hmgs. More, i've seen threads and posts about that in the past. So, are hmgs underpowered ?

I don't trust my feelings, especially when i can only play the game the week end. So i had to find an exemple to make comparison. I did not find on the tactical books i have sufficient datas to have an opinion on the subject. I've found datas about tactical trainning of german lmgs and that made me think the game is correct about lmgs, but i had no clue with hmgs.

I used the word "logical" for CMBB/CMAK, Why ?

On one side we have 2 men with one lmg with bipod.

On the other side a tripode mounted hmg with optics and more ammos, with 5 or six men to serve it.

this is reflected is CMBB/CMAK by the differencies in abstracted firepower.

At short range much firepower for hmgs (more men, ammos, smgs etc...)

At long range also (almost 3x the firepower of an lmg). Logical since you can't fire the same way with both weapons.

Now, what do i see in CMBN. At long range, weapons have the same rate of fire, the same procedure ( i did not tested acccuracy). This was strange for me and when i compared with CMBB, i guessed that it was the reason of the feelings i had.

After some research, i think the delay of fire between bursts is correct, so no need to change the delay i think.

Thanks to dieseltaylor, i had more infos on hmgs procedure :

If i understood well, German hmgs gunner used to shoot a first burst to see the accuracy, the shoot a 50 round burst. Then repeat the process. This is not what we see in the game. I'm not asking the game to represent everything in detail, but when i see the M240b datas, hmg 42 datas, it may explain why some people, inculding me, have the felling that hmgs are underrated at long range.

I also imagined another point of view : The psychological effect of the weapon is less strong in CMBN than CMBB.

I needed a comparison, imperfect of course, but better than just my point of view. I try to have objective argument and not subjective impression.

Some people think that when someone is pointing something about the game it's an attack against the game engine and BFC. I'm not angry against them, i think they are just passionate by the subject and the game. I'm not attacking the game, i'd be a fool to buy games i don't like .

So, if you think i'm wrong or right, tell it and explain why. That's not a problem for me if people have good arguments. And i'm interrested in others point of view. It's a good way also, i think, to help making better game.

Now, i'm gonna buy this week-end CMFI and have a good time with it:).

Sorry for the long post.

Best regards

[Lee]

Any word if adjustments to the effectiveness of hmg's at range (or other small arms) are planned in the Gustav Line module?

Would be nice to have that end up in CM:BN soon. =)