RD Oddball
Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: petersolo
Actually, thinking a little more on this, I found that my squad would initially be pinned,suppressed and cowering as the mg 42 is hosing the building. This means I couldn't get the men to pop smoke and pull back. If the men are pinned and suppressed shouldn't that mean they are taking as much cover as possible and not looking out the windows? In this case shouldn't the casualty rate decrease and the suppressing effect increase till a possible rout?
I have no issue with being caught in the open or just light cover. I think it should be lethal in those circumstances. I think great cover should be more protective.
Or maybe I'm thinking a little too hard about this.
Peter
Good thoughts. There's definitely a component of what you're saying that needs to be considered.
One of the well known beauties of CC is that it attempts to simulate the psychological reaction of humans on the battlefield. I feel it's right to not see predictable or logical behavior when your troops are stressed e.g. being shot at by 1200 rounds of lead flying past their head. Being pinned down and unable to move for fear movement through the open to better cover would mean death and irrationally opting for poor cover over movement and associated risks falls into that category. Would be a tough call to make even when you're not stressed. Net result in either choice would likely be death or severe injury. Being caught in that situation in the first place is the bigger issue.
Utilizing the command structure to remedy this is paramount in CC. When within the command radius of a command unit you should more often see subordinate units responding to commands and reacting more like what you described expecting to see. But even within command radius they still might disobey orders.
This helps illustrate why detailed descriptions of the scenarios being questioned are so important. The behavior seen can be a result of factors other than what they appear. So it may not be the lethality of MG42's but possibly the behavior of the AI and command structure. Or the players lack of use of that command structure. What you described sounds like it's acting just as was intended and it should be with the exception of the part about the buildings. Which is another possible factor to consider.
It's possible, as has been discussed before, that terrain elements data needs to be tweaked in the element protection settings. Some adjustments had been made previously. Specifically for buildings walls. Once again, we need very specific examples so it can be recreated to on our end so we have a specific environment that you're seeing to test tweaks if it's found that tweaks are needed.
@ Mooxe - RE: MG42 lethality - My guess, only a guess, I don't think one single factor made them more lethal. I suspect that the rate of fire played a factor in this by the fact that when the MG42 was on target you didn't get hit by one or two rounds you got hit by multiple rounds. It's a known fact that it was a more accurate weapon (as proven by bench tests) in all configurations than the allied counter-parts. So perhaps those two factors made it a more lethal weapon? It still has to be in the right hands in order for that to be of use so simply knowing it has a high rate of fire or was more accurate doesn't necessarily mean it will be more lethal based on that alone.
To the point your question makes, or as some threads I've seen suggest "buzz worse than bite", that it's best asset was it's fear factor. Still, as with any weapon effectiveness that is debated, there is likely no one source or discussion that can definitively and incontrovertibly prove a weapons effectiveness to be useful in terms of how it's emulated in CC.
The best that can be done is to input the published performance data from reputable sources, make sure there's a baseline in the game system for weapons data, and tweak it to make game play compelling and within a reasonable range of acceptability of balance. Which I feel is the true essence and take-away of any of these types of discussions. Which is why I asked for more feedback on this topic. If nearly everyone was returning accounts of losing mass amounts of troops to MG42's to the point where the GC is un-winnable by the allies on this fact alone, there is a definite need for fixing. I've not seen that as the case. They're definitely lethal in the game and should be given a wide berth but they're not invincible and have plenty of counters to neutralize what effectiveness they currently have with smart, careful tactics.
|
Printable Version
Lethality of MG 42 - 
Was there a consensus regarding its lethality? Should it be this good or should it be toned down against units in great cover such as stone buildings or trenches? 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread