Machine guns in 6.1 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Colonel von Blitz -> Machine guns in 6.1 (7/28/2001 11:04:00 PM)

I don't know if some other people have noticed the same thing as I have, but I personally have found MGs in v6.1 to be quite über-weapons. Which IMHO isn't very successful step in SPWAW development...I'd say we've taken a giant leap backwards concerning 'balanced playing'. A single Pz Ib can wipe out entire platoons of Polish soldiers from ranges exceeding 500 meters...this in one turn alone. 15 men in a 50 meter by 50 meter area...single burst from twin 7.92mm MG and the squad is destroyed. I'd say v5.01 was much better in this respect Is this a Final version or will there be corrections...or should I just assume that this is what you guys wanted...excessive amount of men lost per battle? Or do I just have to go back to 5.01? Comments anyone? Colonel von Blitz PS. don't try to offer me to correct this by adjusting preferences, that affects all weapons against infantry...I'd say rifles and arty pieces are just about right now, only thing that is screwed is MGs.



Warrior -> (7/29/2001 1:16:00 AM)

If your troops are moving, they're fresh meat for MG's. That's the way it was. v6.1 is much more realistic in this and forces changes in movement tactics.



Bing -> (7/29/2001 2:03:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior: If your troops are moving, they're fresh meat for MG's. That's the way it was. v6.1 is much more realistic in this and forces changes in movement tactics.
Ditto here. Send'em out in the open, they will be chopped to pieces. Smoke,smoke, smoke,smoke .... about the only way out of it. Bing



Jaques Rico -> (7/29/2001 2:29:00 AM)

Absolutely and historically correct. MGs are correct handled in 6.1. JR



Dedas -> (7/29/2001 6:40:00 AM)

Couldn't agree more with Rico there... It's great mowing down squad after squad of those crazy russians storming my bunkers! Once I got 9 kills in one burst, whooie that was sweet... (mmh... maybe it's not just the russian who are crazy?!)



Khan7 -> (7/29/2001 7:41:00 AM)

I'm going to have to take issue with the overkill MGs, too. First of all, I believe one "shot" in SP is supposed to represent one burst. A burst can be anywhere from 3 to 6 shots in a normal MG. There is no way you are going to kill even 6 people with 6 machine gun rounds on full auto. Even if you're talking about, say, an MG42, where I'm sure it would be hard to limit a burst to just 6 rounds, the shortness of the burst (a second or less) would make it hard to hit very many people, even if they were charging straight at you at a range of 200yards WW1style. I could live with 3 bursts being able to eliminate a squad running in the open, but a single burst simply can't do more than inflict several casualties and make the rest hit the deck. And it is not particularly hard to evade machine gun fire by running back and forth and ducking if you are at about 50 yards or closer. And at any range, unless the MG has an elevation advantage on you, all you've got to do is duck behind a small rise in the ground or lay flat in a shallow ditch and you're safe. So I would say that an average MG should be able to totally wipe out a fanatically charging squad in perhaps 3 bursts, but one that is smart and hits the deck in perhaps 4 to 6. I would also wonder about their super-effective range extending out to 500yards. I'm not really an expert, but I would think that at that range it would be difficult to pick off more than one guy at a time, unless they were moving in close-order formation. In addition to the issues mentioned above, I would like to reitirate the elevation factor. If you really want to get realistic, an MG's ability to kill infantry that is taking cover should be directly dependent on it's elevation to that infantry. This, I believe, should be extended to all types of fire, thus adding a true and realistic advantage to being on a hill. A rock or ditch will do you no good if your enemy is up high enough to see over or into it. So there's my two cents.



Khan7 -> (7/29/2001 7:42:00 AM)

Footnote: MGs were definitely not nearly powerful enough in previous versions, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that from what I've heard and seen the solution is ridiculous, and arguably worse than the original situation.



Lynx -> (7/29/2001 11:49:00 AM)

Dodge MG fire? You should try butts party on an MG range and wonder how anything can live. On hills, one burst could hug a slope with trajectory and hit anything between 4" and 4' on a swath of your tripod mounted horizontal traverse wheels and full auto. A nest could zero in on a crossroad with tracers from a hill out of range of direct fire and mark the tripod settings. Scoult spots a truck convoy signals and Buda Buda, it rains bullets with no sound or smoke to give oway the possition visible to enemy. It must have been done then too. Lynx



Lars Remmen -> (7/29/2001 12:24:00 PM)

Hello, Imagine this: An eight man squad it hit by a 0.5 second burst from a MG42. The ten rounds kill one and wound two others (running close is bad for your health in such a situation but soldiers tend to feel safe close to their comrades). A green trooper panics and one of the veterans keeps him pinned down to keep his head from getting shot off. The three remaining troopers hit the dust and try to apply first aid and get the wounded to some kind of cover. While only one man was killed this squad is effectively wiped out for some time. For how long? Five minutes at least, perhaps longer. Could be cool though if some of the dispersed squads would reappear some time later in the hex they dissapeared. Regards, Lars



Colonel von Blitz -> (7/29/2001 2:36:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior: If your troops are moving, they're fresh meat for MG's. That's the way it was. v6.1 is much more realistic in this and forces changes in movement tactics.
1 - 4 kills per burst would be probably more realistic...but 7 - 12 kills quite frequently, now that's ridiculous. I'd like to assume that if one squad is wiped out, the rest of the platoon will hit the dirt...not walk towards the MG with just their dicks in their hand (well, this part could be true with russians in 1941 :D). Where is the 'micro-terrain' of which Paul has so often spoken?? Colonel von Blitz



Fredde -> (7/29/2001 2:54:00 PM)

Khan: A burst to be between 3-6 shots in a normal MG, well maybe yes.. if you really do your best about doing a quick press of the trigger only. How are mg's used? Definitely not for point fire. You don't fire very short bursts against advancing infantry. Instead you rattle on long series of rounds to keep them down and prevent them from moving.. area covering fire. If you are to do point fire like you suppose, you would do much better with a rifle since they are easier to aim :) Let's take a quite experienced MG crew, with 5 "shots" available. Multiplying this with the best "burst", you will get a MG firing 6*5= 30 shots in three minutes of time. That is a terrible waste of firepower of an automatic weapon imo ;) There is a reason why the human wave assaults in WWI didn't make it anymore, and why the losses were so horrendous in attacks. Facing MG's you simply don't charge against them. Do that and you will be mowed down. Run a company towards an MG crew over an open field and let the men go upright (high speed gamewise). Can you imagine what damage the MG would do in those three minutes? My impression of 6.1 is absolutely awesome so far. I called it a smash hit in another forum and I stand for those words here as well. Much more realistic than previous versions, especially when it comes to infantry fighting which is really my favourite part of the game. Terrain matters, placement of support weapons matters, range matters.. a rifle squad shooting it out with an MG at longer ranges can no longer get the upper hand, arty actually does something, list goes on and on. This version is a very impressive work from Matrix which I am extremely pleased to be able to play!



ruxius -> (7/29/2001 3:36:00 PM)

For the first time since version 5.1 something very important was given a change..a new revision to infantry and its weapons...I think that it's really needed a continuos testing about fire efficacy of ALL weapons combined togheter...because it affects so many combat situations we just can't think that only a patch adjusts everything properly.. so what Colonel Von Blitz started here is very very important..and version 6.1 can't be considered absolutely safe...like many replies seem to argue here with differents assumptions I agree with the issue to stop enhancing SPWAW with new features... And Welcome to COMBAT LEADER... now SPWAW needs a long time testing and Matrix assured that they will keep an eye opened to this game..and that eye will surely regard problems like this one.. A lot of work has be done in modelling tank's fighting engine and also artillery.. I think also the weapons' system for infantry must be monitored..only time and player's experience will produce a perfect balanced efficancy of all weapons...and this process needs discussion... Balancing this game is something needed when changes occur to so an important part of the game... A so high percentage of losses can not be real...unless the enemies stand tall under fire with their arms high in to the air defenseless... Maybe it's not this case...but things must be tested anyway... Summarizing all unreal situations must be collected togheter for a better and final patch but only after a long testing about all weapons...I do not agree to the idea of a new patch which tweaks MG's power to discover after a while that infantry squads can never be destroyed..and a new patch is then needed after the one just released... in one word I suggest a web page where one can report all these problems...something called "SPWAW-opened questions.." were collecting all these problems... Time and experience will contribute to produce a new patch.. That's should be the alternative to an endlessly sequence of patches.. Bye



Sailor Malan -> (7/29/2001 4:20:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Khan7: I'm going to have to take issue with the overkill MGs, too. First of all, I believe one "shot" in SP is supposed to represent one burst. A burst can be anywhere from 3 to 6 shots in a normal MG. There is no way you are going to kill even 6 people with 6 machine gun rounds on full auto..
We have a misconcption here. If a MG shot is 1 burst (2-3 seconds absolute tops), this means tank shots are coming out at the same rate - fun, but not true (mind you, I'd like to see the tank crews face as an 88mm fires at that rate!). The MG shot must represent several short bursts, or a sustained fire, hence you are not killing 9 men with 3 bullets. Also, it is easier to hit a spread out squad at longer range, because of the natural spread of the bullets. At close range, you are in danger of putting the bullets into the same man - you really have to swing the muzzle around to cover a reasonable squad, even at 300m. At 100m it's almost impossible (do the trigonometry) [ July 29, 2001: Message edited by: Sailor Malan ]



Belisarius -> (7/29/2001 4:48:00 PM)

Since we've been talking about number of bullets/burst and MG42's in this thread, here's my thought: A one second burst from an MG42 equals somewhere around 25 bullets, variying slightly with indivdual weapons. German infantry practiced a lot to keep the bursts to about one second, more than that and the gun is very difficult to control. 20-25 bullets fired at moving infantry in the open? 6-7 kills would not be unrealistic. If I'm not completely lost, isn't wounded infantry counted as a kill in SPWAW? Given that the wounds are enough to render the poor chap unable to keep on fighting?



Colonel von Blitz -> (7/29/2001 7:46:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Belisarius: 20-25 bullets fired at moving infantry in the open? 6-7 kills would not be unrealistic.
That would not be totally unrealistic, those 20-25 bullets could inflict 6-7 casualties, no doubt about that. But at range over 500 metres? That is more doubtful..also I do not like the fact that MGs kill 6-7 men per burst, and with several bursts in the same turn...doesn't enemy men hit the deck at all :confused: I liked earlier versions better, when concerning MGs, because IMHO they reflected more realistically the usage of 'micro-terrain'...first burst of MG maybe didn't inflict realistic amount of casualties, but when fired severel bursts, I'd say the normal 3-4 casualties per turn (one minute!) was good...now you fire several bursts and kill maybe some 15-20 men...that means that none of enemy men are intelligent enough to hit the dirt when someone starts firing MG. Come on, my fellow wargamers, SPWAW isn't supposed to be Doom...right? Colonel von Blitz [ July 29, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel von Blitz ]



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/29/2001 8:12:00 PM)

Lars has the only comment worthy of mention here (my opinion). To much technical detail, not enough reality. If I shoot you in the foot you are gone just as much as if I got you in the head. If I waste the man next to you in a gory display, odds are you are "gone" as well. I am not sure that "dead" means dead. But thats for the game designers to specifically address. For my money, supressed means "I will attack later after I think about it" "Dead could mean everything other than "not right now". Is this the case? I dont think mgs are unrealistic. I pump out lots of rounds. Sometimes I see squads get wiped out (only notification one of my units is missing is a brief message sometimes). But this is rare in my experience at least. Currently I am in a battle where I am attacking across open ground under heavy fire. Lost two complete sections this turn, but then again I also moved something like 30 sections this turn as well. And some recieved no fire at all. If you move squads expect them to get shot at. If you dont give them effective cover, expect them to get killed.



m10bob -> (7/29/2001 9:57:00 PM)

The mmg and hmg is very effective in almost *anybodies* hands,but the number "killed",may also represent the philosophy that with each "wounded" soldier are 2 to "aid" the wounded...I have been at both ends of this "argument",literally,and while the gunner is a natural target,his range usually prevents him from being a target (initially),and i can personally guarantee an entire squad CAN fall with one burst......seen it...done it.....(At distance,a lot of rounds can hit the "beaten zone" before the sound of the weapon is ever even heard....)..Any survivers are left to hug earth and try to figure out where the mg was located....I was part of an ambush team which would not have stayed long enough to be detected.....'nuf said....



Bing -> (7/29/2001 10:55:00 PM)

The difference in machine gun behavior in v6.1 and prior to the "big" revision was difficult at first for me to come to terms with. After some hours of game play, I am becoming used to the way it works now - the observation is that MG fire on troops in the open is far more deadly, the same fire on troops in cover such as entrehcnment etc. is less deadly and more in the way of suppressing. Another feature that seems to be coming into focus for me is that the random number generator - the equivalent of die rolls - swings farther each way than before and is likely to temporarily produce seemingly outlandish results. Then, it will swing back the other way. Ex: I complained before about German flamethrowers wiping out an entire 11 man squad with one "spritz". Well, I just got through with a turn where THREE Ge FT's went after a squad in cover. The first two squirts had no effect beyond perhaps a deepening of suppression, the third "dispersed" the remnants of the squad, not sure exactly how many killed, I forgot to write it down. So I think there is a difference in the way the new parameters are applied, as well as the parameters themselves. This is purely a personal observaton, your mileage may vary ... Bing



Paul Vebber -> (7/29/2001 11:17:00 PM)

Casualties represent "combat ineffective" for any reason for teh duration of the battle. Most simpoly hit the dirt and never get up, or tend to a wounded comrade, etc. One stupy I read listed "combat ineffective" personnel as 70% not actually hit, but "taken out of the action" as descrbed above, 25% wounded, (though may wounded actually keep fighting for some time) and 5% killed outright. So the vast majority of "casualties" are troops that are not physically harmed, but either "cower" for teh remainder of teh scenario, or are tapped to other non-combat duties, like scavenging ammo, tendeing to woulnded comrades, or being pressed into service as messenger. SO an MG burst causing 7 casuaties could be 2 men actually hit 4 men tending them and getting them back out of the line of fire and 1 guy panicking and just not taking any firther part in the action (though they may stay as part of the unit and physically "be there" there mind has "shut off and they are simply zombies taking no active part in the battle.



Bing -> (7/30/2001 1:34:00 AM)

I'll buy that, Paul. What I am seeing is a lot more in the way of units "dispersing" and not returning for the remainder of the scenario. The effect of this of course in immediate game terms really is the same as wiping them out, but I assume they are not counted as KIA in the victory totals ?? Bing



Paul Vebber -> (7/30/2001 5:55:00 AM)

Making a unit go away - whatever the means, gives you the points for the unit, if you make it "half go away" you get half the points. You don't get points for "killing things" but rendering them hors d'combat.



Tombstone -> (7/30/2001 6:26:00 AM)

Speaking to the wide and frequent swing of random results. Would it be difficult and particularly undesirable to have the game double roll its results and average them? Or could we get a preference option that would enable that? This would allow (especially really small battles) a moderating of the crazy results and also give a player the option of playing a slightly more predictable game. On a seperate note: We have to realize that this game is an abstraction of what happens, shots per round do not correlate with anything. They represent a units ability to apply fire to a number of targets, and to give the player the option to fire several times at a single target to increase to-hit chances. Its important to try and look to the larger picture for realistic results. This new MG thing, all it really does is give the player some respect for one of the most feared weapons of the last century. They don't kill entire squads once you put a bunch of fire on them... Tomo



Khan7 -> (7/30/2001 6:26:00 AM)

Okay, people are getting off on some wild tangents here. People being distracted with dealing with the wounded, panicking, taking cover and not shooting-- all of this is simulated by suppression. Therefore we can only assume that casualties only represent people who were actually hit. Taking a squad out of action the way people have been talking about is represented in the game by 3 people going down and everyone else getting really suppressed and hitting the dirt. People getting frieked out and dispersing and laying down their weapons and fighting no more is simulated by (shock) infantry dispersal, which I'm sure you all have noticed happens quite frequently. And when infantry disperses, it is counted as the whole squad being wiped out as indeed it should be. But back to the issue at hand, which is the number of actual CASUALTIES, i.e. people killed or wounded, not just people rendered "combat ineffective" (which, as I said, is simulated by suppression) caused by a single MG shot. I think the consensus here so far seems to be that a single burst or "shot" is unlikely to KO more than 3 or 4 guys (and people have just been trying to justify higher casualties by trying to equate suppression with casualties). M10Bob, our friend the Army Ranger, speaks of situations in which he has seen entire squads wiped out in a burst, but these (a) involve MGs operated by the feared elites of the US military, and (b) deal only with total ambush situations. I can definitely believe that if you have a squad leisurely moseying along across on open field with no idea that 400 yards away in the bush there is an MG pointed at them could probably be nearly all KOed with one very well-placed burst. But if you are dealing with infantry that is aware of the presence of an MG, an unskilled gunner, a gunner that is under pressure, a gunner that hasn't had time to spot and carefully zero in on his target before opeing fire, or a range of less than 300 or over 500 yards, you could expect the kills to be much lower. You can assume that as soon as the thing opens fire everyone in the vicinity is going to hit the ground, therefore making it very hard to pick off more than one or two guys at a time, even if there is no effective cover. This is of course GREAT for halting and suppressing and routing, and also works very well for killing, but probably not as well for killing as it does in 6.1. So say you ambush one squad and wipe it out in one or two shots. Everyone else in the same vicinity will now know that there is an MG in the area, and will hit the dirt, therefore making it impossible for the MG to do to the next squads what it did to the first one. And at closer ranges it is, as one person pointed out, much harder to throw out any doomsday fire (this is why WW1 troops were trained to charge straight at an MG if they were ambushed at a reasonably close range (100-200yards). If they just hunker down then they are pinned and cannot move, even to retreat, without getting whacked, and the MG will just pick them off one by one. But if they charge then most likely enough people will reach the nest to wipe it out.) Anyway, I will now leave these remarks here for others to comment on.



Paul Vebber -> (7/30/2001 6:29:00 AM)

Ummm, I guess you designed the game Khan??? I (and others) did, and you are wrong. Read my post for what the designers intended. Temporary suppression, and "combat ineffectiveness" of long term duration are two very different things. The "tempering" of the swings in combat results can be adjusted by increasing infantry toughness. I personally like it on 125...but everybody likely has their own personal level. [ July 29, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



Kluckenbill -> (7/30/2001 7:08:00 AM)

Well, I'm 7 games into a German WW2 campaign, plus I've played a few scenario's. I suppose I've fired my MG34's a few thousand times by now and I believe that 6.1 is far and away the best representation yet of how small arms should work. I've had very few cases where an MG caused more than 4 casualties at a time, and rather rarely more than 2. Multiple casualties have always been on troops in the open at short range, either disorganized or surprised. I've found MG34's effective out to about 8 hexes and rifles out to about 5 hexes. This seems very realistic to me. I've also found both MGs and rifles almost totally unable to inflict casualties on dug-in troops beyond 2 or 3 hexes. They do add a bit of suppression, but no casualties; again, this seems very realistic to me. I'll admit that I griped a lot about the relative strength or weakness of infantry and their weapons in earlier version of SPEWAW, but 6.1 is FANTASTIC !



Possum -> (7/30/2001 7:29:00 AM)

Hello All. I'm satisfied too with the way machineguns now work. At last, I feel that LMG and MMG teams have a valid Reason for existance! A thought. If you charged a company of German Infantry across 400 meters of open ground against 4 emplaced Vickers HMG's, How many Germans do you thing would make it to bayonet range of the HMG's? (Answer = None. Think about the horrendous casualty rates inflicted on attacking troops in WW 1 by HMG's alone.) In WW 1 it was considered suicide to attack 4 HMG's across 400m of open ground with merly a company of troops. You'd need to start with at least a batallion to even have a chance of getting a platoon's worth of men into bayonet range on those 4 HMG's; one squad per HMG, as you'd need to assault all 4 HMG's at the same time to avoid them supporting each other. So no, I don't thing that the MG is too powerful. I think it has been restored to the terror weapon that it was in reality!



Belisarius -> (7/30/2001 10:59:00 PM)

Paul, so it was like I thought then. Not all casualties are actual kills. But this raises another q: In campaigns, all casualties are gone and lost forever, aren't they? :confused:



Fredde -> (7/31/2001 3:21:00 AM)

Just to add a little more to the "number game" above. A turn is a representation of several minutes of combat, a MG crew which has a lot of "shots" is better at pumping out rounds than one with a low number of "shots". Let's say the turn is about three minutes long (it varies depending on the situation), and split that time into 6 segments or something (for a very skilled crew with a good gun).. then you have still plenty of time to fire many of those one second bursts to high effect. There are so many WWII accounts to read. Note the fear of the MG, and how one well-placed MG can hold up large infantry forces. Much time and effort was/is spent to place the infantry support weapons right, and that is because they are very effective. I find the casualties from 6.1 very realistic in comparison. The random swings with high casualties can be a surprised unit, a unit crossing a dangerous patch of clear land etc etc. If you look at the relative effects, before 6.1 infantry squads have no problems shooting it out with an MG crew and longer ranges (500 m +) and winning. Not anymore.. machine guns are the deadly weapon they are supposed to be.



Fabs -> (8/1/2001 4:08:00 AM)

I sympatize with Colonel Von Blitz, but I'm afraid that I am 100% behind the way version 6.1 deals with the power of MGs. One simply has to choose more circumspect tactics. This goes a long way to explain why it took a long time to get the smallest thing done on WWII battlefields. You just had to be careful! As for Khan 7s observations, here and in other threads, I have been following SPWAW since its beginning and had been with its predecessor, the Steel Panther series for a few years before that. It was always understood that the objective of the game designers was to provide a game system that was enjoyable, flexible and gave a reasonable approximation of what WWII tactical level combat was like. The early series was somewhat lacking in this respect, but Matrix has done a great job and has refined the simulation, within the limits of the game engine, quite spectacularly. His diatribes are totally outside of this context, even when, occasionally, he may be making a valid point. The game that portrays reality in the precise and minute detail that he seems to relish, if it exists, runs on massive machines for the benefit of high ranking officers in some powerful rich country's army. We ordinary gamers have to make do with PC technology and software, and guys sweating for the love of the game and no money to produce the programs that allow us to enjoy this simulation. I for one think they have done and continue to do a tremendous job, and wouldn't mind betting that the results of the same engagement played out in this system or the hypothetical super-sophisitcated Big Cheese game system wouldn't be miles apart. That's good enough for me.



m10bob -> (8/1/2001 5:16:00 AM)

Khan is correct that if given the situation and time to set up an ambush,a force would be foolish to not take advantage of it with pre-planned fire zones,fire-stakes,and seperate exit areas.These would allow the intended ambushers time to be steady in their resolve.(Good troops just don't have a lot of time nor situation to be less discriminate if given the opportunity)...This considered,i still endorse the realism portayed by the MG's in this version of SPWAW..Also,i cannot think of a better "non-military" forum anywhere attended to by such a large group of intelligent people intent on the preservation of history beyond "games-sake"......Magnificent...bob :)



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.691406