Machineguns
 

Is it not possible to code the automatic unit behaviour so that tanks would not shoot at other heavily armored vehicles with machineguns? It's futile and it's a nuisance. If you ever counted how much time it consumes during an average battle you'd be suprised. And tanks do not shoot tanks with MGs!

I really hope this gets fixed soon if it's only possible - this has bugged me since the first SP.

Re: Machineguns
 

Actually, tanks do shoot tanks with mg's and it is very useful, both in the real world and in the game.

Getting hosed down with mg's forces the crew to button up, which limits their ability to observe the battlefield around them and react to events in it.
While this less of an issue in the most modern mbt's which has advanced c3i, here the advantage of using mg's (in the real world) is to damage these, often vulnerable, systems. Again to reduce the situational awareness of the crew being fired at.

Narwan

Re: Machineguns
 

Hi Exel!

This point pops up every now and then, and there are aready some easy answers:

First, you can deactivate individual weapons on individual units, so if you want a tank not to fire its cmg, turn it off and it won't. A pain to do this on a large scale, but well...

Secondly, there IS an advantage in firing small arms at 50in.-steel tanks. Even when unhurt, the crews gain suppression every time their AFV gets hit. So even if you have no AT weapons, you can pebble a tank senselessly until it takes fright and runs away! You can even expect a track hit and immobilisation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
This being why infantry squads also fire their rifles at tanks.

So shooting at over-armored units can prove useful indeed.

Anyway, I don't think you should expect any big code overhaul over this very point. I'll let the designers talk about this,so you'll see by yourself.

Mmh, talking about this, maybe twiddling in some switchable and parameterized 'no-effect' limit under which units won't fire since they don't have a chance (with input like speed, stabilizer, armor, hit prob., etc.)... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Machineguns
 

No, you do not shoot at a tank with an MG. If you do that, you will only alarm the enemy tank that they are indeed under fire (if, for example the first main gun round missed and they didn't notice it), plus you will reveal your own position had the enemy not yet seen you.

For these same reasons it is pointless, even stupid, for infantry units to fire at tanks with small arms. Suppression of the tank crew and its sub-systems is not something your average crunchie would think about if faced with an MBT - buttoning up the enemy crew or disabling the commander's periscope is not worth his life. Firing at armored vehicles with small arms that have no or very little chance of actually causing damage is something you would do in panic, from close range. So add those to the panic fire codes, but remove from standard behaviour.

Although I do admit that training, morale, etc. play a factor here. Iraqis have reportedly tried to attack M1A2s with their assault rifles. But again, that's not something you'd expect from a well-trained force that knows what they are doing.

Disabling the tank MGs is not really an option, since that would also exclude the tank from firing at soft targets (reactive fire).

Re: Machineguns
 

Yes you do. Not always, I agree with that. If the enemy hasn't spotted you yet it may indeed be better not to. But when he has or you can assume he is about to, you should let loose with all you have.

Infantry was (and possibly still is) trained to fire away with all available weapons when engaging armor. Unless they are operating under the same conditions I mentioned above, ie not yet spotted or not about to be and want to 'sneak attack' the tank.
Not all shoot outs between infantry and armor are 'sneak attacks' by unspotted infantry.

Also remember that game covers the whole period from 1946 to 2020 so tactics of the earlier years should also be incorporated in the game.

Re: Machineguns
 

As I said, in a "panic" situation you would still let loose with all you've got. But it's not the standard procedure for tanks to engage other tanks with MGs. If you have to do that, you're already screwed.

As a side note, many modern MBTs, like the Leopard 2 series, can't even engage with their MG when they are loading since the gun tube is raised for loading. And firing with the MG at a tank is never an alternative for loading the main gun. And once you've loaded, you will engage with your main gun, again not with the MG.

If they are spotted and engaged, lack any cover and don't have any place to cover or hide in the vicinity, then that would make sense. Otherwise the best option for them is to disengage - and keep their heads down and hide! If they lack AT weapons that is, and what point would they have in engaging with small arms if they had true AT capability?

The best option would imo be to have the small arms fire as an option when ordered. But I doubt we can have a separate "fire with all weapons" command in SPMBT.

Re: Machineguns
 

...and this is the reason to much of these "bugs" in unit behaviour and weapon balance.
I agree with Exel, engaging a tank(IFV or wathever) with small arms is just silly. You dont expose your position to something that can make mincemeat of you in seconds, its just common sense.

Re: Machineguns
 

The only time I've heard of tanks firing their MG on other tanks IRL is a process called "dusting" (Standard USMC doctrine, I assume the Army is the same way)

Dusting is when you fire on a friendly tank to knock-off any enemy infantry that has climbed on to it.

It game terms, I'd keep using MG due to suppression factors.

Re: Machineguns
 

MG and small arms fire cause an AFV to button up and enough of it adds surpression to the crew, only a bit but sometimes that is enough to cause a change in behaviour.

It also adds surpression to any infantry in the hex as well ( spotted OR unspotted ) so it's neither "pointless", "stupid" OR "silly"

It's also not going to change.http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Don

Re: Machineguns
 

If applied to personal survival yes, if applied to formations no. Engaging tanks with whatever is available may distract them enough (through buttoning/suppressing them and drawing their fire) to give your AT assets time make the kills (for example when 3 tanks are moving at an infantry platoon without at weapons and a single antitank gun (or atgm) close behind them has to do all the 'tank killing'). By doing something against common sense they may actually end up saving their own butts!
These are valid tactics (and are used), especially for units lacking the heavy kill capacity (in quality and quantity) of modern and mostly western nations (in past, present and future).

For heavy MBT's to engage other heavy MBT's with both the main armament and coax mg's might not always make sense and sometimes even be counterproductive. I completely agree with that but that's just AI limits I guess. And while firing the mg's might increase the chance of being detected and fired upon, raking the unit with mg fire reduces the chance of them spotting you, so there's a small comfort there.

Re: Machineguns
 

In the context of the game when I have my AFVs pop up from behind a hill to engage the enemy I usually turn off of MG. I find I can take more main gun shots before drawing reactive this way.

I'm usually playing the numerically inferior but technologicaly superior side. If I'm trying to take down 2 Abrams tanks with a bunch of T-55s I'll cut loose with everything.

Re: Machineguns
 

Well, the "feature" won't change, so I see no reason to debate against it. I personally hate it, seeing as firing away with a weapon that has TRACERS one a single tank is silly as hell. You'd need a loader or commander out the cupola to fire the MG (if its not coax), and the gunner would be left down there to shoot the main gun. It's like shootin' infantry with M72 AP. Yeah, it can be done, but you're not accomplishing a heck lot with it. Except with the M72 you could rip a body in two and... oh, damn, gross. You get my point.
IMO, this feature is wrong and the suppression it adds is a horrible nuisance. WWI, I could understand. WWII, certainly to an extent. Post that, decreasing to a close to zero over time.
There is that neat way to turn off the MG, though it is very flawful. Well, not flawful, just not thorough enough; If an infantry section pops by, you would really like to fire at'em with the MG.
Imagine a very simple menu... you right-click on a tank, and there are the weapons listed as now. However, there is a tiny button on the left of the name, which upon clicking gives you a short list of the alternatives: Tanks, Infantry, Aircraft. You could mark boxes or leave unmarked, depending on which you wanted to attack with that weapon. Or rather, a much more comprehensive list, which would include helicopters, soft vehicles, etc. By default, all could be marked. But enough dreaming.

Another tiny thing that frustrates the bloody hell out of me, and which IS very unrealistic: Tiny vehicles go first!!
Any NATO vs Warzaw-campaign. You line up your tanks and wait, and what do you see coming...? The BTRs! Floods and floods of APCs, trucks, utility vehicles, leaving all your units exhausted from firing (though merry from hitting). And then... Dah dah DA, enter the heavy tanks! The spearheading bastards are now left without any fire in response of their maneuvering, except perhaps for a few scattered MG rounds. Jeeebus... The tanks are normally s'posed to go first!

Re: Machineguns
 

SCA, actually Soviet Doctrine has Recon versions of BMP's go first, just as M3 Bradleys lead US armored formations. If the balloon every went up, the Brads and Bumps would be the light-weight matchup that precedes the title fight.

Re: Machineguns
 

I'm sure **EVERYONE KNOWS** that if you pick a unit and press "W" you can select any of the four weapons you want without having to turn OFF any of the others and that way you do not have to fire "un-necessary" weapons

Don

Re: Machineguns
 

Are you talking generated battle or scenario here?

In the first case, remember that tiny vehicles are often faster, so if the IA deploys everyone on one line, which it will certainly do, the light APCs are bound to rush in faster than the tracks and tanks. Best remedy is to reduce the range of your heavy AT units (tanks, ATGMs, helos) until the big stuff comes up, and suppress/kill the small ones with artillery and support weapons. Particularly in a defense mission where all your units are entrenched you lose nothing at letting them come up to you first!

Sorry to insist on that Don, but apparently what both Jolly and Exel had on their minds was a feature that would restrict said weapons, just like the one existing, but according to the category of target. That sounds awful to do indeed, for both programmers and players (for every unit, carefully ticking what weapon to fire on what target...)

One easier way to do so would be to choose between "sure damage" and "all weapons", following whether you want to fire the least shots with the bigger PK or blaze away with everything to pin the guys down.

Now I guess everyone can do with the current feature! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Machineguns
 

Let's suppose you have a tank with

1)main gun
2)ATGM
3)machine gun
4)machine gun


You see an enemy tank and, after select it as a target, you hit "w" key

at this point you can select weapon number 2 and fire, then, if the shot bounce off or miss, hit again "w" and select weapon number 1 that will have at least 1-3 available shot after the ATGM try...


This will prevent any machine gun fire at all.


If you see and infantry team you will have not a single problem cuz when you fire, tha main gun will load with he ammo and the machine gun will fire after the main gun.


I think this is a good way to manage this and also give lot of control over the battle!

Re: Machineguns
 

The use of MGs have been used for range finding. By applying this technique for the game, you can actually improve your hitting %. This is a fun way of playing the game. Here is a quote about the use of this technique, and the site.

"The Chieftain solved the problem of ranging the main gun by using a ranging machine gun with similar ballistic characteristics as the cannon. When the machine gun rounds hit the target, the gunner could be reasonably assured that his cannon round will hit."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../chieftain.htm

Re: Machineguns
 

REalistically, in battle I think a tank crew, if within range, would fire everything it had at an opposing tank. Hearing the clatter of MG fire on the hull or turret has to be unnerving, I would think.

I've never been in a tank fight and am not sure of the official doctrine. But like so many other instance, when guns are blazing and men are falling, sometimes one's reflex to survive kicks in and if he has any means to deter death, he will use it.

Wild Bill

Re: Machineguns
 

Holy Cow! Wild Bill... I used to download your scenarios back in the 90's for Steel Panthers 2! You have been around since the beginning. I think that the MG suppression is accurately portrayed in the game. At least for the actual/original Steel Panthers experience. Anyhow, it's nice to see you around. (Hope 400 wasn't too bad this evening) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Machineguns
 

This is all true, but in that case the MG would be fired first to get the range right and the main gun would then be fired for effect.

You would only do that in a close quarters "panic" situation, as I said earlier. There is absolutely no point in gunning a main battle tank 2500 meters away with a 7.62mm peashooter that is not even going to hit (it wont, since the coax MG is meant for area fire).

Besides, unless you are at full charge, once you see the enemy you are supposed to fire the main gun, pull out of sight and reload, then pop up again (preferably in another spot), fire and rince and repeat until the target is no more. Of course this depends a lot on the terrain and the given tactical situation, but that's the basics. In any case you are not supposed to lie still visible to the enemy while reloading the gun and wait for retaliatory fire.

I'm sure it isn't an impossible task to code the weapons behaviour so that small arms (with 0 AP capability) are not fired at heavy armored vehicles.

Re: Machineguns
 

Hi Exel, I understand what you are getting at. But look at it this way: It is a feature that will stay. So, perhaps you can think of ways that you can use it functionally/ strategically for gameplaying. For increasing hitting %, try this: 'T' arget your opponent. You will know what your primary(1) weapon's hitting % is. If you do not like it's %, then: 'T'arget your opponent, stay on your unit (click on it), hit your 'W'eapon to choose secondary (2,3, or 4) weapon. Then, 'F'ire your secondary weapon to target! You will notice an increase to your hitting % on your primary weapon (the one that counts!). You may be surprised, but the tactic that I wrote of, in the previous post, really is something that has been used by not just the UK, but by many armies the world over. Hopefully this may help. Otherwise, for the game and the fame: Hit them with anything! Suppress your enemy! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Machineguns
 

A quick comment on this subject, although not in a manner that is related to WinSPMBT.

Machine Gun fire is so ineffective against tanks that it is common practice to "scratch the back" of a friendly tank. If a tanker sees enemy infantry on or around a friendly tank, he will spray machine gun fire around the friendly tank with the hope of killing the enemy infantry knowing full well that the rounds will not harm the friendly tank. Now, granted, it may cut off a radio antenna, knock out a tail light, or something similar, but it won't injure the crew or lessen the tank's combat effectiveness.

An example of this can be found here.

Re: Machineguns
 

I think this is a pretty unconstructive way to develop a game. I can understand if it simply can't be done, which I doubt, but saying that it wont change because "it just wont" is not really adequate. At least give a reason why not.

Re: Machineguns
 

Read through this thread and you will understand why not...

Re: Machineguns
 

There hasn't been a single explanation as to why it couldn't be done, other than "it's always been like that" and "it wont change". If there is no real reason not to change it, then it should be changed.

Re: Machineguns
 

Either you are not reading all the posts or you are choosing to ignore posts you disagree with. I answered this right near the beginning of this thread

================================================== =========
"MG and small arms fire cause an AFV to button up and enough of it adds surpression to the crew, only a bit but sometimes that is enough to cause a change in behaviour.

It also adds surpression to any infantry in the hex as well ( spotted OR unspotted )
================================================== ==========

Obviously you don't consider this augument worthwhile but I do.

I have also pointed out you can easily bypass firing your MG's by pressing "W" first then select your main gun only and you don't have to worry about firing the MG's.

Don

Re: Machineguns
 

You are right. I don't consider it a reason not to change it, since that is simply an explanation of how the game works atm. That doesn't change the fact that it is A) unrealistic B) majorly annoying.

While it is a handy tool, the AI doesn't use it and neither can it be used with reactive fire. So the problem remains. As it is, each tank on tank engagement (meaning each and every shot fired!) takes up three times as long thanks to the largely futile machinegun firing. Multiply that with 4 (the average number of shots per tank per round), then by the number of tanks in the engagement, and you'll get the time consumed each turn in an action that ought not to happen in the first place.