|
Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
My concern is that HMG area fire (Z-fire) is much too effective.
For suppression, HMGs are 7 times more effective than infantry, and somewhere between 3.5 and 9 times more effective than artillery, depending on if you look at one turn or the potential by available ammo. Comparing the ability to suppress 120 points buys: 6 Infantry sections or 4 Medium Artillery guns or 6 HMG units (12 HMGs) 6 Infantry sections Ammo: 6x160=960 Z-fire uses 2 ammo (1 infantry section), total hexes suppressed:.........2 1 turn (6 infantry sections with 6 attacks) total hexes suppressed:......72 All ammo (6 infantry sections) total hexes suppressed:......................960 4 Medium Artillery guns Ammo: 4x30=120 Z-fire or indirect fire uses 1 ammo (one gun), total hexes suppressed:..7 1 turn (4 guns with 5 attacks) total hexes suppressed:.......................140 All ammo (4 guns) total hexes suppressed:....................................... 840 6 HMG units (12 HMGs) Ammo: 12x90=1080 Z-fire uses 2 ammo (1 unit, 2 HMGs) total hexes suppressed:..............14 1 turn (6 HMG units with 6 attacks) total hexes suppressed:................504 All ammo (6 HMG units) total hexes suppressed:................................7,560 Some observations Every time you z-fire with a HMG unit of 2 HMGs, you use 2 ammo, and get 2 z-fire attacks, and each attack affects 7 hexes, for a total of 14 affected. Other units, like infantry, use 2 ammo for 2 z-fire attacks, and each attack affects only 1 hex, for a total of 2 hexes affected. In ONE turn, 6 HMG units have the ability to suppress almost as many hexes as a troop of medium artillery using their ENTIRE ammo supply! If a unit uses all their ammo on z-fire, a HMG section costing 20 points can z-fire into 1,260 hexes. An infantry section costing 20 points, using rifles and LMG, can only z-fire into 160 hexes. An artillery gun costing 30 points can fire into/suppress 210 hexes. Fire power: Infantry verses HMGs Let’s compare the fire power of an infantry section to the fire power of 2 HMGs: A 10 man infantry section with 8 rifles and 1 LMG should be able to fire about 660 rpm. This allows for a 500 rpm LMG and 20 rpm per rifle (The ‘mad minute’ was a 15-30 rpm of aimed fire). Two HMGs would be able to fire 900-2400 rpm, depending on the MGs. Worst case scenario, two HMGs could fire 4 times the rounds of an infantry section (but it may only be 50% more) giving them 1.5 to 4 times the suppressive ability? In SP HMGs can suppress 7 times that of an infantry section. Instant Artillery Mass z-fire of area weapons, like HMGs, gives you instant artillery. You can immediately cause mass suppression in large areas of the map with no 2-3 turn plot wait time and relatively unlimited ammo. Some players have figured this out, and the battlefield is now often subject to endless z-fire during the replays. 10% Artillery Limit I think the game developers have done an excellent job of making artillery balanced and challenging. In fact the 10% artillery limit - that most PBEM players still insist on - has long been redundant. I say buy as much artillery as you like, it’s expensive, you have to wait 2-3 turns, and not that effective unless you have a LOS FOO (who is also expensive). The new PBEM limit should be HMGs. Either limit HMGs to 2% of the total force, or allow them to only fire 1 or 2 z-fires per turn. Concluding Thoughts I understand that HMGs are powerful weapons, changing the nature of warfare in WWI and all that. But shouldn’t the greatest suppressive power be artillery, second HMGs and lastly infantry sections? And wasn’t the real danger of HMGs ‘direct fire’? HMGs were deadly if you were caught in the open, but artillery should be more dangerous and suppressive than HMGs if you are unseen or have ‘gone to ground’. Possible Solutions Reduce double HMGs z-fire area from 14 hexes to 7. This would still be 3.5 times what an infantry section is capable of, which is about right; and about equal to artillery. Though, artillery will still be more expensive, have a slower rate of fire, and far less ammo. But what to do about single HMGs? Another idea would be to give HMGs a huge ammo penalty for firing z-fire; perhaps using 4 to 6 ammo per z-fire. Anyone have any other thoughts or ideas? --- Cross |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
I seem to remember that many "house rules" say "no z fire at all".
|
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Your comment about HMGs made me look not like you to get things wrong.
1) All weapons regardless of type use one ammo per fire. 2) Hexes effected per fire is the max assumes wildly inacuarte, double MMG for instance normaly hit same or adjacent hexes for 7-10 effected. 3) Infantry can effect up to 3 hexes if in range & have 3 Z fire capable weapons, assuming 4th is grenade so could Z fire with 4 weapons adjacent. 4) Double HMG therefore can effect 2X7 overlaping hexes & an arty piece 1x7. Both can also effect one more hex if in rifle range. They seem to work about right in my book get the odd map where MMGs are worth their weight in gold stopping you cold. Luckily you can guess there positions most times & as they are crewed weapons tend not to be happy campers when arty hits them. If people are abusing add a house rule realistic numbers, depending on formation/nation thats a max of 1-3 per company in most cases. Thats singles if you want doubles then buy so number of MGs is correct. Cheaper than 2 singles but less flexible & easier to spot & hit. |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Hi John,
1) You are right. One ammo per fire, not sure what made me think 2 ammo for three fires? I adjusted my hex totals in the op. But this still means HMG/MMGs (tri-pod mounted) can suppress 9 times the number of hexes than artillery costing the same amount! 2) Hexes affected per fire is the max for infantry, artillery and HMGs, and are wildly inaccurate for all three, so how's this relevant? If a HMG hits the same or adjacent hex in their second fire, the fire still affects 7 hexes each time, so 14 hexes are still effected. If one hex is affected twice, any unit in that hex may suffer double suppression. 3) Infantry with rifle-grenades may fire z-fire at range 3, and HMGs and artillery with rifles may also fire additional z-fire, but this is irrelevant to my point. 4) Double HMGs can effect 14 hexes and arty 7 hexes. Yet arty only gets about 120 ammo (for 120 points) but HMGs get 1,080 ammo! Yes you can guess HMG locations and hit them with artillery, but HMG locations are far harder to spot and eliminate than arty guns. The only exception could be that HMGs may be closer to the front than artillery. Don't you agree? If we went with your limit of say 2 MGs per company in a 2500 point game, I would probably have about 10MGs (costing about 100 points) and I could spend 250 points (10%) on 8 medium guns. During the battle: My 10 MGs could suppress 6,300 hexes. My 8 guns could suppress 1,680 hexes, and my arty cost 2.5 times as much as the HMGs. Which is my point... Do you really think HMGs should cause tons more suppression than artillery, and cost far less? regards, Cross |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Quote:
I think there's a legitimate place for z-fire, so I'd prefer to limit it in some way. Perhaps another option would be to allow only 1 or 2 z-fires per unit per turn. Better that this was coded into the game, but a pre-battle agreement could suffice. cheers, Cross |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
To a certain extent, I agree with you Cross. Using a 1-gun MG-34 team as an example, they have 90 ammo points. The question is how many rounds does an ammo point equate to. Given a 3-man team, I'm going to take a SWAG at 3,600 rounds, which is probably high given they the machine gun, tripod and other personal arms and equipment to carry. For the machine gun ammo alone, that gives us over just 200lbs. The math of 3,600 rounds/90 ammo points gives us 40 rounds per ammo point. Assuming the rounds distribute evenly between the target hex and adjacent hexes that gives us 5-6 rounds per hex. In just one shot, it is questionable how much suppression would be caused by 5-6 unaimed rounds. There is an intangible factor to consider, however. Is the mere sound of an machine gun firing cause suppression? More than likely, yes. The US Army had a training film about the MG-42 during WWII because of its reputation. Soldiers hear machine guns firing and they may go to ground first and then try to find out if it is firing at them. This is the equivalent of suppression.
If anything, suppression and damage from a machine gun or any direct fire small arms weapon would likely occur down range from the target. This would be more of a case at close range, when gravity and wind resistance hasn't had much time to impact the flight of the round. Close to the firing weapon, the bullet trajectory is relatively flat. If a machine gun fires at a target at 200m, more than likely rounds that don't hit home will proceed hundreds of meters further before they actually hit the ground and will certainly be traveling fast enough to kill. To fire at longer ranges, you must elevate the barrel to put rounds on targets so at 1000m, more than likely the only hex that would be impacted is the target hex. Now, the short range impact on down range targets certainly would be affected by terrain. Firing down a hill at someone at the base would keep rounds from going beyond the target hex, where firing from the bottom of a hill at a unit up top would send the bullets into the air. Certainly a difficult programming proposition. With respect to the artillery and machine guns, the apples and oranges comparison comes to mind. If both were intended to just cause suppression, you might be correct. Artillery and other indirect fire weapons can do much more. All types are capable if killing open topped armored vehicles. This is unlikely to occur with a machine gun unless it has an elevation advantage. With a large enough artillery round, it make even destroy a closed top armored vehicle. This can all be done in relative safety from a distance and behind a hill. Some might even have AP or HEAT rounds, giving them the ability to engage armor directly. All of these reason are why artillery costs more than machine guns. In this comparison between artillery and machine guns, my experience has had artillery more likely to damage/destroy HMG teams than HMG teams damaging/destroying artillery units. Back to the concept of suppression, did you actually run tests to determine how much suppression was caused? Based on the math, there is no doubt that a HMG team can impact more hexes with its standard ammunition payload, but what about the difference in warhead size? Without tests, there is no conclusive way to tell what the true difference really is. |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
The simple answer is if probably if someone abuses it dont play them again., if they feilded loads of size zero units or other similar silly tactics you probably wouldnt.
Picking nits & sowing discord. Double Mgs should be compared to their conterpart, double mortars probably 80mm the closest. MG probably costs about 2/3rds 3/4s the mortars price. Similar rates of fire Mortar probably has the edge on kill & range. It can fire anywhere within range with planing rather than restricted Z fire hexes. Can fire smoke (thats worth a lot) & is more effective in cover terrain as bigger warhead. Its slower & has less ammo. I fire mortars/arty with one goal only realy & thats suppresion any damage caused is a bonus. MGs I fire generaly to damage but preferably at a target with an adjacent one, covering open ground very effective or vs that pesky ATG. That said if I Z fire anything I look to my MGs first but only if needed as I think the arty missed or whatever. What I am trying to say is most players I have come across dont Z fire them every turn they use z fire sensibly. That said in a flexible system like this there will always be those that abuse it but most people use the tools correctly. |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Here are some test results related to the current discussion.
First, the parameters of the test. I tested using a 1-gun MG-34 HMG team and a 10.5cm K331(f) howitzer. My firing nation was the Germans in June, 1944. American troops obliged by presenting a mass target at 750m. One squad was in every hex within 150m of target center. Three test cases were used: Direct Fire, Z Fire, Indirect Fire (10.5cm howitzer only). A test was run by taking one shot and the suppression of each of the American units in the seven impacted hexes was check. The suppression of all units is totaled. Each test was run 5 times and an average of the total suppression is generated. Finally, the average suppression of each unit in the impact zone is listed. The number of casualties generated the five tests is also listed. In the indirect fire test, only one round was fired. This was accomplished by firing off all but one round before calling the indirect fire in. Direct Fire 10.5cm Howitzer: 53 Tot Sup Pts - 7.57 Sup/Sqd - 3 Casualties MG-34: 38.6 Tot Sup Pts - 5.51 Sup/Sqd - 1 Casualty Z Fire 10.5cm Howitzer: 21.6 Tot Sup Pts - 3.09 Sup/Sqd - 0 Casualties MG-34: 17.8 Tot Sup Pts - 2.54 Sup/Sqd - 0 Casualties Indirect Fire 10.5cm Howitzer: 50.8 Tot Sup Pts - 7.26 Sup/Sqd - 0 Casualties My understanding was the root comparison was between machine Z Fire vs Artillery Indirect Fire. In this case, one artillery round produced 2.85 points of suppression for each point produced by an MG-34 HMG ammo point expended. Now for some more math: MG-34 HMG: 17.8 Tot Sup Pts * 90 Ammo Pts = 1602 Suppression for ALL Ammo 10.5cm Howitzer: 50.8 Tot Sup Pts * 30 Rounds = 1524 Suppression for ALL Rounds MG-34 HMG: 1602 Sup for Ammo/17 Purchase Pts = 94.24 Sup/Purchase Pt 10.5cm Howitzer: 1524 Sup for Ammo/22 Purchase Pts = 69.27 Sup/Purchase Pt With this information, it can be shown that the machine gun is worth more in suppression than the howitzer is, if they fire all of their ammunition. The caveat is the howitzer can achieve their max suppression with indirect fire faster than the machine gun can using Z Fire. In this case, the howitzer has 10 turns of ammo and the machine gun has 15 turns. There are certain delays that have to be taken into account, but they cut both ways. Artillery has the FO delay waiting for rounds to hit, where as the machine gun has to wait for a target to get into range(either physical range or where Z Fire can be used). I'm not sure that imbalance is as great as first indications seemed to imply. You get more suppression points from the machine gun for points spent, but inflict more casualties with artillery. At least that is how it seems from this abbreviated test. Without a doubt, the howitzer has the ability to kill medium closed topped AFVs when an HMG can't. Another factor is the target's ability to shed suppression. The quicker suppression can be inflicted on a target, the more likely it will persist into next turn. The howitzer has the edge here as well. Overall, in my opinion, if they are used as intended both are cost effective. Grazing fire from a machine gun is one thing they can do. Suppressing fire from artillery is one they can do as well. But both have other different capabilities that don't really overlap and it is difficult to properly compare those aspects. |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Hi Ray,
I agree that attempting to compare HMGs with artillery is ‘apples and oranges’. I will run a few tests of my own, and see what I come up with. John, You seem to support the status-quo, but make a couple of interesting remarks: "The simple answer is if probably if someone abuses it dont play them again." What is the abuse of z-fire? You appear to answer this question in the following statement: "What I am trying to say is most players I have come across dont Z fire them every turn they use z fire sensibly." Why is z-firing a MG every turn not sensible? What I’m saying is, that if HMG z-fire is correct then how can it be abused? Do we accuse players of abusing artillery when they fire it every turn? Why not? In the end, does the game ‘feel right’? When we have to fabricate agreements not to overuse (abuse) a weapon, that’s about a big as sign as you are going to get that something is out of kilter. regards, Cross |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Simon
You seemed to imply people are overusing MGs in Z fire & perhaps buying in bulk specifically for that purpose, abuse is therefore if it offends your sensibilitys. My current games I have 8 & 9 MGs (2 & 3 per Co) & I would estimate Z fire use by them per turn at 1-2 the others are either moving to position or firing at targets when of course area suppresion applies. As said have had maps where I have been locked down by heavy AA & MG use representitive of No Mans Land in WW1. Some people Z fire a lot including squads which does spoil attacks & slow the game down. However once you realise the intel gained is invaluable so feints etc are the order of the day & you have confirmed arty targets. Certainly in a modern game with abundant transport it normaly does the reciever far more good than the firer in my view on most terrain. As you said I am happy with how they work & costs are good enough. perhaps if you wanted a change & it was possible which I doubt MGs should use 2 ammo when Z firing to represent heavy use beating the area. |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
John,
I took your advice and decided to compare double 8cm mortars with the double MG42. These may be a good comparison because: Both cost: 25 points Both have two main weapons in slot 1 & 2 Both have 8 men Both size 1 Both very common Both have similar ranges: 2400/2200yds Both have similar KILL ratings: 11/10 I z-fired the mortars and HMGs 10 times each, into unsuppressed (or suppression 1) group of US infantry. I made sure the accuracy of the hits were equal. The results were remarkably similar: 8cm Mortars Target infantry suffered an average suppression of 10.4 Surrounding (splash) infantry an average suppression of 3.9 MG42 Target infantry suffered an average suppression of 12.4 Surrounding (splash) infantry an average suppression of 4.3 *One casualty was sustained in the target hex of the MG z-fire. Although my test gave the MG a slight edge, it was a limited test, so I consider these results as close enough to make no difference. For arguments sake let’s assume 8cm mortars and MG42s are identical in their suppressive ability, as well as in the criteria listed above. However, two issues make the MG the superior suppression weapon: 1. Rate of Fire The MG has double the RoF of the mortar: 6 vs 3 2. Ammunition The MG has more than double the ammo: 180 vs 80 --- Again, we are talking about indirect non-LoS fire here. I am not suggesting that we limit the direct fire ability of MGs at all. They are, and should be deadly in direct fire mode; but they should not be at least twice as effective as artillery when used for indirect fire. I agree with you that to have MGs use double ammo for z-fire (representing the additional ammo used when firing blindly) would be a step in the right direction. Another possibility may be to limit z-fire to 2 or 3 times a turn (representing barrel overheat or the extra time/ammo needed for indirect fire). I would love to see both implemented. :) regards, Simon |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Just to clarify the ROF thing.
Lets assume arty is mainly used plotted & not Z firing which you might do with Light Mtrs perhaps in some cases SPMTRS or in desperation in self defence. The mortar will then have a higher rate of fire at small call times so for all intents & purposes the ROF is about the same. On cost you could flip the argument & say the mortars ability to be directed & fire smoke are quite cheap. Balanced by lower speed & ammo which if you wish can be compensated for by buying a truck or some ammo resupply. Of course this makes arty effectivly expensive as it needs a supply train & observer to operate effectivly over time. |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
You are right about the RoF for plotted, and the damage/suppression would be far greater for plotted fire. Which makes me feel a lot better about MG z-fire situation.
Another thing that makes feel better is the fact that infantry z-fire suppresses the target hex about 10.1, and infantry have 2 target hexes. Compared to MGs which suppress the target hex just a little more and the splash hexes only about 3 or 4 each. Which means MG are not suppressing far more than they should be when compared to infantry rpm. regards, Simon |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Quote:
The ammunition issue you bring up here is interesting. Let’s assume you are right, that 90 ammo units equals 3,600 rounds. Then one ammo unit equals 40 rounds. Suppression If one ammo unit equals 40 rounds of ammunition then that’s a two second burst by a MG42 firing 1200 rpm or a 3 second burst by a 800 rpm MG34. That burst would give the target hex about 13 rounds of ammo and the other hexes about 4 rounds each. Each round would roughly translate to a suppression point. A MG can suppress 7 hexes with the use of one ammo unit. The target hex gets about one third of that suppression and the 6 splash hexes get 2/3. With six bursts, this would be a total of 12-18 seconds of firing over the course of a 2-3 minute turn. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. The sound of a HMG firing in my direction would be enough for me to get my head down, or go to ground if I was moving, regardless of the fact that it’s not aimed fire. And even though it may be only a few rounds coming into your area, it’s not like the suppression is high. Ammunition load-out The other issue raised is ammunition load-out. If a 3 or 4 man MG section is carrying 3,600 rounds, then that is a bit high. [/BritishUnderstatement] German MG ammo boxes were 250 rounds per box. Each box weighed 8.35kg or 18.4 pounds. That’s 14 boxes of ammo weighing 117kg or 258 pounds. The MG probably weighs about 25 lbs the tri-pod about 45 lbs then there’s extra barrels, rifles etc. I would say that each man wouldn’t be carrying more than 2 boxes of ammo, and the guys carrying the MG and tri-pod could only carry one. This means realistic ammo carried for 1 MG: 3 man crew: 1000 rounds (25 ammo units) 4 man crew: 1500 rounds (38 ammo units) 6 man crew: 2500 rounds (63 ammo units) Perhaps a solution to the incessant chatter of MG z-fire is to bring down the ammo load-out to a more realistic level. If someone really wants to lean on constant MG suppression then make them pay for additional ammo canisters or ammo trucks. Cross |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Simon if this is aimed at reducing people using Z machine gun fire cant see it helping, may well subject you to more for the short term.
Ammo loadout has an effect on unit cost so the unit will become cheaper so those that like to fire them will just buy more. Admitedly to buy the same amount of ammo as carried now would cost more overall as purchasing extra weapons but without trying you could probably get half the ammo & more weapons to fire them for the same cost meaning slightly more selective with it but easier to get where its useful. Reducing rounds to 30 means micro management of targets in direct fire, if you played MBT using GLs you would know about this they do need an ammo resupply pretty fast or to select targets carefully. Reducing ammo loadouts to 60 might be intresting as when defending may well require ammo resupply. I have run out in this situation several times with current loadouts, mind you I have had troops run out a couple of times. I am guessing here but the game assumes a heavy load of ammo for nearly all infantry weapons to stop micromanagement. It does not model picking up more from the APC or that squad that sacrificed a bit of its firepower to drag support weapon ammo about etc. |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Some of this is getting into the realm of what did they really do. The 3,600 rounds was a swag based on information I found with respect to what M-60 machine gun teams supposedly have done. Ammo can be removed from the cans and carried around the neck, but I don't know if the Germans did that or not. It certainly has a down side of getting the ammo dirty and possibly jamming the gun. It would be possible to carry more ammo around the neck because it keeps the hands free, assuming they weren't used to carry more ammo :)
This area could be beat to death. How about a German 81mm Mortar Group moving two mortars, 80 rounds of ammo and personal arms? How much did a mortar round weigh? The lightest American round was 6.87lbs according to Wiki. Assuming the German rounds were in that range, counting the two mortars, you have each man toting 100lbs each, before you count personal equipment. Z Fire in the game is used often in a fairly gamey manner, aided by our overhead view of everything. It is one thing for a unit to Z Fire at someone they saw move to a concealed position, but entirely different if it is used because someone 1km away, without a radio, saw them. It is just the nature of the game. Some realism has to be sacrificed for playability. In reality, they probably didn't pepper areas unless they had personal knowledge someone is there. That is the whole idea behind tracer rounds, so they can tell they are putting rounds where they want. They go out the window if you can't see the impact site. Maybe doing away with Z Fire for locations out of LOS is the answer. The AI doesn't use it anyhow. It could still be used if you can see the target hex, without specifically being able to see a target, but otherwise do away with it. You still keep splash for out of LOS areas to account for ricochets. More than one person has been killed by them. |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
John,
I wasn’t suggesting changing MG ammo load-out from 90 to 30. I agree with you that perhaps 60 would be more sensible, which would still allow a single MG to fire twice a turn for 30 turns, or non-stop for 10 turns. MG Cost A German double MG42 currently costs 25 points. If that unit went from 180 to 120 ammo, my guesstimate is that it may cost about 21 or 22 points; which is hardly a great savings over the current price. And anyway, purchasing limits are much easier to regulate/agree to, than weapon usage. Ammunition Conservation I don’t see ammunition conservation for crew weapons in SP as “micro-management”. Mortars and artillery guns already have very limited ammo supply. Mortars have only 5 turns of ammunition. Why should the similar crewed (tri-pod) MGs get a free ride with 15 turns of ammunition? Though, I understand that 14 or 15 boxes of ammo weigh about 260 lbs compared to 320 lbs for 40 mortar bombs. SP is a wargame that - to some extent - models ammunition supply. One of the major problems and limitations for MG crews was ammunition. They had to learn to husband it, particularly when your weapon can potentially fire off 4 or 5 boxes of ammo (weighing about 80 lbs) in one minute. I think the current climate of firing off tons of MG ammunition in z-fire would certainly be reduced by a more limited ammo supply. Encouraging gamers to sometimes think about husbanding MG ammo - like they already have to with artillery - will only enhance the game. It’s probably all academic anyway. But a good discussion none the less…:) Cross |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
The reason I count front line troops with limited ammo as micro management & not atry is because they tend to opfire. So if ammo is short you have to decide each turn if you want them to & tweak ranges etc.
I have no idea what is a sensible load suggested 60 simply as in meetings ammo should normaly last & might stop the odd extreme range shot to conserve ammo some people take so be more realistic, mind you I like those steel rains a coming. Defend & delays though vs Ruskie Jap human wave attacks the linch pin of your defence is going to run out as its firing constantly trying to hold back the hordes. Oh heck what was plan B. |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Infantry
I remembered an old thread that said rifle ammo units are 1 for 1 round, times the number of rifles in the section; and MG ammo units represent a burst of 5 rounds. But I assume this was for the squad LMG, which would mean it had 450 rounds available. As one turn is about 2-3 minutes, this would mean that infantry are definitely being careful with ammo in firefights. But as you suggested, the game designers probably didn’t want ammo trucks all over the battlefield. MGs I can’t believe the same 1:5 ratio applies to crew MGs because they obviously cause a bit more than 3 times the suppression of a squad LMG, and as a crew served gun you’d expect them to carry and use a lot more ammo. While we are doing all this speculating…let’s run with the 3 times more than LMGs, then perhaps 1 HMG ammo unit equals a burst of 15 rounds, in which case 90 units equals 1,350 rounds. 15 rounds would be a 1 second burst for a MG34. This load-out, of just over 5 boxes of ammo, would also make sense as a reasonable amount that a 4 man crew would carry. Though, 5 boxes are only one minutes worth for a MG42 at full auto. But this would match the conservative use of infantry ammo. Z-fire The game was designed before z-fire was introduced. It could be that HMGs were considered more of an infantry direct fire weapon before z-fire, but are now more of a suppression/support weapon post z-fire, making them more closely aligned to mortars. And as such perhaps they should now suffer the same ammo supply issues as mortars? I don’t know…It’s fun to kick this stuff around, but in the end it’s what makes a better game; and that may be in the eye of the beholder. I think most – but not all - would prefer to limit z-fire, and ammo is certainly a way to do that. Some players would love to see ammo become more of a concern, even for infantry; others would prefer that ammo wasn’t something they had to worry about. But for those who don’t want to run out of ammo, there’s a little button in ‘Preferences’ called “Ammo Limit”, turn it OFF, and you and your opponent can fire z-fire all day long :D Cross |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
limiting Z fire would need some sort of trust & think could exempt troops as only time I tend to do that is moving adjacent on occasion say in woods. The game makes it that inacurate with no LOS can easily pin your own troops which is correct they are blind firing.
Otherwise Z Fire main uses. 1) Firing through smoke normaly towards targets you had a LOS to, what Z fire was mainly introduced to allow I think. 2) MG is in transit misjudged LOS but important so fire anyway hoping splash hits 3) Soft targets in a group in LOS will Z fire if an empty hex may cause more splash especialy if they are running to keep them at it. 4) Firing at a hidden firer as in someone recieved fire from that hex but not visible. 5) If I know an enemy squad made it near my MG will attempt to pin it as the MG will probably not win the close quarters firefight. 6) On odd ocasion if my troops have blundered into others near by may try & pin them to save my troops from counter attack. What I think you are objecting to is blind firing all or nearly all every turn just to fire them, I have not come across this very often seems a rare tactic. Intrestingly as never really thought about all the above with the possible exception of 2 seem reasonable. |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Also do not forget if you wanted real ammo loads, T-72 would get 30 rounds for the 12,7mm MG or so... ;)
This is worthy of another idea though - the .50 weapons usually have pretty low practical RoF and ammo supply, either mobile or mounted, OTOH according to some British study the suppression effect of .50 is HUGE compared to 5.56 and 7.62 (which are not that far away)... Thought of trying to give .50s a WH size of 2 so that they have a different graphic (AC) and bigger suppression (and HE penetration) compared to rifle caliber weapons. BTW also tried a similar approach with snipers, giving the sniper rifle a class of 2 (so that you can do say a sniper team without everyone in the team firing the sniper rifle) and WH 4 (to create a beaten zone) with HE kill of 1... My reasoning was that snipers were also pretty suppressive weapons and that their suppressive effect was often far bigger than factual. |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Thinking about it 2 is acceptable if think of it as has been asked to move up & assist. When he first arrives unsure what hes aiming at so lays a bit of covering fire while getting a handle on the situation.
|
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Quote:
As for the HMG sections, historically these tended to have lots of men to haul the guns and ammo. For example late war German rifle company HMG section would have 18 men, 2 MGs, 2 horse-drawn carts and horse-drawn wagon allocated to it according to the official TOE (with 3 of the men being designated as the cart/wagon drivers). |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Quote:
Bren 1000 MG34 1150 MG42 1150 BAR 640 The Bren, Squad MG34/42 and BAR each have 80 ammo units assigned. But the MG34/42 have about double the KILL value. I assume this is because the German MGs have about double the rate of fire. I think it's sensible that those weapons get higher KILL values, but to achieve that KILL value they should be using up ammo at twice the rate! Currently the Germans get the benefit of their weapons (high rate of fire/KILL) but the allies don’t get the benefit of their weapons (low rate of fire/low ammo usage). If we ignore historical ammo load-outs as ‘paper levels’ - and assume that in reality all squads carried the same amount (as much ammo as was sensible) - but took into account KILL/ammo use, then ammo load-outs might look like this: Bren (kill 5) AMMO: 80 MG34 (kill 8) AMMO: 56 MG42 (kill 10) AMMO: 40 BAR (kill 5) AMMO: 80 If we were to use historical ammo load-outs then they might look like this: Bren (kill 5) AMMO: 67 MG34 (kill 8) AMMO: 48 MG42 (kill 10) AMMO: 38 BAR (kill 5) AMMO: 43 The same KILL/ammo disparity exists for the 30cal tri-pod MGs. The Germans get KILL 10, the US/UK get KILL 5. Cross |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Been a long time since I read anything but if memory serves what made the German MG outstanding was not so much its ROF but more its flexibility. Its used by squads as a LMG or can have good optical sights & tripod fitted.
Practical sustainable ROF was not that diffrent to allied MGs esp if take into account swapping barrels etc but it was the MG of WW2. Also ammo figures quoted are they in squad role seem to remember at least MG42 used in HMG role carried a lot of ammo, possibly they could carry more as for a HMG it was comparitevly light. |
Re: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry
Hi John,
Yes, ammo figures quoted are for squads. I wouldn't call the MG34 any more flexible than other MGs. The Bren was often fitted to mounts and used on vehicles or as an AA weapon. In fact you could pick the Bren up and use it on the move: http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9066/brenq.jpg Now that's flexible! Try doing that with a MG34 ;) As for sustainable rate of fire. You're saying the MG42 had the same sustainable RoF as allied guns which fire half the RPM. Which means you're saying the MG42 should fire half as often as the allied weapons because of cooling and barrel change issues? If that's true then in SP the MG42 should get only 3 shots a turn instead of 6. But it should still have half the SP ammo load-out as the allied guns. Then they would start and finish firing on the same turn and use up the same amount of bullets (not SP ammo); the allied gun would have fired twice as often as the German gun, but the allied gun would have caused half the damage for each fire/hit. Sounds reasonable to me :) If the MG42 tri-pod crew served gun carried more ammo than other HMGs, I've not heard that. Other nations HMGs had support vehicles instead of support horses. And even if the MG42 did carry more ammo, then we should be paying more to purchase the MG42. Currently the MG42 gets what amounts to twice the ammo or twice the damage, and according to you twice the RoF, and all for the same price! My point is that there doesn't appear to be a justification for current ammo advantage given to the German MGs. Simon |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.