Wishlist: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Ts4EVER

I seem to remember that many "house rules" say "no z fire at all".

Yes, I can understand why some have resorted to this.

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

[RERomine]

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.

[Cross]

Originally Posted by RERomine

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.

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

[Imp]

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.

[RERomine]

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.

[Cross]

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

[Imp]

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.

[Imp]

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.

[RERomine]

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.

[Cross]

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