Machineguns

[Pergite]

narwan said:
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.

...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.

[kevin]

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.

[DRG]

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.

Don

[narwan]

Pergite said:
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.

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.

[IanWilliams]

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.

[SCAJolly]

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!

[kevin]

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.

[DRG]

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

[PlasmaKrab]

Another tiny thing that frustrates the bloody hell out of me, and which IS very unrealistic: Tiny vehicles go first!!

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!

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

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!