The Effectiveness of Flanking MG Fire

[baggypants]

Post deleted by baggypants

[chuckfourth]

Hi Cross
Good Point. Currently the 6 hex modeling reflects the beaten zone effect mentioned by baggypants, but this is a very long range phenomenon as it relies on the inherent variability of each round and to some extent the gun/mount obviously any movement of the gun itsefl with such long range fire will move the beaten zone a long way off target In any case beaten zone wasn’t previously modeled in the game. We shouldn’t confuse this beaten zone with what (I think) Andy is trying to model here, "enfilade" fire, which as already mentioned is restricted to the hexes in line with the gun and target and is a close range phenomenon. I would like to point out that to model enfilade fire correctly the effect needs not only to be restricted to the hexes in line with the MG and target, but the effect in these hexes should be the same as in the target hex. This is why when a well positioned MG is in the flank of a coy or larger infantry advance (invariably in line for control purposes), its good night MR Chips.
Best Regards Chuck.
edit
That is to say in enfilade fire the "extra" affected hexes are hit every bit as hard as the target hex this is also pretty much true for beaten zone also.

[Cross]

I guess the discussion is:

Is the effectiveness of a well placed MG modeled as accurately as we can manage with the code limitations?

Are MGs as powerful on the battlefield (compared to rifles for instance) as they should be?

Most MGs have six shots in a turn, so when engaging a larger infantry advance, we have the ability to target several sections/squads. But so do rifles. By changing targets the fire is not sustained and not as accurate, so tends towards suppression; probably rightly so.

But it doesn’t matter if the MG is in front or on the flank, and in some circumstances it should. Can we model this?

MG fire wandering into adjacent hexes, or ‘the beaten zone’ at longer ranges could be considered inaccurate fire or a suppression oriented ‘miss’, a definite MG characteristic, not shared by rifles, and well modeled in current WinSP.
But ‘enfilade fire’ (nod to Chuckfourth) is not currently modeled.

Offensively, imagine the additional threat if you get a MMG onto the flank of a defensive line.
Defensively, a savvy commander should place MGs on both flanks to protect the front, preferably with overlapping azimuths. An attacking commander should have to think about his line of advance based on flanking MG positions, not just field of fire.

Can a target hex also have fire wander into additional hexes beyond, like heavy artillery also effects adjoining hexes? Perhaps MG fire should ‘come down’ in a 3 or 4 hex zigzag line, or random hexes beyond the target?

If ‘enfilade fire’ could be modeled, it would rightly give MGs more power in certain situations. Making a well placed MG a more serious threat. Imagine getting a MG into a position when it could fire down a road, for example.

Andy and Don, so you understand that this post is meant as constructive not critical:
I think WinSPWW2 is by far the best modeled wargame of its genre. My hat’s off to SPCamo and their cool analytical ability to keep this game on course.

Cheers,
Cross