Wishlist: Suppression: HMGs verses Artillery and Infantry

[Imp]

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.

[Cross]

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

[Imp]

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.