Lmg mg42

[NUTTERNAME]

According to the link I posted:

5-4. BEATEN ZONE
The beaten zone (Figure 5-2) is the elliptical pattern formed by the rounds striking the ground or the target. The size and shape of the beaten zone changes when the range to the target changes or when the machine gun is fired on different types of terrain. On uniformly sloping or level terrain, the beaten zone is long and narrow. As the range to the target increases, the beaten zone becomes shorter and wider. When fire is delivered on terrain sloping down and away from the machine gun, the beaten zone becomes longer. When fire is delivered on rising terrain, the beaten zone becomes shorter. The terrain has little effect on the width of the beaten zone

So it would widen, but most importantly, it shortens in length. It becomes, in effect, like a high velocity artillery weapon. Literally, 'hosing' down a target.

For someone that claims to be reading about machine-guns and other military matters, I am quite surprised that Steve seems to not know about this especially since it's been mentioned before at his own forum.

As far as 5.56mm weapons, I have only fired the M16A1 full auto on a bipod. I suppose it might have decent grazing effect out to a few hundred meters and some sort of beaten zone a bit further. But it doesn't compare to a GPMG.

 

[Geordie]

What about the M-249B?

Bigger round, more like the MG42 I suppose but it would have to be mounted and have a good supply of ammo, I'm not sure it's something we do too often these days though. Was done routinely in ww1 and WW2 with things like a Vickers HMG.

 

[Redwolf]

I am still optimistic for a 2.01 fix but FYI:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1417171#post1417171

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I am still optimistic for a 2.01 fix but FYI:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1417171#post1417171

I thought they said a month. So that would be a couple of months. But I am not optimistic they will address machinegun capabilities since they don't really mention them. It's sort of a joke all around as far as 'testing'. Testing to what? Some ill-defined 'real-world' combined arms battlefield effect? That works in hedgerows and syrian deserts and large bridges and where ever else they can cobble CM into?

Since it's a patch, and a real solution would need features, I wouldn't get my hopes up too high.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

It looks like the 'final protective fire' routine is identified as the 'culprit'. According to Steve, they have tweaked this and some other game parameters to get firepower from the under-modeled MGs. I assume this means the MG are at least going to fire a higher rate of ammunition as either more bursts or longer bursts or both.

Since this is mentioned in regards to ping-pong tables (or is it pool?), it seems to be 'tested' in the defensive mode. That is, infantry attacking a MG. Hopefully, a player does not need to get a HMG in final protective fire range to use it in the attack mode. Hopefully, the FPF range is an order of magnitude greater than it was (50 meters??).

On the CMBN bocage maps and even the CMFI maps, where the ranges are actually very short, most MGs will be humming.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Wow. I thought this guy was a barely self-sufficient 20-nothing year old. He is actually older than me and most others!

#112
Today, 01:04 AM
MikeyD
CMSF Beta Tester

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 13,959

Back this time last year when I was *secretly* working on CMFI I'd visit the chat boards to read the "What will we see next" links, and chuckle to myself. "If only they knew" I'd say to myself, "If only they knew."

 

[Redwolf]

Some of the betas are certainly crossing the line toward flame bait and/or provoking users.

And that doesn't begin to ask the value of a beta program that only has people from one side of those arguments in it in the first place.

 

[Elvis]

And that doesn't begin to ask the value of a beta program that only has people from one side of those arguments in it in the first place.

That is very rarely true.

 

[Elvis]

Double post.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I would address this MG issue with not just increasing the bullets fired (realistic modeling), but also an increase in pinning/morale effects, and also a 'shooting-off' of capabilities. By that I mean, the orders menu for troops that have been "machine-gunned" will be missing movement type commands. Certainly 'run' but perhaps also 'move', etc. This could be a recoverable condition just like other conditions like pinning, breaking, etc.

This would further hinder an attacker, which is certainly one of the abused elements ogf the game. Once bitten, twice shy. The troops will not follow the stupid orders if they are not there to be given.

 

[Redwolf]

I would address this MG issue with not just increasing the bullets fired (realistic modeling), but also an increase in pinning/morale effects, and also a 'shooting-off' of capabilities. By that I mean, the orders menu for troops that have been "machine-gunned" will be missing movement type commands. Certainly 'run' but perhaps also 'move', etc. This could be a recoverable condition just like other conditions like pinning, breaking, etc.

This would further hinder an attacker, which is certainly one of the abused elements ogf the game. Once bitten, twice shy. The troops will not follow the stupid orders if they are not there to be given.

The problem with this is that BFC then tends to go further and overboard. So soldiers go down when caught in the open by a HMG. Good. But now there is the crawl of death that leaves them exhausted even if you manage to kill or suppress the HMG (say by bringing in a tank), and mostly from unrealistic crawls, towards destinations that a real soldier wouldn't crawl to.

Keep it simple is what I'd say, but BFC doesn't always agree.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

The problem with this is that BFC then tends to go further and overboard. So soldiers go down when caught in the open by a HMG. Good. But now there is the crawl of death that leaves them exhausted even if you manage to kill or suppress the HMG (say by bringing in a tank), and mostly from unrealistic crawls, towards destinations that a real soldier wouldn't crawl to.

Keep it simple is what I'd say, but BFC doesn't always agree.

I think you are mixing up some issues and also not taking into account the CMx1-to-CM2 differences.

Firstly, the CMBB 'crawlies' were mostly non-good order events. Broken squads just exhausting themselves even though they were not being subjected to further firepower. With '1:1' I would like to see the squad integrity busted up with teams being broken and some pinned and some going off into different directions. True chaos. But, yes, BF should finally address this since eventually, they will have to model some combat under fairly open terrain (east front).

But what I am suggesting is actually a limitation on good order troops. That is, they have been chopped by a MG and they ain't taking no 'Run' order again. Or not for awhile. This further simulates the difficulty of coordinating especially when attacking.

But this would take programming and I get the drift that anything that takes programming gets the verbiage-treatment by BF as a first resort.

 

[Redwolf]

I think we are in agreement. I just wouldn't like to see BFC introduce what you think into CMx2 only to also give us some equivalent of crawl-of-death, too.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I hate to relive the CMBB flaws but the crawling thing could have been addressed easily. Players should have had the ability to over-ride the broken unit's crawling with a withdraw order. Basically order it to a place with cover or out of enemy LOS. This way the unit would high-tail it instead of unrealistically crawling. They could have also modified the crawling behavior to stop the unit once was it reached a tired state. If it wasn't targeted, it would stay put till it recovered. But I think the 'ASL' was showing in that the unit MUST find cover.

I have low-crawled in full army gear. It isn't something that is done for great distances or even non-stop.

I don't think CMFI shows any behavior like that? I think broken units basically run away?

 

[Redwolf]

I don't think CMFI shows any behavior like that? I think broken units basically run away?

Yes, essentially Charles simply tossed the crawl-of-death behavior, presumably because it didn't work out as an idea.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Another old idea is to limit the 'line-length' of the movement orders. This simulates the hesitancy troops would have of running in the open, especially when under fire. An example is a good order unit has just moved up to a wall but comes under fire. The player opens the orders menu and selects 'run' but finds the distance he can order the unit to run is only 20 meters. Other movement orders have similar limitations. Crawl just might be his best option for now!

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I wouldn't get my hopes up toohigh in regards to teh MG 'fixes'. Check out this Sgt' Joch guys post. He is a Beta-Tester? There is no hope...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=106462&page=76

 

[Redwolf]

I wouldn't get my hopes up toohigh in regards to teh MG 'fixes'. Check out this Sgt' Joch guys post. He is a Beta-Tester? There is no hope...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=106462&page=76

Charles usually implements whatever he wants and it sometimes has no resemblance to what some forum posters indicated.

In general, I think some of the betas actively stir up the nest in that thread for a while. For now it's better to just look at the patch since it has already been made. No reason to play with the forum personalities.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Yes, there is disfunctionality as far as what is being said or even done. But, since there is no expressed design goal, it's just more flim-flam than science.

It would be in BF's best interest to do an over-haul on the development and testing process. Clearly, if it takes this long for a patch to be 're-patched', then the ambitious schedule set for 2013 can only meet short-comings in the number of releases or a major Quality issue in games tossed out there. Will the demo-players see the next level of CM development or will the modules and games come out, again, before the demos? Will the 5 thousand or so customers be the 'un-paid-beta-testers'?

 

[slm]

from 2.01 patch release notes
"Special Note: MGs now have more effective aiming, rates of fire, and suppression effects. These highly requested changes make combat even more realistic and more challenging tactically. Some players will find their existing tactics may need some adjustments, others may find no significant need for change. We recommend practicing attacks on MG positions before continuing an in progress Campaign or game against another player."