Lethality of MG 42

[petersolo]

I saw an earlier thread regarding the MG 42 and how it tears up squads in building cover. I am playing the GC as Allies and yep it is dangerous. I am almost too scared to move when I hear it open up.[X(] Was there a consensus regarding its lethality? Should it be this good or should it be toned down against units in great cover such as stone buildings or trenches?

Peter

[RD Oddball]

Hey Peter thanks for the feedback. MG42's have been toned down since then via some terrain settings and the way multiple weapon rounds are handled. Our lead developer Steve McClaire, offered a great explanation of the latter. Will try to find the post if you like. If there is consensus it is still too strong we'll consider tweaking it some more but as I've said before we're rapidly approaching that grey area on a lot of these similar issues where some folks will be upset it was toned down too much.

The larger picture of game play has to be considered as well. Some units act as counter balances for others. Changing something like the MG42 could indirectly, potentially have an effect on how the entire GC plays out. The example you offered of being afraid to move when you hear them (as you should be- This was a historical reality.) without risking getting mowed down in an ambush by a well concealed MG42. This restricts your movement, slows your progress and potentially keeps you from hitting your strategic goal(s) as the allies.

@ ALL - If you please, voice your opinions on MG42 lethality.

[kojusoki1]

I find MG42 as lethal as it should be. It was the best MG of the II WW
What I think should be tweaked, are the single shot weapons like rifles. I THINK with the new way the hits are being calculated, rifles are fairly too weak - I use them mostly for surpessing enemy units.

[mooxe]

I am wondering hows its considered the most lethal mg, or if thats even proven? Was it because it was employed in more numbers, or just had a high rate of fire? Could someone explain how a 30cal mg is more lethal than an mg42? Sometimes I think this mg suffers from the Tiger tank effect, its legendary if you only consider a few factors.

[petersolo]

Thanks for the feedback Oddball. I will post with more examples as I progress through the game. I am on veteran, the AI is recruit and I am doing 20min scenarios. The lethality is a good advantage for the AI which of course cannot compete on the same level as a human opponent. I think I will worry a lot more when I start playing against my cousin via gameranger. Hmmm.. think I will go German[:)]

Peter

[petersolo]

Actually, thinking a little more on this, I found that my squad would initially be pinned,suppressed and cowering as the mg 42 is hosing the building. This means I couldn't get the men to pop smoke and pull back. If the men are pinned and suppressed shouldn't that mean they are taking as much cover as possible and not looking out the windows? In this case shouldn't the casualty rate decrease and the suppressing effect increase till a possible rout?

I have no issue with being caught in the open or just light cover. I think it should be lethal in those circumstances. I think great cover should be more protective.

Or maybe I'm thinking a little too hard about this.

Peter

[STIENER]

petersolo.....keep posting your thoughts..we need feed back from everyone.

Mooxe.....IMHO its the MG 42 rate of fire that makes it lethal. the 30 cal and bren cant match it for rate and wieght of fire.
thats not to say that the 30 cal and bren cant be lethal in the right circumstances.

[petersolo]

Mooxe if you doubt the lethality of the mg 42 look up Hans Severloh at Omaha beach. Many modern mgs are based on the mg 42. Its ROF is truly deadly.

Peter

[davidss]

ORIGINAL: mooxe

I am wondering hows its considered the most lethal mg, or if thats even proven? Was it because it was employed in more numbers, or just had a high rate of fire? Could someone explain how a 30cal mg is more lethal than an mg42? Sometimes I think this mg suffers from the Tiger tank effect, its legendary if you only consider a few factors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N59msUny ... re=related

[RD Oddball]

ORIGINAL: petersolo

Actually, thinking a little more on this, I found that my squad would initially be pinned,suppressed and cowering as the mg 42 is hosing the building. This means I couldn't get the men to pop smoke and pull back. If the men are pinned and suppressed shouldn't that mean they are taking as much cover as possible and not looking out the windows? In this case shouldn't the casualty rate decrease and the suppressing effect increase till a possible rout?

I have no issue with being caught in the open or just light cover. I think it should be lethal in those circumstances. I think great cover should be more protective.

Or maybe I'm thinking a little too hard about this.

Peter

Good thoughts. There's definitely a component of what you're saying that needs to be considered.

One of the well known beauties of CC is that it attempts to simulate the psychological reaction of humans on the battlefield. I feel it's right to not see predictable or logical behavior when your troops are stressed e.g. being shot at by 1200 rounds of lead flying past their head. Being pinned down and unable to move for fear movement through the open to better cover would mean death and irrationally opting for poor cover over movement and associated risks falls into that category. Would be a tough call to make even when you're not stressed. Net result in either choice would likely be death or severe injury. Being caught in that situation in the first place is the bigger issue.

Utilizing the command structure to remedy this is paramount in CC. When within the command radius of a command unit you should more often see subordinate units responding to commands and reacting more like what you described expecting to see. But even within command radius they still might disobey orders.

This helps illustrate why detailed descriptions of the scenarios being questioned are so important. The behavior seen can be a result of factors other than what they appear. So it may not be the lethality of MG42's but possibly the behavior of the AI and command structure. Or the players lack of use of that command structure. What you described sounds like it's acting just as was intended and it should be with the exception of the part about the buildings. Which is another possible factor to consider.

It's possible, as has been discussed before, that terrain elements data needs to be tweaked in the element protection settings. Some adjustments had been made previously. Specifically for buildings walls. Once again, we need very specific examples so it can be recreated to on our end so we have a specific environment that you're seeing to test tweaks if it's found that tweaks are needed.

@ Mooxe - RE: MG42 lethality - My guess, only a guess, I don't think one single factor made them more lethal. I suspect that the rate of fire played a factor in this by the fact that when the MG42 was on target you didn't get hit by one or two rounds you got hit by multiple rounds. It's a known fact that it was a more accurate weapon (as proven by bench tests) in all configurations than the allied counter-parts. So perhaps those two factors made it a more lethal weapon? It still has to be in the right hands in order for that to be of use so simply knowing it has a high rate of fire or was more accurate doesn't necessarily mean it will be more lethal based on that alone.

To the point your question makes, or as some threads I've seen suggest "buzz worse than bite", that it's best asset was it's fear factor. Still, as with any weapon effectiveness that is debated, there is likely no one source or discussion that can definitively and incontrovertibly prove a weapons effectiveness to be useful in terms of how it's emulated in CC.

The best that can be done is to input the published performance data from reputable sources, make sure there's a baseline in the game system for weapons data, and tweak it to make game play compelling and within a reasonable range of acceptability of balance. Which I feel is the true essence and take-away of any of these types of discussions. Which is why I asked for more feedback on this topic. If nearly everyone was returning accounts of losing mass amounts of troops to MG42's to the point where the GC is un-winnable by the allies on this fact alone, there is a definite need for fixing. I've not seen that as the case. They're definitely lethal in the game and should be given a wide berth but they're not invincible and have plenty of counters to neutralize what effectiveness they currently have with smart, careful tactics.

[STIENER]

awesome video [X(] thats worth the price of admission! nasty piece of work that MG 42..... if you got caught in the open ...you would be TOAST.....nasty.

what cant you find on U tube???

[Pzt_Serk]

I think MG 42 are allright the way they are compared to allied counterpart. Small arms are lethal for both sides but I agree that more protection from buildings could be a good idea. As Oddball said, smoke and suppression will work well vs mgs when moving in the open.

However, I do think the 3 men LMG 42 team lacks ammo. 450 is not enought IMO, they should have around 1250 like in WAR or TLD' GT mod and TRSM. Squads mg 42 might have 450 - 480 rounds, and HMG is allright at 2500. Allied numbers look allright with 1250 rounds iirc and about 450 for BAR and Bren.

Also, germans Half track should have Board MG 42, not MG 34 as it is now. Jagdpanzer IV should also have MG 42, unlike other tanks that had mg 34.

Cheers,

Serk

[emperor peter]

ORIGINAL: petersolo

Actually, thinking a little more on this, I found that my squad would initially be pinned,suppressed and cowering as the mg 42 is hosing the building. This means I couldn't get the men to pop smoke and pull back. If the men are pinned and suppressed shouldn't that mean they are taking as much cover as possible and not looking out the windows? In this case shouldn't the casualty rate decrease and the suppressing effect increase till a possible rout?

I have no issue with being caught in the open or just light cover. I think it should be lethal in those circumstances. I think great cover should be more protective.

Or maybe I'm thinking a little too hard about this.

Peter

I agree, I'm also finding that good cover like buildings or trenches doesn't protect the men enough. But this is not just against the MG42, it goes for all MGs and sometimes even rifles.

Most MGs are powerful. The MG42 in the game clearly stands above the rest. I fear some others too: both .30cal, Vickers, .50 and the MG34. The Bren and the MG116 aren't that dangerous. All in all I like how they all compare against each other.

[emperor peter]

ORIGINAL: Pzt_Serk

However, I do think the 3 men LMG 42 team lacks ammo. 450 is not enought IMO, they should have around 1250 like in WAR or TLD' GT mod and TRSM. Squads mg 42 might have 450 - 480 rounds, and HMG is allright at 2500. Allied numbers look allright with 1250 rounds iirc and about 450 for BAR and Bren.

The Leichtes MG42 has enough for aimed shots (450 rnds, but not if you use it for blind fire or to suppress a hidden enemy that's firing at your troops. That burns ammo too fast. Also when the MG42 gunner gets suppressed himself he fires bursts faster than normal and less accurate(so it seems), this also uses up ammo quickly.

But giving it more ammo would be bad for game balance, if nothing else is changed.

Another thing I've been wondering about, is the last burst of that 50 round clip (2 rounds) as effective as the 8 round bursts?

[Pzt_Serk]

Well, US .30 cal has 1250 rounds so I think it should be fair they have the same amount. Even the bren gun and BAR have 400 rounds despite using ammo clips instead of ammo belt.

If it wasn't a balance issue in WAR and most mods, it shoudn't be one now imo. Besides, if there is a balance issue right now, its the germans that are too weak and need help, not the opposite.

EDIT: Leichtes MG 34 also has 450 rounds only and should be upped too.

[petersolo]

Utilizing the command structure to remedy this is paramount in CC. When within the command radius of a command unit you should more often see subordinate units responding to commands and reacting more like what you described expecting to see. But even within command radius they still might disobey orders.
 
That is a good point Oddball and I do use the Command platoons to rally cowering and suppressed squads. However the lethality of the mg 42 means I watch the squad get suppressed etc.. and then in short order incap. and KIA. It happens too quickly and I cannot rally the squad. I think the tweak needed is better protection from KIA and use the morale factor to eventually rout squads. The better experienced squads would last longer and possibly rally with Commanders nearby to try and get back. Green squads would break easily and panic. Once panicking and moving they would be hit.
 
I have thought that the primary use of the squad mg is to suppress units in cover to then allow flanking by other squads to close and use grenades etc..
Or to sweep wide open areas.
 
Don't know whether others think this would be a bit more realistic and whether it can be programmed.
 
Peter
 
 

[kojusoki1]

MGs are just fine. RBut when comapred to rifles, those second need tweaking... Try to play Brits in urban area - the only tactic that works is melee combat...

[petersolo]

Surely a squad of 4 to 5 men with bolt action rifles just doesn't have the volume of fire to do much more than pin units in cover till they rally and return fire. I have seen rifles used to good effect when hitting infantry in the open though.
 
Peter

[STIENER]

i whole heartily agree with every thing PZT Serk says, and hes right.......the 3 men LMG 42 team lacks ammo. 450 is not enough, they should have 1250 RDS like every other CC game.
the german inf company / squad is built around there MG 42's. the riflemen carry ammo for the MG 42, so there should be no shortage of ammo for the MG. it should be upped.
the same goes for the bren. its the same ammo as the enfield rifle. the bren should have more ammo too but its not such an issue in the game because its rate of fire is so low.

also i agree that the cover in buildings should be tweaked a bit.

[Bordic]

Just thinking of...

In a 3 men MG team, one should carry the "gun", one the "tripod" and a mauser or mp40 and the other one the ammunitions and a mauser. Let's say, two cases of rounds 500x2? That should be 1000! [:)]

If light mg42, should it mean without a tripod? So those cases could be 4?

Maybe 500 rounds are too many in a single container?


And about cover in stone buildings, it should be raised a little imho.