Machine guns in 6.1
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
Speaking to the wide and frequent swing of random results. Would it be difficult and particularly undesirable to have the game double roll its results and average them? Or could we get a preference option that would enable that? This would allow (especially really small battles) a moderating of the crazy results and also give a player the option of playing a slightly more predictable game.
On a seperate note: We have to realize that this game is an abstraction of what happens, shots per round do not correlate with anything. They represent a units ability to apply fire to a number of targets, and to give the player the option to fire several times at a single target to increase to-hit chances. Its important to try and look to the larger picture for realistic results. This new MG thing, all it really does is give the player some respect for one of the most feared weapons of the last century. They don't kill entire squads once you put a bunch of fire on them...
Tomo
On a seperate note: We have to realize that this game is an abstraction of what happens, shots per round do not correlate with anything. They represent a units ability to apply fire to a number of targets, and to give the player the option to fire several times at a single target to increase to-hit chances. Its important to try and look to the larger picture for realistic results. This new MG thing, all it really does is give the player some respect for one of the most feared weapons of the last century. They don't kill entire squads once you put a bunch of fire on them...
Tomo
Okay, people are getting off on some wild tangents here. People being distracted with dealing with the wounded, panicking, taking cover and not shooting-- all of this is simulated by suppression. Therefore we can only assume that casualties only represent people who were actually hit. Taking a squad out of action the way people have been talking about is represented in the game by 3 people going down and everyone else getting really suppressed and hitting the dirt. People getting frieked out and dispersing and laying down their weapons and fighting no more is simulated by (shock) infantry dispersal, which I'm sure you all have noticed happens quite frequently. And when infantry disperses, it is counted as the whole squad being wiped out as indeed it should be.
But back to the issue at hand, which is the number of actual CASUALTIES, i.e. people killed or wounded, not just people rendered "combat ineffective" (which, as I said, is simulated by suppression) caused by a single MG shot. I think the consensus here so far seems to be that a single burst or "shot" is unlikely to KO more than 3 or 4 guys (and people have just been trying to justify higher casualties by trying to equate suppression with casualties). M10Bob, our friend the Army Ranger, speaks of situations in which he has seen entire squads wiped out in a burst, but these (a) involve MGs operated by the feared elites of the US military, and (b) deal only with total ambush situations. I can definitely believe that if you have a squad leisurely moseying along across on open field with no idea that 400 yards away in the bush there is an MG pointed at them could probably be nearly all KOed with one very well-placed burst. But if you are dealing with infantry that is aware of the presence of an MG, an unskilled gunner, a gunner that is under pressure, a gunner that hasn't had time to spot and carefully zero in on his target before opeing fire, or a range of less than 300 or over 500 yards, you could expect the kills to be much lower. You can assume that as soon as the thing opens fire everyone in the vicinity is going to hit the ground, therefore making it very hard to pick off more than one or two guys at a time, even if there is no effective cover. This is of course GREAT for halting and suppressing and routing, and also works very well for killing, but probably not as well for killing as it does in 6.1.
So say you ambush one squad and wipe it out in one or two shots. Everyone else in the same vicinity will now know that there is an MG in the area, and will hit the dirt, therefore making it impossible for the MG to do to the next squads what it did to the first one. And at closer ranges it is, as one person pointed out, much harder to throw out any doomsday fire (this is why WW1 troops were trained to charge straight at an MG if they were ambushed at a reasonably close range (100-200yards). If they just hunker down then they are pinned and cannot move, even to retreat, without getting whacked, and the MG will just pick them off one by one. But if they charge then most likely enough people will reach the nest to wipe it out.)
Anyway, I will now leave these remarks here for others to comment on.
But back to the issue at hand, which is the number of actual CASUALTIES, i.e. people killed or wounded, not just people rendered "combat ineffective" (which, as I said, is simulated by suppression) caused by a single MG shot. I think the consensus here so far seems to be that a single burst or "shot" is unlikely to KO more than 3 or 4 guys (and people have just been trying to justify higher casualties by trying to equate suppression with casualties). M10Bob, our friend the Army Ranger, speaks of situations in which he has seen entire squads wiped out in a burst, but these (a) involve MGs operated by the feared elites of the US military, and (b) deal only with total ambush situations. I can definitely believe that if you have a squad leisurely moseying along across on open field with no idea that 400 yards away in the bush there is an MG pointed at them could probably be nearly all KOed with one very well-placed burst. But if you are dealing with infantry that is aware of the presence of an MG, an unskilled gunner, a gunner that is under pressure, a gunner that hasn't had time to spot and carefully zero in on his target before opeing fire, or a range of less than 300 or over 500 yards, you could expect the kills to be much lower. You can assume that as soon as the thing opens fire everyone in the vicinity is going to hit the ground, therefore making it very hard to pick off more than one or two guys at a time, even if there is no effective cover. This is of course GREAT for halting and suppressing and routing, and also works very well for killing, but probably not as well for killing as it does in 6.1.
So say you ambush one squad and wipe it out in one or two shots. Everyone else in the same vicinity will now know that there is an MG in the area, and will hit the dirt, therefore making it impossible for the MG to do to the next squads what it did to the first one. And at closer ranges it is, as one person pointed out, much harder to throw out any doomsday fire (this is why WW1 troops were trained to charge straight at an MG if they were ambushed at a reasonably close range (100-200yards). If they just hunker down then they are pinned and cannot move, even to retreat, without getting whacked, and the MG will just pick them off one by one. But if they charge then most likely enough people will reach the nest to wipe it out.)
Anyway, I will now leave these remarks here for others to comment on.
Khan7
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
Ummm, I guess you designed the game Khan???
I (and others) did, and you are wrong. Read my post for what the designers intended. Temporary suppression, and "combat ineffectiveness" of long term duration are two very different things.
The "tempering" of the swings in combat results can be adjusted by increasing infantry toughness. I personally like it on 125...but everybody likely has their own personal level.
[ July 29, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]
I (and others) did, and you are wrong. Read my post for what the designers intended. Temporary suppression, and "combat ineffectiveness" of long term duration are two very different things.
The "tempering" of the swings in combat results can be adjusted by increasing infantry toughness. I personally like it on 125...but everybody likely has their own personal level.
[ July 29, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]
-
Kluckenbill
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Lancaster, PA, USA
Well, I'm 7 games into a German WW2 campaign, plus I've played a few scenario's. I suppose I've fired my MG34's a few thousand times by now and I believe that 6.1 is far and away the best representation yet of how small arms should work.
I've had very few cases where an MG caused more than 4 casualties at a time, and rather rarely more than 2. Multiple casualties have always been on troops in the open at short range, either disorganized or surprised. I've found MG34's effective out to about 8 hexes and rifles out to about 5 hexes. This seems very realistic to me. I've also found both MGs and rifles almost totally unable to inflict casualties on dug-in troops beyond 2 or 3 hexes. They do add a bit of suppression, but no casualties; again, this seems very realistic to me.
I'll admit that I griped a lot about the relative strength or weakness of infantry and their weapons in earlier version of SPEWAW, but 6.1 is FANTASTIC !
I've had very few cases where an MG caused more than 4 casualties at a time, and rather rarely more than 2. Multiple casualties have always been on troops in the open at short range, either disorganized or surprised. I've found MG34's effective out to about 8 hexes and rifles out to about 5 hexes. This seems very realistic to me. I've also found both MGs and rifles almost totally unable to inflict casualties on dug-in troops beyond 2 or 3 hexes. They do add a bit of suppression, but no casualties; again, this seems very realistic to me.
I'll admit that I griped a lot about the relative strength or weakness of infantry and their weapons in earlier version of SPEWAW, but 6.1 is FANTASTIC !
Target, Cease Fire !
Hello All.
I'm satisfied too with the way machineguns now work. At last, I feel that LMG and MMG teams have a valid Reason for existance!
A thought. If you charged a company of German Infantry across 400 meters of open ground against 4 emplaced Vickers HMG's, How many Germans do you thing would make it to bayonet range of the HMG's? (Answer = None. Think about the horrendous casualty rates inflicted on attacking troops in WW 1 by HMG's alone.) In WW 1 it was considered suicide to attack 4 HMG's across 400m of open ground with merly a company of troops. You'd need to start with at least a batallion to even have a chance of getting a platoon's worth of men into bayonet range on those 4 HMG's; one squad per HMG, as you'd need to assault all 4 HMG's at the same time to avoid them supporting each other. So no, I don't thing that the MG is too powerful. I think it has been restored to the terror weapon that it was in reality!
I'm satisfied too with the way machineguns now work. At last, I feel that LMG and MMG teams have a valid Reason for existance!
A thought. If you charged a company of German Infantry across 400 meters of open ground against 4 emplaced Vickers HMG's, How many Germans do you thing would make it to bayonet range of the HMG's? (Answer = None. Think about the horrendous casualty rates inflicted on attacking troops in WW 1 by HMG's alone.) In WW 1 it was considered suicide to attack 4 HMG's across 400m of open ground with merly a company of troops. You'd need to start with at least a batallion to even have a chance of getting a platoon's worth of men into bayonet range on those 4 HMG's; one squad per HMG, as you'd need to assault all 4 HMG's at the same time to avoid them supporting each other. So no, I don't thing that the MG is too powerful. I think it has been restored to the terror weapon that it was in reality!
"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
-
Belisarius
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Just to add a little more to the "number game" above. A turn is a representation of several minutes of combat, a MG crew which has a lot of "shots" is better at pumping out rounds than one with a low number of "shots". Let's say the turn is about three minutes long (it varies depending on the situation), and split that time into 6 segments or something (for a very skilled crew with a good gun).. then you have still plenty of time to fire many of those one second bursts to high effect.
There are so many WWII accounts to read. Note the fear of the MG, and how one well-placed MG can hold up large infantry forces. Much time and effort was/is spent to place the infantry support weapons right, and that is because they are very effective. I find the casualties from 6.1 very realistic in comparison. The random swings with high casualties can be a surprised unit, a unit crossing a dangerous patch of clear land etc etc.
If you look at the relative effects, before 6.1 infantry squads have no problems shooting it out with an MG crew and longer ranges (500 m +) and winning. Not anymore.. machine guns are the deadly weapon they are supposed to be.
There are so many WWII accounts to read. Note the fear of the MG, and how one well-placed MG can hold up large infantry forces. Much time and effort was/is spent to place the infantry support weapons right, and that is because they are very effective. I find the casualties from 6.1 very realistic in comparison. The random swings with high casualties can be a surprised unit, a unit crossing a dangerous patch of clear land etc etc.
If you look at the relative effects, before 6.1 infantry squads have no problems shooting it out with an MG crew and longer ranges (500 m +) and winning. Not anymore.. machine guns are the deadly weapon they are supposed to be.
"If infantry is the Queen of the battlefield, artillery is her backbone", Jukka L. Mäkelä about the Finnish victory at Ihantala.
I sympatize with Colonel Von Blitz, but I'm afraid that I am 100% behind the way version 6.1 deals with the power of MGs.
One simply has to choose more circumspect tactics. This goes a long way to explain why it took a long time to get the smallest thing done on WWII battlefields. You just had to be careful!
As for Khan 7s observations, here and in other threads, I have been following SPWAW since its beginning and had been with its predecessor, the Steel Panther series for a few years before that.
It was always understood that the objective of the game designers was to provide a game system that was enjoyable, flexible and gave a reasonable approximation of what WWII tactical level combat was like.
The early series was somewhat lacking in this respect, but Matrix has done a great job and has refined the simulation, within the limits of the game engine, quite spectacularly.
His diatribes are totally outside of this context, even when, occasionally, he may be making a valid point.
The game that portrays reality in the precise and minute detail that he seems to relish, if it exists, runs on massive machines for the benefit of high ranking officers in some powerful rich country's army.
We ordinary gamers have to make do with PC technology and software, and guys sweating for the love of the game and no money to produce the programs that allow us to enjoy this simulation.
I for one think they have done and continue to do a tremendous job, and wouldn't mind betting that the results of the same engagement played out in this system or the hypothetical super-sophisitcated Big Cheese game system wouldn't be miles apart.
That's good enough for me.
One simply has to choose more circumspect tactics. This goes a long way to explain why it took a long time to get the smallest thing done on WWII battlefields. You just had to be careful!
As for Khan 7s observations, here and in other threads, I have been following SPWAW since its beginning and had been with its predecessor, the Steel Panther series for a few years before that.
It was always understood that the objective of the game designers was to provide a game system that was enjoyable, flexible and gave a reasonable approximation of what WWII tactical level combat was like.
The early series was somewhat lacking in this respect, but Matrix has done a great job and has refined the simulation, within the limits of the game engine, quite spectacularly.
His diatribes are totally outside of this context, even when, occasionally, he may be making a valid point.
The game that portrays reality in the precise and minute detail that he seems to relish, if it exists, runs on massive machines for the benefit of high ranking officers in some powerful rich country's army.
We ordinary gamers have to make do with PC technology and software, and guys sweating for the love of the game and no money to produce the programs that allow us to enjoy this simulation.
I for one think they have done and continue to do a tremendous job, and wouldn't mind betting that the results of the same engagement played out in this system or the hypothetical super-sophisitcated Big Cheese game system wouldn't be miles apart.
That's good enough for me.
Fabs
Khan is correct that if given the situation and time to set up an ambush,a force would be foolish to not take advantage of it with pre-planned fire zones,fire-stakes,and seperate exit areas.These would allow the intended ambushers time to be steady in their resolve.(Good troops just don't have a lot of time nor situation to be less discriminate if given the opportunity)...This considered,i still endorse the realism portayed by the MG's in this version of SPWAW..Also,i cannot think of a better "non-military" forum anywhere attended to by such a large group of intelligent people intent on the preservation of history beyond "games-sake"......Magnificent...bob 
My personal take is that MG's in a SP game work properly (especially in relation to the slot 1 Rifles) *for the very first time*
In short, i LOVE 6.1 heck i love it so much i'm happy (almost) when i see my own grunts getting mowed down after their fearless (and often clueless) leader sends them scurying over open ground.
:p
After tusseling through the majority of the canned scenerios i've finally started my first long campaign. I've noticed no "uber" quality in the MG's in absolutum. If the unit is entrenched or in cover and not moving, there are no magic casualties. Sometimes i can pour fire into a position and not get a single casualty in return.
However, catch infantry out in the open and watch out baby! I think its very historical
as for the Pz-I analogy. Think of it this way. This very mediocre and diminuative little tank had to be good at "something" for the first German Blitzkreig to be effective.
Given that their opponent was primarily infantry and calvary based i have no problem seeing mass slaughter if those types of units attempt to attack the "cardboard tanks" (as many were told by their officers beforehand!) out in the open.
I seem to recall in fact a grisly carnage created by a wedge of Pz-I's when charged by a contingent of Polish calvery with lances drawn and swords waving. A grisly day in the history of the MG from what i've read.
Now in 6.1, make that same move and you will see similar results.
in closing i'd also add that unit experience plays a big factor too, often forgotten given the myrid of weapon effectiveness changes of late. Believe me my green Soviet gunners were not consistantly getting multiple casualties per fire round against their opponents.
Also saw this key difference in a recent canned scenerio with a mixed group of veteren German infantry and MG gunners interspaced with a few green Italian units. The difference between the two nationalities MG gunner preformance was very apparant.
[ July 31, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]
In short, i LOVE 6.1 heck i love it so much i'm happy (almost) when i see my own grunts getting mowed down after their fearless (and often clueless) leader sends them scurying over open ground.
:p
After tusseling through the majority of the canned scenerios i've finally started my first long campaign. I've noticed no "uber" quality in the MG's in absolutum. If the unit is entrenched or in cover and not moving, there are no magic casualties. Sometimes i can pour fire into a position and not get a single casualty in return.
However, catch infantry out in the open and watch out baby! I think its very historical
as for the Pz-I analogy. Think of it this way. This very mediocre and diminuative little tank had to be good at "something" for the first German Blitzkreig to be effective.
Given that their opponent was primarily infantry and calvary based i have no problem seeing mass slaughter if those types of units attempt to attack the "cardboard tanks" (as many were told by their officers beforehand!) out in the open.
I seem to recall in fact a grisly carnage created by a wedge of Pz-I's when charged by a contingent of Polish calvery with lances drawn and swords waving. A grisly day in the history of the MG from what i've read.
Now in 6.1, make that same move and you will see similar results.
in closing i'd also add that unit experience plays a big factor too, often forgotten given the myrid of weapon effectiveness changes of late. Believe me my green Soviet gunners were not consistantly getting multiple casualties per fire round against their opponents.
Also saw this key difference in a recent canned scenerio with a mixed group of veteren German infantry and MG gunners interspaced with a few green Italian units. The difference between the two nationalities MG gunner preformance was very apparant.
[ July 31, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]
Originally posted by Khan7:
<SNIP>
You can assume that as soon as the thing opens fire everyone in the vicinity is going to hit the ground, therefore making it very hard to pick off more than one or two guys at a time, even if there is no effective cover.
The first burst will arrive before the targets know it is coming. From this burst assume high casualties. Subsequent bursts will be received by troops hugging the ground, thus reducing subsequent casualties (troops may be pinned and taking suppression). This is how SPWAW currently works.
So say you ambush one squad and wipe it out in one or two shots. Everyone else in the same vicinity will now know that there is an MG in the area, and will hit the dirt, therefore making it impossible for the MG to do to the next squads what it did to the first one.
Next squads shot at by the same weapon will have a lower hit probability. The problem with them not hitting the ground when the group beside them is hit is a problem with the game engine and nothing can be done about that.
And at closer ranges it is, as one person pointed out, much harder to throw out any doomsday fire (this is why WW1 troops were trained to charge straight at an MG if they were ambushed at a reasonably close range (100-200yards). If they just hunker down then they are pinned and cannot move, even to retreat, without getting whacked, and the MG will just pick them off one by one. But if they charge then most likely enough people will reach the nest to wipe it out.)
Anyway, I will now leave these remarks here for others to comment on.
Remember that if infantry move more than one hex per turn they are more or less standing up and walking or running, making them well exposed targets for the MG's. Running at a MG for 100-200 m (2-4 hexes) means 2-4 op-fires.
[ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: kao16 ]
<SNIP>
You can assume that as soon as the thing opens fire everyone in the vicinity is going to hit the ground, therefore making it very hard to pick off more than one or two guys at a time, even if there is no effective cover.
The first burst will arrive before the targets know it is coming. From this burst assume high casualties. Subsequent bursts will be received by troops hugging the ground, thus reducing subsequent casualties (troops may be pinned and taking suppression). This is how SPWAW currently works.
So say you ambush one squad and wipe it out in one or two shots. Everyone else in the same vicinity will now know that there is an MG in the area, and will hit the dirt, therefore making it impossible for the MG to do to the next squads what it did to the first one.
Next squads shot at by the same weapon will have a lower hit probability. The problem with them not hitting the ground when the group beside them is hit is a problem with the game engine and nothing can be done about that.
And at closer ranges it is, as one person pointed out, much harder to throw out any doomsday fire (this is why WW1 troops were trained to charge straight at an MG if they were ambushed at a reasonably close range (100-200yards). If they just hunker down then they are pinned and cannot move, even to retreat, without getting whacked, and the MG will just pick them off one by one. But if they charge then most likely enough people will reach the nest to wipe it out.)
Anyway, I will now leave these remarks here for others to comment on.
Remember that if infantry move more than one hex per turn they are more or less standing up and walking or running, making them well exposed targets for the MG's. Running at a MG for 100-200 m (2-4 hexes) means 2-4 op-fires.
[ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: kao16 ]
-
Greg McCarty
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: woodbury,mn,usa
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Colonel von Blitz:
...I'd say we've taken a giant leap backwards concerning 'balanced playing'.
A single Pz Ib can wipe out entire platoons of Polish soldiers from ranges exceeding 500 meters...this in one turn alone. 15 men in a 50 meter by 50 meter area...single burst from twin 7.92mm MG and the squad is destroyed. I'd say v5.01 was much better in this respect
I'm not sure I agree. I just finished putting together a scenario which pits hoards
of infantry against MG34s. Spent hours/days
of playtesting. I cant say that degree of
leathality is the norm at or beyond 500 yds.
You may see occasions of it with a twin mount. But my experience has been that you will not see that level of effectiveness consistantly until the target is within about 7 hexes or less, and only when not already suppressed. What I did find though,
is that the way to use MGs against massed
infantry with the greatest efficiency is to
hit advancing units one burst each, moving
from squad to squad --while they are still
upright and unsuppressed. After that initial
burst, they go to earth and get much harder to hit in most cases. The ranges in this study were significantly less than 500 yds, and I have a personal doctrine right now that says dont even bother at ranges beyond
350 yds if ammo is an issue. Another thing to consider is that an MG without an enclosure can be considerably shaken up by
counterfire from massed inf units, even if no hits are taken. This can reduce accuracy
quickly. Overall, I think 6.1 has MG effectiveness modeled better than ever.
Personnaly, I think proper weapon behavior
should take precedance over balance. Balance problems can be effectively addressed by other tools in the game. I'd rather not see MGs tinkered with much further. Just my observation.
...I'd say we've taken a giant leap backwards concerning 'balanced playing'.
A single Pz Ib can wipe out entire platoons of Polish soldiers from ranges exceeding 500 meters...this in one turn alone. 15 men in a 50 meter by 50 meter area...single burst from twin 7.92mm MG and the squad is destroyed. I'd say v5.01 was much better in this respect
I'm not sure I agree. I just finished putting together a scenario which pits hoards
of infantry against MG34s. Spent hours/days
of playtesting. I cant say that degree of
leathality is the norm at or beyond 500 yds.
You may see occasions of it with a twin mount. But my experience has been that you will not see that level of effectiveness consistantly until the target is within about 7 hexes or less, and only when not already suppressed. What I did find though,
is that the way to use MGs against massed
infantry with the greatest efficiency is to
hit advancing units one burst each, moving
from squad to squad --while they are still
upright and unsuppressed. After that initial
burst, they go to earth and get much harder to hit in most cases. The ranges in this study were significantly less than 500 yds, and I have a personal doctrine right now that says dont even bother at ranges beyond
350 yds if ammo is an issue. Another thing to consider is that an MG without an enclosure can be considerably shaken up by
counterfire from massed inf units, even if no hits are taken. This can reduce accuracy
quickly. Overall, I think 6.1 has MG effectiveness modeled better than ever.
Personnaly, I think proper weapon behavior
should take precedance over balance. Balance problems can be effectively addressed by other tools in the game. I'd rather not see MGs tinkered with much further. Just my observation.
Greg.
It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.
--Zapata
It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.
--Zapata