MG42s... wtf

[jomni]

Great detective work.  So it's not the weapon stats but the terrain protection values?
If that's the case then my troop quality theory can be discarded.
Would be nice to get an opinion from the devs.

[RD Oddball]

Re: MG42's - We appreciate the additional feedback on this topic. We have actually given opinions about this already. Actually it was a combination of weapon data and terrain values. All of it was by design. It IS different than what we're all used to as CCer's and we'll certainly give it another look as it seems there are 6-10 different people who've commented on this. Typically that means there are more who don't care to say anything about it and wouldn't mind seeing it changed. That warrants a second look at the very least.

[kojusoki1]

And those decreased protection values are probably the reason, why man crawl for so long looking for a better cover... and cannot find any as everything around is set to "0". They only complain in their AI language - "Why those bloody developers didnt give us any cover here!!?? "

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: kojusoki1

And those decreased protection values are probably the reason, why man crawl for so long looking for a better cover... and cannot find any as everything around is set to "0". They only complain in their AI language - "Why those bloody developers didnt give us any cover here!!?? "

Wait a minute. That's because the developers wanted the pixel troop to avoid the crawl of death. By fooling that there's no cover on the ground, it forces them to run to the houses. Sneaky developers. (Speculation only)

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

Re: MG42's - We appreciate the additional feedback on this topic. We have actually given opinions about this already. Actually it was a combination of weapon data and terrain values. All of it was by design. It IS different than what we're all used to as CCer's and we'll certainly give it another look as it seems there are 6-10 different people who've commented on this. Typically that means there are more who don't care to say anything about it and wouldn't mind seeing it changed. That warrants a second look at the very least.

WHY on earth was this done on purpose? I don't see how one can play test these values and say to themselves "yea, that seems right". I knew something was wrong within a couple of battles of the Grand Campaign. I had a rifle section set to AMBUSH inside of a stone building and an MG42 cut them all down within 5 seconds, no exaggeration. I just don't see how there's any resemblance of reality.

[DasHoff]

Magic Gun 42

[kojusoki1]

wunderwaffen

[stolidog]

Hmm, Nice research squadleader, maybe this thread name should be changed to "protection values -wtf"

[SteveMcClaire]

WARNING - WALL OF TEXT INCOMING.  If you just want to hear about the MG42 issue, skip down a couple paragraphs.

On the data file changes:

The terrain protection values changed between LSA and TLD because the meaning of the values (as used by the code) has also changed.

Because of the way the original code worked, you had values in the different data files that were related to each other, but not scaled the same. The values were difficult to compare in a meaningful way, and thus very difficult to balance against each other -- weapon penetration vs. terrain protection being one such case.  Old-style terrain protection values were rather abstract -- lying down in a grass field does not actually have a protection value equivalent to 25mm of steel, last time I checked.

Prior to LSA, the combat model in the game had the chance of a hit, from any sort of shot, very high. Much higher than what would be expected under combat conditions. What kept every shot from being a kill was the very high terrain cover and protection values.  Good or lucky shots could bypass terrain protection (hitting the head of a soldier looking out the window, in essence), and since the accuracy of such shots was always high they usually resulted in a KIA. This made the killed to wounded ratio about opposite of what you'd normally expect (most casualties were KIAs, instead of most being wounded).

For LSA I re-did significant parts of combat modeling to get more realistic results. This allowed us to normalized all the values in the various data files that relate to each other, so that they are now using a consistent scale.  Overall, accuracy tends to be a lot lower.  You get a lot of misses.  Since the terrain protection no longer has to compensate for unrealistically high accuracy, it is now on the exact same scale as weapon penetration -- mm of steel equivalent.

Although you see the terrain protection for a stone building change from 40 to 9, that new "9" is now the exact same scale as the weapon penetration values.  Meaning that a stone wall is basically 'safe' from small arms fire that does not directly hit the soldier (i.e. a 'good' shot).

These changes also allowed for blast ratings to be normalized to something consistent with penetration ratings, and with terrain protection.  The result is that blast attacks cause a lot more wounded and a lot less KIA.  Since the blast rating no longer has to be crazy high to get past high terrain protection, it has been scaled to match the integrity (toughness) of the vehicles and guns too.  So a mortar shell will tend to take out the gun crew rather than blow up a towed gun, and mortars shells don't blow up tanks (though technically a direct top hit kill is still possible).


On the MG42:

The issue with the MG42 is actually due to a completely different change.  In previous versions of CC there was no chance for a machine gun to hit more than one soldier.  The way it was modeled previously, the whole burst would either hit one soldier, or hit nobody.  For LSA I added 'beaten zone' modeling.  It works like this: If the gunner is aiming at a soldier and hits him, only the first shot in the burst hits that soldier automatically.  The rest of the shots are counted as 'misses'. If the gunner is area firing all shots are automatically misses.  Each miss has a small chance (based on posture and movement) to hit soldiers near the target area.  Each of these shots also had a small chance to bypass terrain protection (just like aimed shots can, if the shot is good enough) so that being in a stone building does not make you 100% immune to machine gun area fire.

When you deliberately area fire with an MG42 it throws out a lot of bullets.  This high volume of fire was causing a lot of 'beaten zone' hits.  Based on your feedback and some testing I've reduced the chance for a soldier to get hit, and significantly reduced the chance for a stray hit to bypass terrain protection.  The result is that, using area fire, you can empty all 3000-odd rounds from an sMG 42 at a stationary US parachute team in a stone building and typically get about 1-2 casualties.

This change will be in the first update, which will be out 'soonish' (sorry, about as firm a date as I can give).

Steve

[RD Oddball]

That is what I meant when I said it was "by design" Pak40. Sorry the explanation couldn't come sooner but Steve was busy working on the changes and updates you guys wanted to see and didn't have time for much else and I didn't want to attempt the explanation when it was best coming directly from him. We're currently testing the updates and as soon as we're satisfied things are as they should be for the first update we'll pass it on to Matrix for release then on to working on the second update which will address some of the larger issues reported.

[Andrew Williams]

The result is that, using area fire, you can empty all 3000-odd rounds from an sMG 42 at a stationary US parachute team in a stone building and typically get about 1-2 casualties.

What are the suppression results from this?  (that's a lot of bullets to throw fo casualties)

[SteveMcClaire]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

The result is that, using area fire, you can empty all 3000-odd rounds from an sMG 42 at a stationary US parachute team in a stone building and typically get about 1-2 casualties.

What are the suppression results from this?  (that's a lot of bullets to throw fo casualties)

For the US parachute team, after a short while everyone would be suppressed, with a few guys pinned and/or cowered. Keep in mind that the US parachute teams are some of the best infantry in the game. And as I said, this was from area fire, NOT a fire command aimed at the team.

As for my low post rate, I just don't have a lot of time to follow the forums. I do get a head's up from Jim or Andrew if they think there's something I need to read or respond to, though.

Steve

[DasHoff]

you guys are heroes. btw, a quick question: were paras designed to pretty much be the best infantry in this game, and in cc5? because this is the view i hold, but my friend seems to think the SS guys are supposed to be better, even though they have worse experience and morale

[squadleader_id]

Thanks a lot for the thorough explaination of the latest changes in the build, Steve! [&o]
In theory the changes sound great...but it needs more testing I guess.
What about those 2 element tiles wide windows?  My guess is they may reduce protection in houses due to the wider LOS holes through wide windows.
Hopefully the "glass trees" (see other thread) will be sorted out too.

One thing though...porting existing CC5 mods to LSA will be a bit harder now with all the new data recalculations [:(]

[RD Oddball]

ORIGINAL: squadleader_id

Hopefully the "glass trees" (see other thread) will be sorted out too.

It's on the list. Thanks.

[SteveMcClaire]

ORIGINAL: DasHoff
...the SS guys are supposed to be better, even though they have worse experience and morale

I think most of the SS troops involved in Operation Market-Garden performed well in a difficult situation, but they were not uniformly 'elite' troops. The remnants of 9 and 10.SS Panzer certainly had some tough veteran combat troops. But both divisions were a shadow of their former selves -- 20% strength or so -- after the retreat from France. A large portion of the remaining men were technically from the service and support units of the division, not the combat units. 9.SS (because it was supposed to be heading back to German for rebuilding) had also sent much of their combat troops and equipment to 10.SS Panzer. Other large SS units were mainly training & replacement units, like Kraft's battalion and Lippert's NCO School. They all generally fought well when defending but sometimes struggled when trying to make an attack.

In the game the SS combat teams have only slightly lower experience than the US parachute squads, and their morale is the same. However the SS ersatz teams are a different story -- these represent the former service troops, trainees, or even 'draftees' that filled out the SS units.

Steve

[7A_Woulf]

Talking about SS in Market Garden it's worth mentioning that both 9th and 10th SS had been in constant action since April '44; -first on the eastern front, then a direct transfer to Normandy where they fought in some of the hardest tank-battles around Caen before they had to fight to keep the Falaise-pocket open (10th SS hardly made it out of the pocket.) And it wasn't over for them just because of that! They had to fight rear-action battles all the way through France as well, loosing much of their AT-capability as well as AA-guns and soldiers.

In the retreat and the days before Market Garden they pick up many stranglers from most parts of the German war-machine, even Navy and airforce, force-commanding them to their own lines while 'organizing' provisions, fuel and additional weapons. On September 17 the 9th SS was on their way to Germany, some of them for the first time since 1942, and the general feeling was "here we go again" when they had to move against the British Paras at Arnhem. (The Recon Battalion, and some other units too, was so close to home that they had to unload their train before they could get into action!)

And the rest of the SS in Market Garden was far from frontline troops. KG Krafft was a training Battalion, those few  soldiers that had seen battle were not ready for frontline duty, the rest were conscripts. SS-Unterführerschule 'Arnheim' (KG Schultz and KG Eberwein, don't know if both are in the OOB for LSA) were officer-cadets with less than a years service, although they had experienced officers. KG Helle was Dutch camp-guards whose only combat experience was to pick up allied airmen that had been parachuting above the Netherlands... 

[Richard III]

[ quote] "Each of these shots also had a small chance to bypass terrain protection (just like aimed shots can, if the shot is good enough) so that being in a stone building does not make you 100% immune to machine gun area fire.

When you deliberately area fire with an MG42 it throws out a lot of bullets. This high volume of fire was causing a lot of 'beaten zone' hits. Based on your feedback and some testing I've reduced the chance for a soldier to get hit, and significantly reduced the chance for a stray hit to bypass terrain protection. The result is that, using area fire, you can empty all 3000-odd rounds from an sMG 42 at a stationary US parachute team in a stone building and typically get about 1-2 casualties."[End quote]

If this is the "New" better reduced version of the "New" better CC LSA MG - 42 it is just ridiculous. It was already a Death Star in the old game....now you have made it a game stopper.

The allies are always attacking, and moving in the open, so to increase the hits % of the MG-42 past what it was in the old CC is a very bad design decision. The fact that the AI sees the LOS you can`t see makes it worse.

It`s simply mind boggling that anyone with experience with CC would think the MG - 42 needs to have the " to hit routines " improved, especially so it can kill ( and suppress ) inside stone buildings.

The guys who did the huge _ FREE_ Mods for the original CC series never felt the need to dick around with the MG-42`s, or " improve" the scenarios.

I`m done with this game, and pissing my $$$ away on all Matrix games.

[stolidog]

Steve, Thanks for the response and the explanation,

I like the reasoning and the results behind the mortars, I prefer the new accuracy settings of the mortars compared to WaR and TLD

If I am reading you post right, only the mg settings are going to be adjusted with the patch?

[SteveMcClaire]

ORIGINAL: stolidog
If I am reading you post right, only the mg settings are going to be adjusted with the patch?

There will be other changes in the first patch. But in terms of the MG modeling, only the area fire hit chances will be adjusted.