Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Mountain InfantryPandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Lethality of MG 42

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Lethality of MG 42 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Lethality of MG 42 - 3/11/2011 7:34:11 AM   
petersolo

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 8/4/2007
From: Australia
Status: offline
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. 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

< Message edited by petersolo -- 3/11/2011 7:36:27 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/11/2011 2:50:18 PM   
RD_Oddball


Posts: 4833
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to petersolo)
Post #: 2
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/11/2011 5:54:01 PM   
kojusoki1

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to RD_Oddball)
Post #: 3
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/12/2011 12:44:11 AM   
mooxe


Posts: 261
Joined: 10/25/2003
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

VVV
http://www.closecombatseries.net

Play all versions of Close Combat at www.gameranger.com.

(in reply to kojusoki1)
Post #: 4
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/12/2011 1:11:21 AM   
petersolo

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 8/4/2007
From: Australia
Status: offline
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

(in reply to mooxe)
Post #: 5
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/12/2011 1:17:28 AM   
petersolo

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 8/4/2007
From: Australia
Status: offline
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

< Message edited by petersolo -- 3/12/2011 1:25:44 AM >

(in reply to petersolo)
Post #: 6
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/12/2011 8:52:40 AM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 532
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: gibsons b.c. canada
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by STIENER -- 3/12/2011 8:54:00 AM >

(in reply to petersolo)
Post #: 7
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/12/2011 11:01:25 AM   
petersolo

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 8/4/2007
From: Australia
Status: offline
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

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 8
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/12/2011 11:13:18 AM   
davidss

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 12/10/2009
Status: offline

quote:

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=N59msUnyy1g&feature=related

(in reply to mooxe)
Post #: 9
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/12/2011 7:58:59 PM   
RD_Oddball


Posts: 4833
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

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.


(in reply to petersolo)
Post #: 10
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/12/2011 8:01:15 PM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 532
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: gibsons b.c. canada
Status: offline
awesome video 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???

(in reply to davidss)
Post #: 11
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/12/2011 10:43:31 PM   
Pzt_Serk


Posts: 92
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline
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


< Message edited by Pzt_Serk -- 3/12/2011 10:45:55 PM >

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 12
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/12/2011 10:48:53 PM   
Mystic_Snake

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 11/18/2009
From: Genk, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to petersolo)
Post #: 13
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/12/2011 10:59:37 PM   
Mystic_Snake

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 11/18/2009
From: Genk, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

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?

(in reply to Pzt_Serk)
Post #: 14
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/13/2011 12:18:51 AM   
Pzt_Serk


Posts: 92
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Pzt_Serk -- 3/13/2011 12:44:27 AM >

(in reply to Mystic_Snake)
Post #: 15
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/13/2011 12:48:09 AM   
petersolo

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 8/4/2007
From: Australia
Status: offline

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


(in reply to Pzt_Serk)
Post #: 16
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/13/2011 1:51:39 AM   
kojusoki1

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline
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...

(in reply to petersolo)
Post #: 17
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/13/2011 2:15:49 AM   
petersolo

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 8/4/2007
From: Australia
Status: offline
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

(in reply to kojusoki1)
Post #: 18
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/13/2011 8:48:53 AM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 532
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: gibsons b.c. canada
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to petersolo)
Post #: 19
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/13/2011 4:59:04 PM   
Bordic

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Bordic -- 3/13/2011 5:04:49 PM >

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 20
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/13/2011 6:02:57 PM   
Pzt_Serk


Posts: 92
Joined: 10/30/2008
Status: offline
no tripod in the 3 men mg teams. Its the version with the bipod attached.

I'm not sure how the 1250 rounds is justified in the other mods, but I'd bet the gunner carry the mg and bipod, and the other 2 guys are ammo feeder. Both could bring 500 rounds each, thus 1000 rnds, and the gunner could have one 250 ammo belt around the neck or already loaded in the mg :)

< Message edited by Pzt_Serk -- 3/13/2011 6:04:13 PM >

(in reply to Bordic)
Post #: 21
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/13/2011 7:17:21 PM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 532
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: gibsons b.c. canada
Status: offline
the germans also had a DRUM magazine for the light version of the mg 42 with the bipod. not sure how many rds were in it, but still 1250 rounds is not a stretch IMHO

(in reply to Pzt_Serk)
Post #: 22
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/13/2011 9:12:07 PM   
RD_Oddball


Posts: 4833
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline
I think the current settings for ammo are based on supply records Steve had found and if you think about it to some extent the ammo availability limits the MG42's effectiveness in context of the game. So the current data on that works well for two reasons. The MG42's should be given respect when discovered due to their effectiveness in LSA but they also don't have free reign over the CC battlefield in LSA due to low ammo supply.

Again, important to consider these factors in context of the GC. I don't see any one setting currently adversely effecting the outcome or producing an unintended result. We'll consider changing the building protection values for future updates.

Still looking for more feedback on all this stuff. Please keep it coming.

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 23
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/13/2011 9:22:23 PM   
Mystic_Snake

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 11/18/2009
From: Genk, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

the germans also had a DRUM magazine for the light version of the mg 42 with the bipod. not sure how many rds were in it, but still 1250 rounds is not a stretch IMHO


The drum magazine had 50 rnds for the 42, 75 rnds for the 34 (like in the game).
However the MG34 in tanks had 150 rnds per belt, not 250 like in the game.

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 24
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/13/2011 9:48:14 PM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6112
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline
I think appropriate that the BO MG teams are under supplied... ie have less ammo.

these were not front line units and were low on any supply list.


_____________________________


(in reply to Mystic_Snake)
Post #: 25
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/14/2011 8:19:06 PM   
Oliver Heindorf


Posts: 1906
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline
LOL, those pussies fire it on the Lafette.

Real men fire it next to the shoulder laying on the ground and aiming alone with an iron sight.
MG3 was just the same using only 7.62mm instead of 7.92 mm.

I think the game models it good.

In bidod mode we usually had 200 rounds, sometimes 300 rounds, it depends on supply.

I cant say anything about tripod usage as I had never used the MG3 in tripod mode in the german army.

We were only equpied with the bipod model. 


(in reply to Andrew Williams)
Post #: 26
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/14/2011 10:03:04 PM   
mooxe


Posts: 261
Joined: 10/25/2003
Status: offline
Putting ammo loads dictated in war manuals aside.... When you go into a battle you bring whatever you can hump. If people were to make a game about Afghanistan, and went from our manual (Canadian)that said 150rounds was standard battle load, they would be entirely wrong. You bring all your ammo which is usually double load, some ammo for your section LMG and a few people bring ammo for the platoon MMG. A three man team would be really weighted down carrying 1250 rounds of anything thats 7mm and above, but having that much ammo available throughout the platoon is realistic.

So how do you model that into CC?

_____________________________

VVV
http://www.closecombatseries.net

Play all versions of Close Combat at www.gameranger.com.

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)
Post #: 27
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/19/2011 7:57:36 AM   
STIENER

 

Posts: 532
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: gibsons b.c. canada
Status: offline
i agree with Mooxe.....there are numerous 1st hand accounts of just what Mooxe is saying.......weapons and ammo loads in real WW2 life isnt what the manual says. the more ammo,grenades and MG's your squad , platoon or Company had the better. from the accounts i have read about market garden from the german point of view, i would say 450 rds is a bit low for the 3 man LMG squad.
the germans did at times have an ammo problem, but as the campaign progressed the germans got more of everything. FM Model gave the 9ss and 10ss direct access to his HQ for supply and reinforcment requests. they got what they wanted when they wanted it.

i would say the poorer quality troops in LSA should have 450 rds in there LMG squads and the better quality troops like the SS and Fallshirmjager should have 750 to 1000. that would be a good compromise IMHO.

(in reply to mooxe)
Post #: 28
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/19/2011 5:09:28 PM   
Tejszd

 

Posts: 2819
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
Good comprise recommendation Stiener that would makes sense historically too....

(in reply to STIENER)
Post #: 29
RE: Lethality of MG 42 - 3/19/2011 5:34:23 PM   
RD_Oddball


Posts: 4833
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline
Yep thanks for the suggestion Stiener, good idea.

(in reply to Tejszd)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Lethality of MG 42 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117