RockinHarry
Posts: 2941
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wodin
Is some of this just a data delay in updating? As you said 8 mins later the log updated. Maybe it's the same with the ammo.Also I doubt everytime a unit fires a sound is made. Otherwise in a large scenario it would be a cacophony and I expect would slow the system down.
Dave will be able to answer this I'm sure.
Chief i also queried the MG42 rof on release. I upped it in the est to around 30 to 40 rpm. Trouble then is a quick depletion of ammo.
Just thought I wonder if we could have some kind of option so we can tell a unit to fire at the enemy as soon as they are in range even if not perceived a threat. I though max Aggro would have done this already. Or the max aggor setting should set the unit to do this. Then the problem would be fixed I think.
I do not believe that it´s simply a delay in updating the log. When the aborted firing occurs, then as said, there´s also no ammo deducted and the enemy unit also does behave totally unaffected (keeps moving, or even starts firing). As you say, only Dave could shed some light on this.
Unlike the "averaged" range rings of a company unit with integrated HMGs, the effective fire range ring of the pure HMG platoon unit goes way farer out (1000-1200m) and oftentimes they even engage at that range, but as said, then the shot/burst does not pull off for unknwon reason. At least it seems so, unless Dave explains that the game does work differently from what I/we expect to see.
Theoretically 4 HMG42 would initiate a surprise fire concentration (Feuerüberfall) of minimum 4 x 50 round belts (200 projectiles) in 2 1/2 seconds on the company size UK unit. For greater effect, the platoon leader could also order 100 round belts (400 projectiles) in 5 seconds. This would not just have a considerable suppression effect on an advancing (in the open) enemy, it also would likely hit a few soldiers. The closer the range, the less dispersed would be the salvoe and the more effect put on the enemy. Once the enemy unit manages to come in range of the line infantry, the HMG´s would´ve done their purpose. The defending line infantry then can deal with enemy infantry, which til then should´ve lost some cohesion, morale and fighting strength. At this point the line infantry would have its full stock of ammo left for rifles and lMG.
So far, I think the "integrated" solution is not fully worked out as the HMGs are more used for a close defense, vs a largely unaffected attacker. It could be very effective though, but the attacker then is so close that he can put effective return fire on the defender as well.
If nobody else then me sees the above mentioned issues, then it also might be, that my installation went fubar.  I´d installed all the necessary C++, DX and .NET framwork stuff though.
Re MG42 ROF and ammo expenditure. I just see this as problem, as long as the MG42 (and all other) expend all of an infantry units 7.92mm ammo. Normally german HMGs weren´t generally integrated in the forward line, rather somewhat back, depending on terrain and fields of fire. HMGs could be forward in forests, urban, night or in an attack, then working with the forward troops. Tactically they kept some independence and also had to draw ammo resupply via the heavy companies lines.
So tactically the HMG´s were mostly used for the long to medium range job. lMGs would drop in at medium range and remaining wepaons at close range. If the HMGs further back have ammo left, they´d help with the close defense off course. This is just a small piece of the whole picture and there´s also the topic "prepared defense", where all available weapons of a defender would concentrate on an attacker at a preset pattern (target reference points or areas). I think, currently the defender in the game is at some disadvantage. If you take away all the artillery from the game, which I think "covers" some of the infantry battle problems, then many basic actions look rather uncoordinated and conducted in a more piecemeal fashion.
Not to be misunderstood, I really like the game and it´s many possibilities.  It´s my way exploring a new game, creating small, controllable battles to get a grasp of how individual aspects of the engine (infantry, armor, artillery, combined arms...) work out. It´s maybe not the way the game is intended to be (combined arms, fluid battles of movement)? 
I´ve various projects in the bag, incl. Operation Veritable, Black Cock and the hurtgen forest battle. 
_____________________________
RockinHarry in the web:
http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann
|
Printable Version
Question re THREATS - 
Above mentioned issues (non engaging or point blanc engaging) stay the same. 
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