Minimum range for MGs

[sam hamwitch]

I'm pretty sure the minimum range on MGs is to ensure that squads with good MG firepower don't overperform at short range, where SMGs and semiauto rifles are supposed to have the advantage. If you remove the minimum range then either there needs to be an accuracy dropoff at short range (who knows if the engine can even do this), MG damage would have to be reduced overall (which would probably lead them to underperform at long range, where they're actually supposed to be good), or SMG and semiauto rifle damage would have to be increased to ensure that they retain their close range advantage, and that would mean a lot of balance work and would result in really quick firefights at close range as well.

The current system might be unrealistic at one level (yes MGs could fire at targets under a hundred metres), but on the other hand it correctly simulates the advantage MG armed squads had at range, and the advantage squads armed with semiauto rifles and SMGs had up close. I guess my point is that the end result is realistic, even if the means by which they got there isn't, and that's good enough for me.

 

[TGApples]

The current system might be unrealistic at one level (yes MGs could fire at targets under a hundred metres), but on the other hand it correctly simulates the advantage MG armed squads had at range, and the advantage squads armed with semiauto rifles and SMGs had up close. I guess my point is that the end result is realistic, even if the means by which they got there isn't, and that's good enough for me.

I agree. My main issue is that there's a difference between standalone MGs and squad-MGs. I don't see why a standalone MG (eg MG42) should have nearly twice the HE close-up as a 10 man squad (eg. PzGrenadier) with rifles and an SMG. Maybe accuracy makes up for it, but right now I feel that standalone MGs are a little too strong in close quarters.

 

[Harold Alexander]

IMO better solution is not the minimum range, but much longer AIM/preparation time for fire, and maybe they need same type of adjustment fire for each burst like the tanks/guns, that would fix devastating fire of MG's on long/medium ranges.

 

[local-festival]

One way or another, something should certainly be done about MGs. This unit is ultimately a tool of defense, static defense even. But right now, when you can select your MG squad and send it into the woods where it will encounter a mobile infantry squad and will decimate them, something feels really broken.
It's either minimal range or deployment time, but it's imperative to tend to this problem.

 

[Luckless]

From a modelling stand point, I'm wondering if having a variable AoE style may help solve issues.

- Increase machine gun aim time
- Have machine guns project a wider AoE at longer ranges

Could nicely model their real world effects: Longer ranges allow more effective spread/bump fire against targets, remain a dangerous close-in weapon, while still not slaughtering things too much when stuff is in too close. While the targets are far away you can engage them all at once, but as they close in you are engaging them more one at a time kind of thing.

Something that would take a lot of specific play testing against a range of variables to get the right feel and effect.

Adding more of a 'setup time' on the MGs may also help limit any exploitive use on overly close in combat for things like rushing an MG too far forward to force close quarters. Possibly add a debuff to them when moving. (If your only main weapon is a heavy MG, and you are taking fire while you don't have your weapon deployed, then you're probably not going to be too keen on staying in the area if people are shooting at you since you can't even shoot back effectively.)

 

[gronank]

I don't necessarily mind infantry mg being inert under 100m, it gives an interesting tactical dynamic between squads that do have majority firepower in mgs and those that don't.

I do think that it is a bit harsh to price Panzer grenadiers at 35 points. They're 25pts Arm. lmg rifles with a panzerfaust and they lose to 20 point infantry within 100m.
20 point infantry that is only really strong within 100m is a lot more flexible because if you're fighting beyond that, you bring a machine gun and smoke. If you're paying 35 points for your infantry, you kind of relying on them to be good everywhere but I think that would be boring so I prefer to leave the mgs as they are and price panzergrenadiers lower (like 25pts) and give them more availability (german divisions seriously run out of infantry a lot)

 

[Benlandia]

Give the MG42 a minimum range and you effectively, and historically, take away why it was created and used. As a squad based support weapon it was used from point blank to its 1000m effective range, they didn't just stop firing because the enemy came close. Additionally if the enemy are close enough to assault it whilst the barrel is being changed, they were either within 100m or every allied soldier of WW2 was Usain Bolt (and even then, it took him 9 seconds to cover 100m).

This is probably the most compelling argument to remove a minimum range. There are several historical instances of MG42's being used at point blank ranges before being eliminated by grenades or hand-to-hand combat, especially on the Eastern front.

 

[fabius]

This is probably the most compelling argument to remove a minimum range. There are several historical instances of MG42's being used at point blank ranges before being eliminated by grenades or hand-to-hand combat, especially on the Eastern front.

Ha yes, and try and spring 100m across rough ground, with boots, helmet, weapon, ammo etc. This minimum range thing really is my only balancing/abstraction gripe

 

[sam hamwitch]

I agree. My main issue is that there's a difference between standalone MGs and squad-MGs. I don't see why a standalone MG (eg MG42) should have nearly twice the HE close-up as a 10 man squad (eg. PzGrenadier) with rifles and an SMG. Maybe accuracy makes up for it, but right now I feel that standalone MGs are a little too strong in close quarters.

I think giving them a hundred metre minimum range would be fine. If that makes them underpowered (and I'm really not sure it would) they could get a price drop or accuracy buff to compensate

 

[Lendosan]

I think giving them a hundred metre minimum range would be fine. If that makes them underpowered (and I'm really not sure it would) they could get a price drop or accuracy buff to compensate

It does make them massively underpowered; especially the squad based ones that are tied into 35-55pt squads. Especially when I get get a unit that costs 20-30 within 100m and cancel the squads main advantage.

If you put a minimum range on squad based MGs, then you need to drop the cost of those squads. Alternatively remove the squad based minimum range.

 

[TGApples]

It does make them massively underpowered; especially the squad based ones that are tied into 35-55pt squads. Especially when I get get a unit that costs 20-30 within 100m and cancel the squads main advantage.

But that's interesting play. I don't disagree that the German infantry squads tend to be less cost efficient, but I disagree that the "fix" is to dumb the game down to make them strongest at all ranges.

If you put a minimum range on squad based MGs, then you need to drop the cost of those squads.

I honestly don't think you do. 100m is a pretty close range infantry engagement in this game. MGs *should* be set up in areas where they have a wide field of fire to exploit their range. The engagements where you're actually under 100m will usually be house-to-house fighting, or in the middle of a forest.

Alternatively remove the squad based minimum range.

Which would require quite a big infantry balance pass. Some German infantry squads would more than double in effectiveness at <100m. Rangers support would suddenly become close range monsters and not just long range monsters. You get the picture.

 

[Thonar]

Just givimg some food for thought:
The MG42 can place its Bipod in a matter of seconds from a forward to a middle position.
The middle position is used especially in forest and during urban fightings due to a bigger arc of fire, while the forward is the "standard" allowing better control of bursts.

Nevertheless the effective Range of the MG42 on Bipod is 600m, not 1000m.
On Tripod it is 1200m actually.

 

[artemasward]

But that's interesting play. I don't disagree that the German infantry squads tend to be less cost efficient, but I disagree that the "fix" is to dumb the game down to make them strongest at all ranges.


I honestly don't think you do. 100m is a pretty close range infantry engagement in this game. MGs *should* be set up in areas where they have a wide field of fire to exploit their range. The engagements where you're actually under 100m will usually be house-to-house fighting, or in the middle of a forest.


Which would require quite a big infantry balance pass. Some German infantry squads would more than double in effectiveness at <100m. Rangers support would suddenly become close range monsters and not just long range monsters. You get the picture.

Which is why scaling of effectiveness is a better solution than removing min range and doing nothing, or just doing nothing. Keep in mind that 100 meters represents a full quarter of the effective range of an infantry MG in this game. If this were Wargame, then you might have a point, 100m and under is basically in the same block, but in SD 100m is half the distance from one hedgerow to another, or or enough to cover most of a village.

Of course, this problem exists almost exclusively because eugen still treats infantry squads as vehicles with extra models, and because they combined damage and suppression. There ARE solutions out there, but yes some effort needs to be made to execute them. Just saying that min ranges are necessary because 'balance' however is trite.

 

[Lendosan]

Keep in mind that 100 meters represents a full quarter of the effective range of an infantry MG in this game. If this were Wargame, then you might have a point, 100m and under is basically in the same block, but in SD 100m is half the distance from one hedgerow to another, or or enough to cover most of a village.

That is exactly my point. Infantry wouldn't stop firing the MG because the enemy were closing the distance down, not on an open field, nor in a packed, dense street. It makes zero sense that, at least, squad based MG's have a minimum distance. I get the "Balance" argument, but if the game is striving to be so historically accurate that it hurts, this goes entirely against that. Historic accuracy would have the squad based MG firing until the enemy was touching the barrel.

I appreciate that the game may need this, but there are totally better solutions than making specific squads of infantry useless under 100m. Example; I will now probably remove aspects of infantry based on the fact they have an MG to be more point effective. A lot of my meta tactics will now involve closing to within 100m of squads that have MGs as they won't fire using cover and making them ineffective.

In reality, and historically, an infantry squad wouldn't dream of openly closing the distance on a squad with an MG in it. I just guess that Eugen haven't read that part of history, nor have most of the respondents.

Each infantry squad below has 10 soldiers, the German Panzer Grens have 2 MGs are are pointed at 35/55 depending on transport. The Americans are pointed at 40 with the M3 and have zero MGs and finally the British have 1 MG with a cost of 20.

Over 100m the Americans are the most effective squad (200m engagement for the Carbines), having eight/ten members with the ability to fire, followed by the Germans with nine and British in third, as they have two Sten guns in their squad making them able to bring eight weapons to fire. However under 100m (which as we've already discussed is pretty much the average engagement distance for most squad to squad combat due to forests, hedgerows and urban combat) the Americans are still the most effective squad as they can still bring all ten guns to fire, where as the British move up to second with nine guns and the Germans drop down to third with only eight.

The MG's are vital for infantry squads to actually operate on a modern and historic level. They are required for suppression, fire and manoeuvre and actually creating killing grounds to stop the enemy approaching. If you cut them down to not engage within 100m, just take out the MGs. Give me more riflemen or SMG armed troopers, even more AT troopers, as currently the MG's won't work as they are intended. Give me the current meta which is armed transports like the SDKFZ251/1 or M3 HT, so I can spam them and have them engage with the MGs as and when I need.

If you want a game that does portray combat during WW2, read the battle through the bocage (which actually happened during the Normandy campaign). The infantry didn't fear the Panzers, they feared "Hitlers Buzzsaw"; and mostly within 200m. I'd urge Eugen to rethink the whole "Minimum 100m" thing for the squads, otherwise it will hinder tactics within the game.

 

[Max_Damage]

Min range for the machineguns is a very sound idea in the game.
It opens the possibilities when your squad is best at mg range but when it cant use MG it will lose to semiauto rifle spam of the allies.

Adds another dimension into infnatry combat and ranges.

Tripod MG squads also need a 100m restriction on their MG. Everything below 100m is effectively close range fight and makes emplacements useless, prone to grenade throws etc.

 

[Wolke]

Over 100m the Americans are the most effective squad (200m engagement for the Carbines), having eight/ten members with the ability to fire, followed by the Germans with nine and British in third, as they have two Sten guns in their squad making them able to bring eight weapons to fire. However under 100m (which as we've already discussed is pretty much the average engagement distance for most squad to squad combat due to forests, hedgerows and urban combat) the Americans are still the most effective squad as they can still bring all ten guns to fire, where as the British move up to second with nine guns and the Germans drop down to third with only eight.

You make the mistake to simply take the number of guns that can fire to mean that someone has an advantage, but what you really want to look at is the HE that each squad can bring to bear at different ranges:

400M
Pz.Grenadier: 8HE
Arm.Rifles: 0 HE
Rifles: 2 HE

300M
Pz.Grenadier: 10HE
Arm.Rifles: 4 HE
Rilfes: 4 HE

200M
Pz.Grenadier: 10HE
Arm.Rifles: 6HE
Rifles: 4HE

100M
Pz.Grenader: 5HE
Arm.Rifles: 6HE
Rifles: 8HE


Now looking at this it is very clear that the Pz.Grenadier have the upper hand against either of the other squads until the range of 100M. The advantage they have depends a bit on the distance, but it's considerable.

Under 100m they are at a disadvantage due to the MGs not firing, but compared to the Arm.Rifles not even that much. And the scottisch Rifles finally can actually put out some damage, but at great risk to themselfs.

Regarding the price.
I think Pz.Grenadiers are okay at 35, but only if they were more available.

They deal more damage up to 100m and they have a 150m range AT weapon. But they still are only one squad with 10HP. That makes them easier to supress and to take out with support weapons than cheaper more numerous squads. Their availability is laughably bad.

I'd leave the price but raise their availability per card by 1 in Phase A, 2 in B, plus maybe actually make Phase C cards with higher numbers available. Grenadier* needs more than that in numbers.

Edit:

If three players spend 140$ on their infantry, they get this:

400M
Pz.Grenadier: 40HP 32HE
Arm. Rifles: 70HP 0HE
Rifles: 70HP 14HE

300M
Pz.Grenadier: 40HP 40HE
Arm. Rifles: 70HP 28HE
Rifles: 70HP 28HE

200M
Pz.Grenadier: 40HP 40HE
Arm. Rifles: 70HP 42HE
Rifles: 70HP 28HE

100M
Pz.Grenadier: 40HP 20HE
Arm. Rifles: 70HP 42HE
Rifles: 70HP 56HE

By this I think lowering their price by 5 could be justified, too.
Card efficiency comparing cards without halftrack to cards with halftracks is a different issue, mostly affecting 91. LL and to a lesser extend 17. SS. Scotts have enough activation points and availability to compensate that.

 

[Lendosan]

Min range for the machineguns is a very sound idea in the game.
It opens the possibilities when your squad is best at mg range but when it cant use MG it will lose to semiauto rifle spam of the allies.

Adds another dimension into infnatry combat and ranges.

Tripod MG squads also need a 100m restriction on their MG. Everything below 100m is effectively close range fight and makes emplacements useless, prone to grenade throws etc.

If you can throw grenades roughly 100m's, then you are in the wrong career. Additionally you're missing the point; an MG gunner wouldn't stop firing until either they'd ran out of rounds, had to change a barrel and the enemy was too close or was killed. THAT is the point; historical accuracy and not just Germans. BAR's were used like rifles (the clues in the name) Browning Automatic Rifle.

You make the mistake to simply take the number of guns that can fire to mean that someone has an advantage, but what you really want to look at is the HE that each squad can bring to bear at different ranges:

400M
Pz.Grenadier: 8HE
Arm.Rifles: 0 HE
Rifles: 2 HE

300M
Pz.Grenadier: 10HE
Arm.Rifles: 4 HE
Rilfes: 4 HE

200M
Pz.Grenadier: 10HE
Arm.Rifles: 6HE
Rifles: 4HE

100M
Pz.Grenader: 5HE
Arm.Rifles: 6HE
Rifles: 8HE

Now looking at this it is very clear that the Pz.Grenadier have the upper hand against either of the other squads until the range of 100M. The advantage they have depends a bit on the distance, but it's considerable.

Under 100m they are at a disadvantage due to the MGs not firing, but compared to the Arm.Rifles not even that much. And the Scottish Rifles finally can actually put out some damage, but at great risk to themselves.

I'm not just arguing for the German Pz. Grens., I'm arguing for all squad based MG's. I actually prefer to play US, alas I think this is being lost in translation. However this is the part of the quote I am replying too "You make the mistake to simply take the number of guns that can fire to mean that someone has an advantage"; It should do EXACTLY that. One real life MG puts down the amount of rounds that ten men could firing at once. However if you have ten men firing back you have ten rounds falling onto the target, that increases your chances of killing the opponent by ten. The idea of an MG is magnification of firepower; basically putting down a suppressible wall of rounds onto your target that rifle fire just couldn't do back in the day, unless you had hundreds of men putting rounds down.

You are throwing game mechanics understanding at a point regarding historical accuracy. We shouldn't be balancing a games mechanics at the sacrifice of historical accuracy. A lot of the tactics that people will try to use may be around how they fought historically, I know that is what I do.

Additionally you are saying that the Germans have a greater suppression at 400m; I've never engaged enemy infantry (comp stomp or PvP) over 200m. Most hedgerows are measured to be 200m apart; so unless my opponent is walking infantry across a vastly open space, I couldn't dream of engaging them at the Pz. Grens. maximum advantage range. So although you are correct with your listing, the real application of the unit just cannot be met. Thus my point still stands regarding the minimum engagement distance.

Regarding the price.
I think Pz.Grenadiers are okay at 35, but only if they were more available.

They deal more damage up to 100m and they have a 150m range AT weapon. But they still are only one squad with 10HP. That makes them easier to supress and to take out with support weapons than cheaper more numerous squads. Their availability is laughably bad.

I'd leave the price but raise their availability per card by 1 in Phase A, 2 in B, plus maybe actually make Phase C cards with higher numbers available. Grenadier* needs more than that in numbers.

Edit:
If three players spend 140$ on their infantry, they get this:

400M
Pz.Grenadier: 40HP 32HE
Arm. Rifles: 70HP 0HE
Rifles: 70HP 14HE

300M
Pz.Grenadier: 40HP 40HE
Arm. Rifles: 70HP 28HE
Rifles: 70HP 28HE

200M
Pz.Grenadier: 40HP 40HE
Arm. Rifles: 70HP 42HE
Rifles: 70HP 28HE

100M
Pz.Grenadier: 40HP 20HE
Arm. Rifles: 70HP 42HE
Rifles: 70HP 56HE

By this I think lowering their price by 5 could be justified, too.

I agree with this, however I'd agree with this with the 100m minimum or not. Either decrease cost or increase availability.

Card efficiency comparing cards without halftrack to cards with halftracks is a different issue, mostly affecting 91. LL and to a lesser extend 17. SS. Scotts have enough activation points and availability to compensate that.

Again I wasn't really comparing card efficiency, more availability of guns per card with/without MG's to further show how poorly the 100m rule would effect others. The reasoning for mentioning transports was, if the MGs are an issue, then i'll just disembark the infantry, use them in a role (historically) that they weren't used for, and then use the transports as mobile MG gun bases. Thus negating infantry squads, as normal SMG/Rifle fire doesn't effect them due to being armoured, and if they have MG's i'll just drive to within 100m's and negate it.

This is the main issue; people don't want MG's engaging under 100m's, but these people are stat's heavy gamers. Where stat's trump gameplay, where mechanics are superior to realism. I get it, we don't all game the same, but in a game where people are picking it apart for historical accuracy, for those same people to not want MG's to engage within 100m's leaves me dumbfounded with their logic. If it's balance, do the balance differently.

 

[Max_Damage]

You dont take in game ranges literally ow you just did. your own fault.

 

[Wolke]

I'm not just arguing for the German Pz. Grens., I'm arguing for all squad based MG's. I actually prefer to play US, alas I think this is being lost in translation. However this is the part of the quote I am replying too "You make the mistake to simply take the number of guns that can fire to mean that someone has an advantage"; It should do EXACTLY that. One real life MG puts down the amount of rounds that ten men could firing at once. However if you have ten men firing back you have ten rounds falling onto the target, that increases your chances of killing the opponent by ten. The idea of an MG is magnification of firepower; basically putting down a suppressible wall of rounds onto your target that rifle fire just couldn't do back in the day, unless you had hundreds of men putting rounds down.

If you look at the stats, one MG-42 does as much HE as two squads worth of Kar98k or 7 M1Garands (even at longer range, but less accurate). So it looks like it does exactly as you say. The Scottish Bren does half of that, since it works with 30 round magazines, but is a bit more accurate.

You have to understand that "Sub 100M" is an abstraction. It's close combat, grenadethrow-distance, bayonet-distance, all together. You also have to understand that for gameplay it makes sense to have units with different strength and weaknesses.

Then you say that your grenadiers rarely fight other infantry at distances greater than 200M. I think in some areas of the maps we have that can happen, sure. It plays into the strength of some decks. But maybe you also can still work a bit on positioning your infantry better, chosing positions where they can take advantage of the longer range, etc.

That aside, as I said, I believe German infantry (in general even) is not available enough, maybe even too expensive in many cases.

 

[Luckless]

While having abstractions with the goals of making units have different strengths and weaknesses is good, the hard "They're under 100m, stop the machine guns!" is not the way to go about it that many of the players would like to see.
- It looks like a bug.
- It doesn't make sense.
- It is just plain weird.


There are lots of ways to modify the mechanics of machine guns such that they can remain firing right up to the bitter end while making the unit feel different from others.

Mechanics like "Draw Fire", "Dig In", and "Firing Arcs" seem like a much nicer way to vary different kinds of infantry units than randomly lopping the effectiveness of a given weapon off at an arbitrary point.
- Stationary units can slowly dig in and prepare their positions, but machine guns will attract more attention and allow opposition to pin-point the location of the weapon faster than a slower firing rifle. Dig in could also have its bonus apply mainly to select firing arcs per weapon.
- Charging forward with a machine gun heavy unit that doesn't have proper support then puts them at a disadvantage of a unit positioned in a defensive formation and given the time to dig in. Their machine guns will set down and draw more fire at themselves while lacking the advantage of a prepared dug-in position.
- On the counter, charging forward straight into the firing arc of a machine gun heavy unit that has been well dug becomes a rather suicidal idea.
- Having your dug in machine gun heavy unit hit from a side they don't have established firing arcs on... Well, now you force their machine gunners to reposition to respond, and the machine guns take heavier negatives from the loss of their full dug in bonus.