Minimum range for MGs

[BrotherPedro]

Upload a replay of your average game. I want to see what kind of positioning will result in average engagement range of 200m.

Infantry combat in this game doesn't happen like what you are describing from my experience. No one is rushing anyone's infantry to 100m to negate MG advantage because infantry will be suppressed extremely quickly if they are moving while under fire. 100m infantry combat mostly only happens in forest (where the max view range is 100m) or town when infantry can teleport around houses to close distance suddenly.

If it's really that easy to close to 100m range then stormtroopers would be unstoppable killing machine. Actually employing them and you will find they are very situational because even with 2 smoke grenade it's hard to move infantry around when infantry is not fighting in a vacuum.

 

[Lendosan]

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.

Firstly 100m is bayonet charging distance, not close combat distance, you can't throw a grenade 100m, you can't throw a javelin 100m. So no, that isn't close combat, and if that is what Eugen thinks is close combat, maybe get someone whose been in combat to dictate that distance.

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.

If I put my infantry in tree lines, then they struggle to see. When they do combat other enemy units, they are effective, but without the MG they are not AS effective. If you put them into areas where they can see long distances (i.e. from a building/tree line covering open space) usually there is a tank/AT gun placed that can nuke the infantry squad. Usually I meet infantry squads when leaving a treeline/enemy leaves a treeline or bumping into each other in forests; often my squad loses.

Upload a replay of your average game. I want to see what kind of positioning will result in average engagement range of 200m.

Infantry combat in this game doesn't happen like what you are describing from my experience. No one is rushing anyone's infantry to 100m to negate MG advantage because infantry will be suppressed extremely quickly if they are moving while under fire. 100m infantry combat mostly only happens in forest (where the max view range is 100m) or town when infantry can teleport around houses to close distance suddenly.

Firstly you're mis-quoting me, I described what I would do using transports if the minimum distance for MG's was kept in game, as halftrack MG's are devastating and can move quicker than infantry. So i'd close the distance down, disembark infantry and then win. Simple meta really.

If it's really that easy to close to 100m range then stormtroopers would be unstoppable killing machine. Actually employing them and you will find they are very situational because even with 2 smoke grenade it's hard to move infantry around when infantry is not fighting in a vacuum.

Not all decks, Allied or German, get specialist close in units. So that doesn't always work.

Simple fix; remove the 100m minimum for MG squads.

 

[Max_Damage]

Are you sure they cant throw grenades 100m? because they throw at grenades at 100m in game.

 

[Wolke]

Not all decks, Allied or German, get specialist close in units. So that doesn't always work.

Which decks don't get specialist close in units? So we can discuss why they may not get them.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I was reading a historical document on hedgerow tactics: American troops preferred BARs for LMG work in the hedgerows because 30 cals were simply too clumsy for rapid maneuvering. A BAR team could move to a new position, fire suppressively, and move on. They were absolutely used as LMGs.

Firstly 100m is bayonet charging distance, not close combat distance, you can't throw a grenade 100m, you can't throw a javelin 100m. So no, that isn't close combat, and if that is what Eugen thinks is close combat, maybe get someone whose been in combat to dictate that distance.

it's an abstraction. the ranges in the game are messily abstracted for several reasons, with essentially nonlinear scaling at the short and long end. It's also the case that 100m in game is obviously not 100m compared to the scale of the game. Essentially, everything below 100m is close assault because for all intents and purposes it is impossible to get closer than that.

 

[Lendosan]

Are you sure they cant throw grenades 100m? because they throw at grenades at 100m in game.

Pedantry, also taken out of context; stats gamer. I'll move on.

Which decks don't get specialist close in units? So we can discuss why they may not get them.

Balance - which I get. Putting a 100m minimum isn't balance, nor is it realistic. Balance another way, essentially no infantry unit can be used the way it historically was; apart from those who didn't rely on MG's.

It's an abstraction. the ranges in the game are messily abstracted for several reasons, with essentially nonlinear scaling at the short and long end. It's also the case that 100m in game is obviously not 100m compared to the scale of the game. Essentially, everything below 100m is close assault because for all intents and purposes it is impossible to get closer than that.

So if it's a matter of historical accuracy - remove the minimum range. It's a simple fix really.

I get why everyone is shouting no, I'm not shouting yes to make a deck I've built massively meta and pro. I'm shouting yes because at the end of the day MG's didn't work like this. The majority of tactics involved either holding a position around an MG or fighting from an MGs position. That meant sometimes point blank contact with the point of fire. I'll happily take any historical counter argument, but I'm tired of "The game says so" and "balance" as being reasons for not changing it to 0m.

 

[sam hamwitch]

But in a way it is realistic. Just not in the way you're thinking. Yes we all know that realistically MGs could fire under 100m, but as it's been pointed out the sub 100m range is an abstraction that represents everything from SMG range to grenade range to hand to hand combat range, and while MGs could be used in those situations they wouldn't have performed amazingly. So if you just remove the minimum range and leave it there you'll have a situation where some squads are performing unrealistically well in CQC. Yes I know there have been suggestions made about how to mitigate this, but to be honest I think most of them are overcomplicated and would require a total rework of infantry combat, which just isn't that likely so close to release.

What about representing MG's fire-power at 100 metres or less with a small stat increase to another weapon the squad carries, like the SMG? Yes it's a bit counter intuitive, but at the end of the day the important thing is that squads as a whole perform as they should at the different engagement ranges. That would get around the 'all or nothing' problem where with the current game play mechanics either MGs have no minimum range, in which case they'll be unrealistically good up close, or they have one and they (also unrealistically) can't do anything

 

[RSharpe]

Rather than a minimum range limitation, I would rather see LMGs not able to fire while the squad is on the move, and once the the squad stops, it requires a setup time to get the LMG up again. Weapons like the BAR could be treated as automatic rifles rather than a LMG to give those squads assaulting benefits.

 

[artemasward]

Just looking at the numbers, removing MG min range and cutting the HE value in half, or to a quarter in the sub-100m range for the big machineguns (like the mg42 or 1919) would make SMGs more effective than MGs in its range, while still allowing all MGs to be useful (though less effective than an SMG) in that close quarters range.

SMGs typically have an HE of 3, MG 34, 42, 1919 typically have 4, while brens and bars have around 1.5. As such, in the sub-100m range, an mg34 reduced from 4 HE to a quarter of its value in cqc (1 HE), would still be useful but less useful than either an SMG or a lighter LMG like the Bren or BAR. Similarly, an SMG would still be more effective than an unmodified Bren or Bar in that same range.

This is basically the inverse of sam hamwitch's suggestion, but along a similar line. However I feel its more intuitive, and ultimately more elegant in both achieving gameplay objectives and maintaining historicity.

 

[Son of a Duck]

Please god no.

My buddy's the one shooting. I'd love to see some Talibs run out and see if they can just roll up because they're 'within 100m'.

Just an awful idea.

Hey guys, 'just sideshot that ma deuce'

Just jam my sh*t up fam

 

[sam hamwitch]

Just looking at the numbers, removing MG min range and cutting the HE value in half, or to a quarter in the sub-100m range for the big machineguns (like the mg42 or 1919) would make SMGs more effective than MGs in its range, while still allowing all MGs to be useful (though less effective than an SMG) in that close quarters range.

SMGs typically have an HE of 3, MG 34, 42, 1919 typically have 4, while brens and bars have around 1.5. As such, in the sub-100m range, an mg34 reduced from 4 HE to a quarter of its value in cqc (1 HE), would still be useful but less useful than either an SMG or a lighter LMG like the Bren or BAR. Similarly, an SMG would still be more effective than an unmodified Bren or Bar in that same range.

This is basically the inverse of sam hamwitch's suggestion, but along a similar line. However I feel its more intuitive, and ultimately more elegant in both achieving gameplay objectives and maintaining historicity.

Yeah this is better than my suggestion, but I'm just not sure the engine can do it. I suggested tacking the extra damage on to the SMG because even though it's pretty inelegant, it would definitely be possible.