 |
|
machine guns - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Steel Panthers Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=14) +--- Thread: machine guns (/showthread.php?tid=42875) Pages:
1
2
|
machine guns - AlienXXX - 10-29-2007 Hello fellow SP players, MAybe some of you can offer some advice. In my previous experience playing SP against the AI and in more recent times playing human opponents, I must be doing something wrong when using machine gun units... I tend to find that these units get routed very easily. If they come under fire when dismounting from a vehicle that is usually it. Infantry units are a lot more resilient, and even other units such as bazooka teams don't seem to be so fragile. I know the theory is that mguns are supposed to be outside rifle range and provide area and support fire. But in the battle field with all the smoke etc, usually I do not have the luxury of such a long line of sight that I can often position my mguns so far away. Are mguns in SP meant as stactic units for perimeter defense only or am I doing something wrong? How long does a mgun unit need to stay in one place before it gets "dug in" status? Thanks Cesar / AlienXXX RE: machine guns - Grumbler - 10-30-2007 To be "dug in" you need to spend an entire turn in a hex without expending an MP's (movement points). As far as getting shot up, look at the units size. Some MG units have 1 MG and 3 men, they are a size zero units, which mens they are harder to spot and hit. The MG units with several guns and 8 or more men are a size one unit, which is the normal size for any infantry unit. They should take casualties at the same rate as any other infantry unit of that size. If it seems like your MG units are getting shot up more then the other infantry units, then it might be because they are getting shot at more. They are more of a threat. Or it could be that you are on a run of bad luck. Laugh if you will but that does happen. When 3.5 first came out, the effectiveness of small arms fire was reduced. I played my first game against someone who had hijacked a transport train full of RR Jeeps. I couldn't kill them for nothin. I had 3 BTR-80's ( with 1 heavy and 2 light MG's gang bang ( that is where you pull up next to an enemy unit and empty your guns into it over and over with several units) a Jeep. It drove off laughing. The Paris Hilton of Jeeps. I thought the game was hosed. Since then jeeps have mostly burned after a few squirts of MG fire. So It turned out I was just on a run of rolling snake eyes, and once past that, things got back to normal. RE: machine guns - RedDevil - 10-30-2007 Now I'd like to see Paris Hilton manning a MG on the back of a jeep..  or are we supposed to be thinking of something else rather? :conf: RE: machine guns - Grumbler - 10-30-2007 Manning or unmanning? To Skinny for me. Those hip bones might be covered by the Geneva Conventions as unlawful weapons. Dum dum bullets, poison gas and Paris Hilton's hips.:eek1: RE: machine guns - Stonefire - 10-31-2007 AlienXXX Wrote:If they come under fire when dismounting from a vehicle that is usually it.I think the dismounting is your problem. When they dismount within enemy range they are automaticly spottet, and if within range fired upon. I even think there is a morale deduction for dismounting under fire (I'm guessing here). The trick is - dismount under cover (smoke / terrain), then move sloowly in position using the "zero" size benefit to be undetected. Regards Stonefire RE: machine guns - klanx171 - 10-31-2007 MGs work best when used as support for your infantry squad but on the attack they are slower and not so effective, better to put them back as covering a open flank or your arty than have them dragging at the back of the assault. On the defense they rock, in a well dug in spot they can make merry hell but its better to keep them shut down so they dont fire and you can pick their targets for them rather than have them blast at anything. If they get fire from dismounting you are waaaayy to close. RE: machine guns - Vesku - 10-31-2007 MGs are excellent in attack if you need to cross any open fields, set them at the edge of the clearing and any enemy at the other side is in trouble. RE: machine guns - klanx171 - 10-31-2007 Vesku Wrote:MGs are excellent in attack if you need to cross any open fields, set them at the edge of the clearing and any enemy at the other side is in trouble. Id agree but as mentioned above once the smoke goes up that support is lost and if your op is setting up on the tree line as oppose to inside of it or behind it then they are asking for trouble. The MGs in WW2 are much more deadly than in older WaW and H2H I feel, its the speed, and having actualy spent time helping to lug the gimpy around speed is not an asset you useally have, better as static weapons, give me laser sights and IR capability though.... RE: machine guns - Vesku - 10-31-2007 You can always area fire but the point is, MGs are quite useful in attack if there is good visibility. Usually I don't have enough arty to hit everything so I need something else to support the attack and tanks are just shait in spww2. Everyone probably has his own solution for the support issue. RE: machine guns - klanx171 - 10-31-2007 Vesku Wrote:You can always area fire but the point is, MGs are quite useful in attack if there is good visibility. Usually I don't have enough arty to hit everything so I need something else to support the attack and tanks are just shait in spww2. Everyone probably has his own solution for the support issue. Fair enough, tanks certainly have had their claws cut in SP WW2, I feel that it is a good thing as tanks are not as omnipotent as they seemed in earlier version of SP and the realities of a man with a panzerfast or a bazooka, or a stickey bomb, or an AT gun reflect the hash realities of tank war, that you need support, and lots of it when its anything but straight open terrain and even then. |
){kind=link}