Nar I wasn't sure if the patch was meant to address that or where troops abandon cover and run towards the enemy, the latter of which seems to have been fixed.
The running away when under artillery was supposed to have been fixed in the previous patch. Then that introduced the suicide charge bug which was fixed in the latest patch
Last edited:
Is there any historical reason for the Lee Enfield to fire quite a lot faster than the Kar98? I thought both were bolt action rifles working much the same way.
It's the larger magazine capacity (10 vs 5). Weapons that can fire more rounds between reloads tend to have higher average RoF in the game, especially at shorter distances.
I was asking about the Lee Enfield though, not the Garand.
Last edited:
Another interesting thing is that the M1 Carbine is so much more effective than both the bolt action rifles, even at 240m. But maybe it might be that it lacks punch against targets in buildings?
watch from the timestamp or from earlier since there the data from the lee enfield and kar98k are shown aswell.
But if you want to see them individually:
Ah, thanks. I thought the video was only about the Garand.
Interesting just how fast these rifles can be fired. Compared to the sleepwalker-like pace of Combat Mission.
The speed is impressive, but here we have an expert firing at a cardboard target under ideal conditions - not a scared soldier shooting at an enemy he can barely see!
The tests taught me to respect the little carbine (but my data ends at 192m! At 240m they wouldn't fire at targets in foxholes). I don't know about buildings, but their disadvantage can be that they run out of ammunition relatively fast. The standard allocation is 75 rounds compared to 108 for the Garand.
Sure, I understand combat conditions are different from a firing range. But not all troops in Combat Mission are scared greenhorns. Some are crack troops with good morale and high motivation. They should be able to fire these rifles way faster.
AFAIK crack troops fire their rifles quite a bit faster? Perhaps not as fast as in the video, but that's a different ballpark.
With regards to the carbine it is indeed interesting to see whether their perfomance diminshes vs troops behind solid cover like a building. In CMSF the difference between the 7,62x39 AK round vs the 5,56x45 is noticeable in house to house fighting, at least in my experience.
For the carbine 1 shot accuracy over ~200m should imo be less compared to a full rifle cartridge, but that leads to diminishing returns if the carbine can put out much more rounds in the same relative timeframe. And indeed would blow through ammo much faster.
Why is it a different ballpark though? The game tracks all parameters. Experience, motivation, mental state. If your elite paratrooper is completely unsuppressed and highly motivated etc. Why would he shoot significantly slower or less accurately than the guy in the video?
For a regular level trooper who lost half his buddies and being under fire, yes sure, he should be way slower and less accurate. I just think it should depend more on the actual circumstances.
As it is in this game, the elite soldier fires his Kar98 / Lee Enfield only 25.7 percent faster than a conscript (see test by @Kraut, first post in this thread). That's a tiny speed increase.
Last edited:
Firing at actual humans in a combat environment, without trying to fire sort of aimed shots as fast as possible, is just not comparable to a range mad minute.
25,7% overall isn't a small increase in my book. It's an average, and measures everything from reloading the stripper clip, target acquisition, aiming, cycling of the bolt, etc. Plus even green troops get basic training and should be decent enough to operate their rifle.
The crack troops probably aim better too, so there are more variables in play compared to just cycling the bolt carrier as fast as possible.
The advantage of experienced troops is combination of faster rate of fire and better accuracy. M1 Garand: Green 13.5 rpm, Regular 15.8 rpm, Veteran 16.8 rpm, Crack 17.7 rpm.
Per-shot "accuracy" (more precisely number of rounds per kill - so less is better): Green 149, Regular 138, Veteran 123, Crack 118.
Rounds per kill for different weapons are is plotted in "my report" on page 23 - for the M1 Carbine it's about the same as Gewehr 43 and M1 Garand.
The details for the different experience levels are on pages 65-67 (Thompson, M1 Garand and B.A.R.).
Per-shot "accuracy" (more precisely number of rounds per kill - so less is better): Green 149, Regular 138, Veteran 123, Crack 118.
Rounds per kill for different weapons are is plotted in "my report" on page 23 - for the M1 Carbine it's about the same as Gewehr 43 and M1 Garand.
The details for the different experience levels are on pages 65-67 (Thompson, M1 Garand and B.A.R.).
True, but we're comparing conscript to elite here. Conscripts never had any training.. apart from maybe wathcing a group demonstration how to do stuff. Surely an elite special forces guy would be at least twice as fast to reload, aim and fire than a guy who picks up a rifle for the first time?
We agree being on a range is not the same as real combat. It just seems to me the difference should be bigger between no training and very high levels of training.
Well a rifle isn't a nano-fabricator-microscope. Give a man a rifle and after sleeping with it a night he can reload and fire it quite decent. Sure if they would hold a match who can shoots the fastest, a crack troop will do faster. How much, I don't know. But for firing a rifle in combat effectively crack troops might deliberately slow their fire if that means hitting. So, looking at rate of fire alone doesn't say that much imo.
I don't necessarily agree or disagree. In battle crack troops perform like crack troops, while conscripts will run at first sight of an enemy. At least that's my experience with CMx2. I don't really have a reference point from which I can tell whether the bar is good, too low or too high. Feels good imo.
SMGs and carbines having a longer effective range compared to full rifle cartridge rifles are more of an issue to me, or better phrased I know that doesn't sound right.
J
John1966
Guest
Recently I had a sniper that got spotted by a Tiger. He didn't spot the Tiger.
Everybody has at least one example like that. Incomprehensible sometimes how spotting works
A couple of times in my life, a doorpost spotted me but I didn't spot the doorpost ;-)
Yes at times there are strange results, but imo most of the time it works very good. Also I'm still happy that CM has no 'borg spotting', plus that LOS doesn't equal a direct spot. Obviously in a PBEM I will go crazy for a couple of moments if it happens to me.