Ultimate weapon : the (H)MG platoon

[Arralen]

[/i]I'm pretty sure this has been brought up before, but I got really annoyed by this "design peculiarity" in my recent campaign game, therefore I ready to start another flame war .. [/i] ;-)

IMNSHO, the size of "0" for all the (H)MG platoons I checked in different OOBs is rather rediculous:

How can 8 men plus 2 MGs on tripods be size "0" ? (SPOB34,U#265 // SPOB06, U#181 // 06,U#221)

The following units are size "1", despite having roughly the same number of men and equipment:

9 Paratroopes, 3 MGs (34/268)
9 men, 3 brixia mortars (34/054)
9 men, rifles, 1 LMG (34/306)

The help file says "Smaller is more difficult to spot, to hit and so on. .. Size 0 is for snipers and similar types only." .. and that's exactly what we get in-game: super-durable snipers with high HE kill factor and superb accuracy over long range.

I can see someone arguing that those MGs are well dug-in and camoflaged .. surely. But they don't move, or that advantage is rapidly lost. (Imagine those 8 men, dragging 2 .50 MGs + ammo boxes around .. can't really be that stealthy don't you think?).

Therefore, to make things work in-game either those units must be immobile (we already have those "bunker" type units) or much more easily to spot and hit, as they only can occupy makeshift firing positions, making them "stand out" much more.

[chuckfourth]

Hi Arralen

Size 0 is a compromise, If you have them size 1 then they -cant- be "well dug-in and camoflaged"
Tripod mounted MGs are a defensive weapon so giving them size 0 models them as a defensive weapon. In game terms if you do give them size 1 they are quickly shot up, this wasnt the case historically.
As for size, you picked an interesting example, 50 cal. HMG (Actually not really a support MG like those in the 7.62/7.92 calibres. It had no quick change barrel and so a very low practical ROF (40 rpm). Much better at punching holes in walls, planes and APCs........ anyway)
From
http://www.korean-war.com/Archives/2.../msg00112.html
"But that 50 cal. MG was a mother to handle. One carrying the receiver, one carrying the barrel and the third man to carry the alum. tri- pod. Man carrying the barrel had to switch off with the receiver man, as it was just too heavy
for one person to carry constantly."
Obviously this is a good argument to give the 50 cal a movement speed of 1.
Unfortuneately they are lumped in with the 30 cals in a hybrid MG formation so getting, as you rightly point out an unrealistically high movement allowance.

check this thread.

12.7mm does it deserve the range?

[Marek_Tucan]

Mind you that when the MG's are on the move, they cannot usually fire (or lose their shots quickly), so, in conversion "game - to - RL", the limited movement of MMG teams (use to be 5 vs. regular inf 6) does not represent just weight or bulk, but also the fact that the MG has to re-deploy and take a new position (prone, preferably in some cover or atleast concealment - even "flat land" isn't all that flat IRL).

[PanzerBob]

I find despite the given movement MG units generally do not move without help anyway making them by default primarily a defensive asset anyway.

Trying to move MG's on foot and using them to support is difficult especially under fire and or observation, this likely explains wheels on Russian HMG's.

While there can something said of the way the game portrays HMG's I think within the constraints of the game there is nothing wrong with how they are represented.

[PatG]

When my Gunjin are on foot, the Nambus are on mules. Now if we can get some of those those nifty camel mounts like they used to have for Gatlings...

And lest we forget the whole idea of a tank was to carry an mg to the enemy over swept ground.

[Marek_Tucan]

I move MG's if I need to get new overwatch position or for example if I need to secure freshly captured positions - for shorter ranges I move them onm foot (speaking of RCMG's, not .50's), for longer ranges by any transport available.