Mg42 Range

Discuss Mongoose miniatures game here, including Mighty Armies, Gangs of Mega-City One, and Battlefield Evolution.
User avatar
Zee Zee
Mongoose
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Walsall England

Mg42 Range

Postby Zee Zee » Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:47 pm

Is it a mistake or was there a particular reason you gave the bipod mg42 such a long range 48" considering Bren/Bar is 24" and the aircooled .30 cal is only 30".Tried the game for 1st time tonight and found that a bit odd.
Winner of the 1993 worst die roller for 3 months award.

Iron Cross first class with oak leaves,cherries and little crunchy bits.

Nuke 'Em@ from orbit its the only way to be sure.
User avatar
Hiromoon
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7098
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 3:02 am
Location: TFCT Michael Fleming Folland
Contact:

Postby Hiromoon » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:09 am

Hitler's Buzz-Saw will not be stopped!
ImageImage
Thanks Veon and ScipioAmericanus!
www.zupandevelopment.com
User avatar
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:30 am

The fact that the gun (the spritely King Tiger) and the author share the same nationality is, of course, not a factor :D

<JOKE> in case anyone missed the smiley!
DM's naval website, now moved to the NWS site
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/nav ... links.html
Co-author "Order of Battle"
Author, "Age of Dreadnoughts"
Bloke who paints VAS ships for Matt
Bacon Number of 4 :D
User avatar
wkehrman
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 1:57 am

Postby wkehrman » Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:48 am

FWIW:

@ The WWII Technical Database http://www.tarrif.net/

Bren Mk 1 = 550m
M1919 = 1000m
MG42 = 2000m

so if this is true (and it is only one source) and we take the MG42 @ 48", then strictly speaking:

M1919 = 24"
Bren Mk I = 13.2"

In the 15mm game I play, the Bren fires 16"

Agis has the numbers on his side....

...this time :lol:
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.

Counting on silashand's crappy die rolls since 2006.
User avatar
Agis
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1052
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:44 am
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Postby Agis » Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:44 am

Thanks for all the helpful answers! :wink:

And yes real life ranges were used... :!:
PLUS:
Game design ideas! I can not stress this point enough, WaW is NOT a simulation, it is a game.

We wanted the German forces to be most of the time outnumbered, highly motivated and very well equipped.
At the same time the German player has to pay a lot of points to be that well equipped! Check the points for the MMGs and you see it…

So the real life values are the starting point, game design decision/ ideas are the next step. Sometimes unit stats are slightly exaggerate to achieve the desired effect in the game.
cheers and keep on gaming, Agis
www.adpublishing.de Author of Battlefield Evolution: World at War and Pacific War
Image
User avatar
MongooseMatt
Site Admin
Posts: 14902
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:25 pm

Postby MongooseMatt » Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:39 pm

Agis wrote:Sometimes unit stats are slightly exaggerate to achieve the desired effect in the game.
This is worth emphasising - allies should be scurrying for cover whenever a '42' so much as sniffs in their direction. . .
Matthew Sprange

Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
User avatar
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:14 pm

For actions set in NW Europe the range shouldn't be too much of an issue anyway, since typical combat ranges were generally much lower than weapon effective ranges.
DM's naval website, now moved to the NWS site
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/nav ... links.html
Co-author "Order of Battle"
Author, "Age of Dreadnoughts"
Bloke who paints VAS ships for Matt
Bacon Number of 4 :D
User avatar
wkehrman
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 1:57 am

Postby wkehrman » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:44 pm

DM wrote:For actions set in NW Europe the range shouldn't be too much of an issue anyway, since typical combat ranges were generally much lower than weapon effective ranges.
But there the burden is on the gamer to set up a "realistic" table. We've discovered this in transitioning from a company level game to a squad/platoon level game. There needs to be lots and lots of terrain.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.

Counting on silashand's crappy die rolls since 2006.
User avatar
MongooseMatt
Site Admin
Posts: 14902
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:25 pm

Postby MongooseMatt » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:55 pm

wkehrman wrote:
But there the burden is on the gamer to set up a "realistic" table. We've discovered this in transitioning from a company level game to a squad/platoon level game. There needs to be lots and lots of terrain.
Quite true - with the exception of open seas naval gaming, I have always thought terrain maketh the game (even in space combat!).

But yes, flood the table with terrain, and BF Evo really comes alive!
Matthew Sprange

Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
User avatar
MongooseMatt
Site Admin
Posts: 14902
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:25 pm

Postby MongooseMatt » Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:58 pm

DM wrote:For actions set in NW Europe the range shouldn't be too much of an issue anyway, since typical combat ranges were generally much lower than weapon effective ranges.
A general assumption we make for all BF Evo games thus far.
Matthew Sprange

Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
User avatar
DM
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:43 pm
Location: Gloucester, UK

Postby DM » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:35 pm

No, what I mean is that a table representing typical North European terrain should realy be pretty cluttered and so engaging out to the maximum range of the weapon as stated in the rules should be a rare occurrence.
DM's naval website, now moved to the NWS site
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/nav ... links.html
Co-author "Order of Battle"
Author, "Age of Dreadnoughts"
Bloke who paints VAS ships for Matt
Bacon Number of 4 :D
weasel_fierce
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1260
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:35 am
Location: The borderlands

Postby weasel_fierce » Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:00 am

I'd prefer the rules give the Germans the advantages they held in real life rather than exaggerating things just to make it fit.

The benefits of the Germans early war is command&control, and superior initiative. End of war, its tenacity and skilled defense.
In 45, its being able to surrender to the yanks and brits instead of dying in the east ;)


That being said, on the distances the table portrays, there should be very few cases where a machine gun, any gun, is "out of range".

And Matt is right, more terrain almost universally makes a better game. AIm for half the table, at the least

And lastly, a BAR is propably about right at half range of the MG42. Most soldiers threw away the bipod as quickly as they could, to get rid of the weight. It wasn't really comparable to a Bren, DP or MG34/42
looking for a free set of gritty, realistic'ish scifi wargame rules ?
http://www.freewebs.com/weaselfierce
User avatar
Zee Zee
Mongoose
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Walsall England

Postby Zee Zee » Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:56 pm

Thanks for the replies, mainly wanted to see if it was a rule mechanic or based on actual tables.See the reasoning(not saying I agree with it).
Wikepedea gives the MG42 effective range about 1050 metres to Brens 600 metres,but for MG42 it does not say whether it is when used in bipod or tripod.Guess is Wikepedia is correct for effective range in bipod mode but WW11 technical is for tripod,which would seem about right given that the Vickers Wikepedia quotes as about 2,500metres.
I know some rules just work on the basis if its in range you can shoot at it,guessed Matt had gone for effective,and he is right about close in terrain,one of the reasons most modern armies Assualt rifles are only range to 400metres (they may be even reducing it 200 with the newer weapons coming out)as this was generally the farthest apart you will find terrain in Europe(there was a idea that roops would not fire above that range anyway because of giving away their position)
Having fired a Lee Enfield at targets at 600yds, on a fairly open range,I was struggling to see the target never mind hit it.
Given the reasoning for aboves range by Matt then the BESA on british tanks possibly wants ammending according to one tank officer it could(generally for shooting at aircraft but if they saw german infantry what the hell) nearly match the MG42 for rate of fire(as could the Vickers K on which it was based)also in the desert(perhaps not relevant here)it could and was use by Tank crews to suppress german anti-tanks guns at very long ranges .
Winner of the 1993 worst die roller for 3 months award.

Iron Cross first class with oak leaves,cherries and little crunchy bits.

Nuke 'Em@ from orbit its the only way to be sure.
User avatar
MongooseMatt
Site Admin
Posts: 14902
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:25 pm

Postby MongooseMatt » Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:10 pm

Zee Zee wrote:also in the desert(perhaps not relevant here)it could and was use by Tank crews to suppress german anti-tanks guns at very long ranges .
The Desert War supplement will indeed have rules to cover the different terrain (or lack of it) and its effects on weapons fire - just as we have rules for jungle fighting in the Pacific War supplement.
Matthew Sprange

Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
User avatar
Zee Zee
Mongoose
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: Walsall England

Postby Zee Zee » Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:12 pm

Before anyone panics im not advocating any official change to the MG42 rules,I originally wanted to find out why it had such a long range,and rte resoning behind it.May ammend the bipod range eventually(learning curve of 1st game probably gave to much of an open space between the points of cover...slapped donnie) for our games now I know why it was done to suit my players(may are vets of some armed service and moan if it don't feel right(I'm umpire generally).am looking at various skirmish games set at the moment to see which one is the easiest to adapt without having to virtually rewrite everything to fit their style.
Winner of the 1993 worst die roller for 3 months award.

Iron Cross first class with oak leaves,cherries and little crunchy bits.

Nuke 'Em@ from orbit its the only way to be sure.
User avatar
Alexb83
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Devizes, UK

Postby Alexb83 » Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:41 am

For clarity - is the 48 inches here supposed to equate to 2000m or did you set an arbitrary 'real life engagement range' factor in there?

Am trying to convert to 15mm at the moment.

Edit: Following my own conversion chart, you must have set some sort of arbitrary limit as to a 20-28mm figure, 48 inches only equates to 80-111 meters respectively.
Cats! I'm being nibbled to death by cats.

My Photobucket: http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/Alexb83/
User avatar
MongooseMatt
Site Admin
Posts: 14902
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:25 pm

Postby MongooseMatt » Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:10 am

The latter - real life ranges are used for comparative purposes in BF Evo (one example that springs to mind is the modern PLA AT weaponry that has a similar range to rifles, so we kept the same range for both), and is intended to represent engagement ranges, as you say.
Matthew Sprange

Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
User avatar
Alexb83
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Devizes, UK

Postby Alexb83 » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:23 pm

I suppose what I'm looking for is a ballpark figure of effective ranges for rifles/tripod mmgs/AT guns/tank guns to start re-bracketing the weapons for 15mm.

If you take the following:

15mm: 0.59 inches is 6 feet is 1.8m
20mm: 0.78 inches is 6 feet is 1.8m
28mm: 1.102 inches is 6 feet is 1.8m

And assume that WaW is scaled to 28mm, then
A man can run 6.6meters or 22 feet per action
A bazooka fires just shy of 100 feet or 30 meters

For re-doing movement it might help to assign a rough speed to movement types and then take a 'time span' for each action.
Cats! I'm being nibbled to death by cats.

My Photobucket: http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/Alexb83/
User avatar
MongooseMatt
Site Admin
Posts: 14902
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:25 pm

Postby MongooseMatt » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:32 pm

Alexb83 wrote:I suppose what I'm looking for is a ballpark figure of effective ranges for rifles/tripod mmgs/AT guns/tank guns to start re-bracketing the weapons for 15mm.
I was thinking about this last night - I don't know if I would bother rescaling for 15mm. . . At the most, convert inches to cm. . .
Matthew Sprange

Mongoose Publishing
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com
User avatar
Alexb83
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Devizes, UK

Postby Alexb83 » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:37 pm

That might be the simplest solution - keeping things at inches for inches between 28 and 15mm would amount to roughly doubling the length of every turn, and doubling the effective range of every weapon (including lethal zones etc.)

cm for inches could do the job as it throws it back to just under half scale in comparison.
Cats! I'm being nibbled to death by cats.

My Photobucket: http://s93.photobucket.com/albums/l69/Alexb83/

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests