Mobile Heavy Machinegun and small mortar teams

[TheChaplain]

I ran a search of this section and did not find that this has been posted before.

I was considering how terrible I believe the HMG system to be in HOS when I came upon a different approach to it. Would it be possible (or practical) to implement a system in which a team of two or three can work together to fire, load, and move a heavy machine gun?

The first problem with this would probably be the fact that a mobile machine gun with low recoil would probably be an incredible advantage. To counter that problem I figured that the only source of ammunition for one could be the ammo dump at the home spawn point. This would require a runner to carry ammunition to the team, making them somewhat ineffective far from that point. To keep the whole team from running ammo or "resupplying" the team the runner could be reduced to his secondary weapon whilst holding the ammo can (every rifleman carrying a belt of mg compatible ammo just does not seem realistic anyway). Further reducing the weapon effectiveness could be reducing the loading speed, adding jams and making it impossible to move without a second operator (jams due to not having the loader to correct the belt angle as it is fed). I feel that with a system like this, the realism would also add a sort of balance.

Although it would likely be harder to balance adding a mortar system that worked similarly would add interesting gameplay mechanics. Of course it would be necessary to restrict it (realistically) even more. A mortar crewman would probably only be able to carry around three or four rounds for example, either HE, incendiary, or maybe even flare (for possible night missions?). It would likely help to eliminate any auto aim system (such as the targeting computer from ArmA II), instead having the crew members see on a map where the rounds fall post impact.

The more I think the more I believe that this would be hell to program, bug test, and balance within maps, but implementing a system such as this would easily make this mod one of the greatest representations of machine gun warfare I have ever seen. Interestingly enough I believe that it would enhance the importance of the armoured vehicles in the game as well. With this a skilled machinegun team/mortar crew could potentially hold down a small portion of the map, making that last capture point hell itself for any team facing them, while not tipping the balance too much in their favour (it taking two or three members to effectively operate them).

I look forward to your constructive criticism

-The Chaplain

 

[Redit]

It's a good idea that has been discussed before, but I doubt it will be implemented due to programming and balance constraints, being that the team already have trouble balancing the two sides and the main machine guns in use by each side are hardly balanced.

 

[Nikita]

A pity the Maxim 1910 doesn't have the gun shield and never appears on the wheeled mount, and therefore can never be pulled around the battlefield.

Still epic and iconic though.

 

[Nestor Makhno]

There are, unfortunately, several objections to this being implemented.

In order of severity the top three are, imo:

1. This would require several zillion new animations, none of which can be C&P'ed over from HoS.
   
2. Players rarely co-operate to the extent required to do this. Can you imagine anyone choosing 'loader' role and not just buggering off to where the action is more rewarding?
   
3. A small, wheeled object is going to get hung up on terrain all over the place.

 

[Redit]

There are, unfortunately, several objections to this being implemented.

In order of severity the top three are, imo:

1. This would require several zillion new animations, none of which can be C&P'ed over from HoS.
   
2. Players rarely co-operate to the extent required to do this. Can you imagine anyone choosing 'loader' role and not just buggering off to where the action is more rewarding?
   
3. A small, wheeled object is going to get hung up on terrain all over the place.

I understand your first point but for your second point, wouldn't implementing a new, more team based game play element that does reward realistic use of mobile assets, create a unique experience that isn't RO2 with new skins and different fire rates. It would make the game deeper, more realistic and more challenging/rewarding, especially for hardcore communities.

Plus, I think the OP meant that the guns would be carried in parts by the gunner and loader, don't know where you pulled the wheeled issue from, esp considering neither the M1917/19 nor Type 92 had wheeled mounts.

 

[TheChaplain]

I would think the loader would get points for the gunners kills only while in position. Otherwise he would probably be pretty under armed compared to the rest of the classes and would likely not get any kill/capture points anyway.

Also the loader would be the tripod carrier (I think?) and so would probably have the most important role of picking the location to set up.

As it would require a TON of teamwork to be effective (gunner team playing well together, player running up ammo, and the rest of the team protecting the supply lines) it would probably only be popular amongst hardcores but I imagine it would be amazingly rewarding to do things right.

As a final point the crew would have to be run like a tank crew, not allowing standard infantry to join (but maybe allowing them to operate the MG until it runs dry if the crew is killed). I'm not sure if I would make it so every time the crew is eliminated they spawn with a new gun also. 10 hmgs abandoned throughout the battlefield sounds pretty gameplay killing.

 

[Nestor Makhno]

wouldn't implementing a new, more team based game play element that does reward realistic use of mobile assets, create a unique experience that isn't RO2 with new skins and different fire rates.

Well, team-loaded bazookas were intended to create totally new gameplay for DH and teamwork with mortars was intended to create co-operation in CC. Neither of them were entirely successful in doing that for the simple psychological reason that the vast majority of players (notable exception, RU Clammers low down the pecking order who obey orders to load stuff) will only do that if they are the firer, not the crew server.

I particularly remember the entire team thinking how cool the crew served mortar idea was going to be in CC and the later feeling of let-down when it turned out not to work like that IRL.

Simple action/reward theory and observations from actual situations we have been involved in developing in the past, nothing about RO2 and differences from it.

I misread the part about the actual roles of the crew in carrying guns, but my other points still remain.

Regarding the crucial role of placing a tripod... well that is important, of course, but once the fun part starts (i.e. the shooting) the guy's role is to sit and scratch his nuts and hope the gunner is not a complete idiot. At least a tank driver can keep moving or drive into cover without orders if he sees an enemy.

 

[Apos]

Well I met many players doing it properly in DH. I remember guys that used voice chat to send corrections to mortar guy and that was fun and successful. Plus DH didn't have any kind of tutorial or information in game how do such things so many didn't even know about it.
Easy GUI, training and reward points for all roles would do a trick.

btw: I also have met a mortar in two games: ArmA 2 and Battlefield 3, never had problems to cooperate and use those there.

 

[Redit]

Iirc the gunner held the tripod and the loader the machine-gun in the Marines. This was so that the gunner could run up to the location he wanted to set up and drop the tripod while the loader mounted the gun on it immediately afterwards. Both carried ammunition also. This would also intuitively encourage team play, as the gunner role is dependant on the loader.

If points are awarded for loading/per kill and there is some sort of bonus for sticking with the gun (e.g. faster reload times, faster gun movement) which helps the team and also possible acquires points then there would be a individual motivation.

If maps were constructed in a realistic way, with defensive positions and natural choke points, then machine guns would be extremely useful and effective. Especially on maps without armour, where the only way to take out a machine-gun (if you model suppression accurately) would be to out manoeuvre or out-gun the position. Both teams could benefit from this also, unlike knee mortars or katanas.

 

[Frostedfire]

Well I met many players doing it properly in DH. I remember guys that used voice chat to send corrections to mortar guy and that was fun and successful. Plus DH didn't have any kind of tutorial or information in game how do such things so many didn't even know about it.
Easy GUI, training and reward points for all roles would do a trick.

btw: I also have met a mortar in two games: ArmA 2 and Battlefield 3, never had problems to cooperate and use those there.

although you didn't need to co-operate in bf3, you throw it up and click a spot on the map

You also forgot PR, where at least you have a little computer if you're bad at maths, estimates and memorising the plotting tables . This was one of the real complaints I had with DH mortars, That you could never work out the distance from your position to the x (eg minimap-scaling) and get kills from hitting on the first shot, and thus getting off the bottom of the scoreboard. Then after getting someone to waste several hours of their life helping you aim, not requiring the services of the spotter anymore

 

[Spacehogking]

Well, team-loaded bazookas were intended to create totally new gameplay for DH and teamwork with mortars was intended to create co-operation in CC. Neither of them were entirely successful in doing that for the simple psychological reason that the vast majority of players (notable exception, RU Clammers low down the pecking order who obey orders to load stuff) will only do that if they are the firer, not the crew server.

I particularly remember the entire team thinking how cool the crew served mortar idea was going to be in CC and the later feeling of let-down when it turned out not to work like that IRL.

Simple action/reward theory and observations from actual situations we have been involved in developing in the past, nothing about RO2 and differences from it.

I misread the part about the actual roles of the crew in carrying guns, but my other points still remain.

Regarding the crucial role of placing a tripod... well that is important, of course, but once the fun part starts (i.e. the shooting) the guy's role is to sit and scratch his nuts and hope the gunner is not a complete idiot. At least a tank driver can keep moving or drive into cover without orders if he sees an enemy.

Sitting and scratching your nuts is the most invigorating part of realistic combat, and I mean that seriously. I loved the original RO and DH because in some instances you'd have to walk for so damn long, and you could die pretty much anywhere along the way. It gave poignant meaning to the action.

 

[Kainak]

Players rarely co-operate to the extent required to do this. Can you imagine anyone choosing 'loader' role and not just buggering off to where the action is more rewarding?

Why two different role ? There is only one role, MG team, and at each respawn, the two players respawn one time as the MG loader, the other as MG shooter.

Next, when the MG is in position, the shooter shot and the reloader reload (amazing ). But if the shooter need to change is barrel because it overheats, the two player automaticly switch their position during the animation

The loader goes to remove the hot barrel when the shooter pick-up a new one from his bag. Then the loader put down the hot barrel and goes at the shooter position, during this time the former shooter put the new barrel and goes to the loader position

 

[Serathis]

How long would it be interesting to play as mortar team? I did it in DH and it wore off after 5 minutes.

 

[Redit]

The loader goes to remove the hot barrel when the shooter pick-up a new one from his bag. Then the loader put down the hot barrel and goes at the shooter position, during this time the former shooter put the new barrel and goes to the loader position

Neither the American or Japanese LMG/HMGs used interchangeable barrels, as they did not have such high rates of fire, and trigger discipline was very important in both the Marines and IJA (as well as US Army etc).

 

[Nilsson]

The bazookas worked good in DH.

The mortars could be copied from Battlefield

 

[Grabbed_by_the_Spetsnaz]

The mortars could be copied from Battlefield

You are kidding right? Cause that joke wasn't funny!

 

[Frostedfire]

The bazookas worked good in DH.

that's because anyone could semi-passively fill the role of the loader, instead of dutifully standing next to the guy with the launcher, equipped with nothing but rockets and wanting not to get shot

 

[Redit]

that's because anyone could semi-passively fill the role of the loader, instead of dutifully standing next to the guy with the launcher, equipped with nothing but rockets and wanting not to get shot

Ammo carriers were not unarmed, especially not company level weapon loaders.

 

[Crackshot]

How about combining the role of loader/ammo carrier? The loader wouldn't necessarily need to handle the ammunition belt because the .30 Cal could use a box-loader, and the Type 92 strip was so small and so straight it wouldn't even need to be handled to keep it clean.

Neither would the loader need to sit around "scratching his nuts". Remember, a heavy MG would be such a massive threat to the enemy team that they would almost certainly focus on eliminating it: therefore, the loader could use his weapon (I think USMC/Army TO&E had loaders use either M-1 rifles or Carbines) to help take some of the pressure of the gunner; this is especially useful if the enemy are attempting to flank and are out of the gun's field of fire. And when the MG is down to it's last belt (or maybe last half-dozen belts for the 92 considering how fast it would go through ammo in an intense firefight), the loader runs back and grabs the extra ammo and the cycle repeats itself.

 

[Raneman]

There are, unfortunately, several objections to this being implemented.

In order of severity the top three are, imo:

1. Players rarely co-operate to the extent required to do this. Can you imagine anyone choosing 'loader' role and not just buggering off to where the action is more rewarding?

It's more likely then you think.

I can think of several multiplayer games where I just loaded something while another person fired and I still had loads of fun.

I'd do it.

Also, I really hate it when devs assume players are stupid.

That's a bad thing to do, know why?

Think of the most teamplay-oriented game you can think of, where even on pub servers you can see teamwork. Do you know why it's like that? Not everyone is Rambo, not everyone in a hero. In TF2 someone needs to be the medic. In PR you need a **** ton of roles filled that aren't front line combat. I like every one of them. Being a spotter for a marksman is my favorite.