Infantry stats need rethinking

[Texican]

I cannot see British Infantry (with Enfields) having superior firepower to U.S. Infantry (with Garands). Ever fire a semi-automatic rifle compared to a bolt action? No comparison. [CORRECTION: misread another stat and thought UK Infantry had 7's for Soft attack, but is 5's instead, so this is okay.]

A friend read of a squad to squad fight, U.S. vs. Germans, when the two ran into each other at a bridge crossing. Even though the German squad was more experienced, they were cut to ribbons by the U.S. squad. The reason? Semi-automatic rifles (Garands) vs. bolt actions.

And don't get me started on the stats for Russian infantry. Hear of the accounts of the "grain elevator", "Pavlov's House", or the "Siege of Leningrad." The Russians would hold on even under unreal conditions. Pump up their defense. Their firepower ought to be higher too, especially for close in fighting (SMG's).

Now, sure U.K. infantry might have another star of experience than U.S., and might have better defensive ratings. And Soviet conscript units can represent the throw away tactics of the Soviets. But I really think that infantry stats, overall, need rethinking.

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: Texican

And don't get me started on the stats for Russian infantry. Pump up their defense. Their firepower ought to be higher too, especially for close in fighting (SMG's).

I see a problem with this, it can severly alter the scenarios as you will end up with USSR troops that simply cannot be forced out of their position, AND dish out more damage than they recieve from the Germans.

Also, you only mention technical issues, you also need to apply basic training, officers training, training of NCOs, tactics and doctrines as well.

Terje

[Razz1]

It's all in the scenario design of the map along with reinforcements.

[Texican]

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: Texican

And don't get me started on the stats for Russian infantry. Pump up their defense. Their firepower ought to be higher too, especially for close in fighting (SMG's).

I see a problem with this, it can severly alter the scenarios as you will end up with USSR troops that simply cannot be forced out of their position, AND dish out more damage than they recieve from the Germans.

Also, you only mention technical issues, you also need to apply basic training, officers training, training of NCOs, tactics and doctrines as well.

Terje

I think stats = inherent historical capability (i.e., weapons, tenacity of soldiers, etc...)
experience stars = combat experience (where Germans have initial advantages over Soviets)
initiative = training and advantages in tactical doctrine.

So, in your example, the Germans fire first (which is a huge advantage), but the Soviets "hang on" longer than most troops do. Now, to reflect the initial Barbarossa onslaught, you do that with Soviet Conscripts. To reflect the resilience of Soviets making a stand, you have Regular Infantry with a Defense factor of 7 (at least).

[HansHafen]

Ba careful taking one example from history and writing it large. Did the Russians really hold on longer than any other infantry throughout the war? In all conditions?
 
Stalingrad might be the pennicle, not the baseline.