light and heavy squad fire"am i useing rubber bullets"?

[Panzer Commander]

I have just tried the 5.2 patch and I also see SMG no being very effective against infantry in the open at range 1. I was playing the Maus that Roared and my GE we firing at rng 1 with SMG with 99% odds but no kills.

I have also noticed that at times the first rounds had more kills then after the unit was pinned there were none which seems right.

I guess seeing 99% with no casualties as opposed to the previous versions with massive casualties is a bit disconcerting. Maybe a message stating "enemy screaming mommy" would make us feel better.

[Belisarius]

Good Idea, PC! Preferrably a sound file, too..

To another question: Has anyone experienced the AI infantry scoring more kills than you w/ 5.2? Today I had a GE green squad (10) firing at SO SMG squad (10) two hexes away. Both units were in trees, the hex inbetween was clear. The AI (German) scored way more kills than I did.

[JimY]

When I installed 5.2 I deleted the steel.prf file before installation. I have done this since the second upgrade of SPWAW. I played the Americans in the Japanese invasion of Corregidor. Even with artillery v. soft targets at 80%, I had a hard time getting casualties with 1903 rifle, .30 MG or 37mm AA gun. The .50h2b MG was effective. This is against Japanese troops at 1-4 hex range in clear or shallow water. I think that 5.2 makes it too hard for anything under a certain warhead size to cause casualties. 5.01 rifles are probably too lethal and MG's not lethal enough. However, when I set infantry toughness to 140 the total rifle and MG casualties seem about right (although maybe rifle gets too many and MG not enough) I set artillery to 140 so that it has some affect on infantry. Then in 5.01 the only slight difficulty is that defensive terrain in entrenchment perhaps does not provide enough benefit.

In 5.2 the casualties are so low that both sides will be back to Civil War bayonet combat. This in my opinion favors the attacker too much for the WW2 period.

For 5.2, the best would be to increase MG casualties significantly and rifle casualties a little. However, this would probably require too much work on the OOb's.
May I suggest that tweaking up the casualty rate for small HE warhead and the defensive terrain benefits as a good pratical solution.
At least the overal small arms casualty rate would be about right and the defenders would not be as vulnerable in good terrain or entrenched to rifle fire as in 5.01

[Panzer Commander]

I tried the SPR Ramelle scenario against the AI. With version 5.2 it can be summed up in one word, BORING.

The GE squads fired for 4 turns with multiple units at my fwd US Airborne squad of 4 men. No casulaties on either side, suppressed but easily back to <10 each turn.

My sniper, 30cal and SMG against the 20mm AA and GE squads in the clear, totally ineffective. My Airborne squad shot at rng 1 against the GE infantry with its SMG, grenades and sticky bombs, no hits. My BAR against a GE squad advancing in the street, no hits.

What makes no sense is that the 30cal and the SMG were totally ineffective against infantry in the open at close range. That is when they should excel.

Also, the 20mm AA is represented as a 88mm icon and when you bring up the stats that picture shows an 88mm or some type of large calibur cannon as can be seen with one of the men handling the shell.

[Lucullus]

The problem that I have is that MG's, while more effective than rifles, still aren't as effective as I believe they should be. In WWII, MG's greatly outperformed ordinary riflemen in causing casualties. I havn't noticed any increase in the effectiveness in MG's. Even with the changes in 5.02, Rifles are still causing the majority of casualties, only at a lower rate than before. MG's attached at the squad level still aren't doing the job they are supposed to.
PS. I still like the game and you are all doing a hell of a job. Thanks.

[soldat31]

I also agree that MG's are not effective enough. Especially the LMGs within the infantry squad. I have never had very good experience with the BAR. Also I know in the German army, the main weapon of the squad was the LMG (MG34, or MG42) and the riflemen were more or less there to simply support and protect the machine gun. I don't think that this is portrayed very well in the game. That's just my opinion though . . .

[panda124c]

Originally posted by soldat31:
I also agree that MG's are not effective enough. Especially the LMGs within the infantry squad. I have never had very good experience with the BAR. Also I know in the German army, the main weapon of the squad was the LMG (MG34, or MG42) and the riflemen were more or less there to simply support and protect the machine gun. I don't think that this is portrayed very well in the game. That's just my opinion though . . .

I have to agree, after deleting the steel.prf file the MGs (Squad LMGs, MMG, and HMG) became much more efficent. At least the MGs started getting kills. I think that the problem is not that the infantry is too tough but that the MGs are not efficent enough. Also I have noticed that the range makes very little or no difference in the effectiveness of the squad LMGs (I don't let anyone get close to my MMGs or HMGs so I can speak for them). The squad LMG should be very deadly at a range of one hex but it actually appears that they are more effective at a range of 3 to 5 hexes.

On a side note the change in the rifle effectiveness has rendered all rifle armed scout units basicly defenseless. This is only a problem with countries that do not have SMG armed scouts. Perhaps the basic scout unit should be SMG armed and if there is room in the OOB add rifle armed scouts.

As I said before deleting the steel.prf file made a big improvement in infantry effectiness.

[Belisarius]

I'll try that, pbear. My MG's doesn't seem to cause much more damage than a regular infantry squad as it is now.

But still I agree: It's one hell of a game

[General Mayhem]

Originally posted by soldat31:
I also agree that MG's are not effective enough. Especially the LMGs within the infantry squad. I have never had very good experience with the BAR. Also I know in the German army, the main weapon of the squad was the LMG (MG34, or MG42) and the riflemen were more or less there to simply support and protect the machine gun. I don't think that this is portrayed very well in the game. That's just my opinion though . . .

While I agree MG's aren't effective enough,
playing with 5.2 US Army against Japanese atleast made relations more right between
weapons in my opinion.

Japanese atleast are hitting my infantry
well enough my troops on move with LMG's, while I've done massive killing with .030's and .050's. I even score some hits with MG
groups SMG's in 2-3 hexes. I don't think
I shot as well with more experienced Germans
in 5.01 .

Still, I'm partly routed in the game currently because there is simply too many Japanese swarming over my troops one of my
flanks.

Don't know, but to me it seems that MG's
are finally a good idea to have. Before
infantry could swipe off far too easily
even well positioned MG's.

[RockinHarry]

Ok,..just played two scenarios including Figmos "Breakout from Borisov" to check the V5.2 issues. (Borisov=for the first time BTW)
Generally I can say that I like the changes seen in these two battles played. Terrain gives apropriate Defense values now and MGs are more lethal than before, where most 2nd slot MGs were almost useless even against moving units in clear terrain. Now if you catch moving infantry in the open you can use all MGs (LMG-HMG, vehicle MGs) to full effect and that´s what I "feel" is right.

Terrain: The better terrain DV in V5.2 also I "feel" are more apropriate now than before. If I have infantry "pinned" in any terrain, I also think they have their faces digged deep in the dirt and can hardly be hit effectively. I never would assume an infantry squad can take casualties from any infantry fire if they are pinned in stone/wood building, rough or entrenched terrain. That works now in V5.2.
From what I read in books I remember infantry in that sort of cover had to be single handedly picked out in close clombat frequently. Never read about them shot to pieces by rifle or MG fire at ranges of 50-? yards/meters however.
This way you can finally use the "good" terrain to your best advantage, both in defense AND attack. Using clear or other bad terrain for defense or advance is now much more hazardous especially if facing enemy MG equipped units. All in all the new tweaks allow me now to use more and more real tactics. Using best cover for advance/defense, suppressing enemy to close in with assaulting squads and finally meleeing them effectively.

In figmos "Borisov" scenario there was very much of this tactic used cause there was close builtup terrain with little LOS. Suppressing enemy squads in houses from beyond the streets and then assaulting them with good order "melee" squads in the next 1-2 turns. But that went not without own moderate to heavy losses, the russians were tough close combattants and often went berserk. Also both sides had couple of engineer squads and they were the most dangerous foe for all infantry. They sprayed death all around in this darn russian town and casualties taken from FT were 1-5 grunts per attack. Before 5.2 the FT mostly just ignited the countryside without doing much damage to human beings.

Rifles: They really did not much damage in my two test scenarios but that depended much on the circumstances. Troops with experience above 80 and in good order (0-1 supression) shooting at moving infantry in any terrain hit some but once the enemy was pinned no further casualties occured most of the time.
Pauls comments on the planned V5.3 changes sound reasonable and promising as I really don´t know how effective rifle fire should be at the various circumstances. Generally I feel the whole concept is right. Meanwhile I learned to love the "melee" thing and the tactics needed to close in for it (cautious advance in good terrain and suppressive fire with all available weapons).

Artillery: Mortars finally cause some casualties and I observed if a single hex is hit by 5-10 shells (>=80mm), at least 1 casualty is to be expected. I found this apropriate for a 50yds hex with a 10 grunts squad in it and clear terrain.
Other Artillery was hard to observe as it is difficult to track each round and how much casualties it causes. I still have the impression that hits in neighbouring hexes cause more damage as hits in the intended target hex?! Generally Arty against moving troops in the open is deadly but I can´t say how much "deadly" it should be. In the other scenario I´ve been hit by shells upto 203mm and some heavy ARty from Naval Support. Not a good experience in any terrain...
Borisov just had mortars and they were good for supression and killing some grunts in enemy Inf. moving in open terrain.

Tanks: just few tanks in test scenarios. Can´t say something about unusual observations concerning tank combat and V5.2 changes.

Some conclusion:
V5.2 is surely on the right way and the planned v5.3 changes also should satisfy most people on the rifles issue..I think.
The whole V5.2 concept made me using more real tactics instead of "gamey" ones and I "feel" 5.2/5.3 are/will be closest to the "real thing" as can be expected...at least for the SPWAW engine.

BTW: Never forget to delete Steel.prf file before upgrading!

__________
Harry

[Charles2222]

Here's a wild one guys. I played 5.2 a bit and in 9/39 I'll occassionally use the PZIVC's 75L24 to cause a few infantry casualties. I haven't done enough with this version to say whether the kill rate has gone down or up, but one thing that IS happening, on 19 man infantry squads in the open, I am getting a kill every 3 to 5 shots for units not shot at in advance. From what kinf of fire? 75L24 direct-fire bombardment! Aw, tis an enjoyable thing.

[soldat31]

After having played 5.2 a little more extensively, I have also found that MGs are more effective than in previous versions. Overall, 5.2 is much more realistic than anything I have ever seen in SPWAW. I am encouraged by the changes being discussed for 5.3. While I agree rifles were WAY too effective in past versions, I think that in 5.3, rifles should be effective in close quarters (1-2 hexes) under the right circumstances.
Also, as I have discussed before and am only mentioning it again because it is so important to me, squad LMGs aren't very effective. At any ranges, but especially close in, squad LMGs should be getting the majority of kills for the infantry squad.

[gdpsnake]

I mentioned this in another thread. I played a scenario where not a SINGLE casualty was caused by either side with rifles. NOT ONE. and I watched very closely. Only MG fire got any hits and was usually one in ten tries. I tweaked the hit % to 250% and still NOT ONE SINGLE casualty from rifles by either British (AI) or me (Germ).
I stopped playing another scenario because I was shotting 20-30 times at point blank range (99%) with tank MG's at infantry in the open without getting more than one casualty in ten shots.
I think it's tweaked a bit too far.
Didn't most infantry men get shot with bullets in WW2? Rifles/MG's ought to be more effective. Imagine 'Private Ryan' opening scene with these tweaks.
GENERAL: Status report!
SOLDIER: One casualty sir, from drowning!

[Paul Vebber]

Try it with 5.3 - after making sure you delete your stell.prf file.

I played Paul Saunders Tractor Works 3 times in testing and the rifles gave a decent accounting even vs troops in cover in stone buildings. If anything the scenario is much more interesting under 5.3 and if you think the casualties are too lite, turn infantry toughness down!

[General Mayhem]

Originally posted by soldat31:
After having played 5.2 a little more extensively, I have also found that MGs are more effective than in previous versions. Overall, 5.2 is much more realistic than anything I have ever seen in SPWAW. I am encouraged by the changes being discussed for 5.3. While I agree rifles were WAY too effective in past versions, I think that in 5.3, rifles should be effective in close quarters (1-2 hexes) under the right circumstances.
Also, as I have discussed before and am only mentioning it again because it is so important to me, squad LMGs aren't very effective. At any ranges, but especially close in, squad LMGs should be getting the majority of kills for the infantry squad.

Well, Japanese LMG's caused atleast to
my US Army troops in 5.2 most of casualties.

I'd infact like them to be reduced as
I'm not convinced advancing troops can
same time fire LMG as effectively to stationary troops who are defending and in cover, in ranges of 3-5 hexes.

I think they can't be shooting such a fire rate with Japanese LMG's to hit so well.

I atleast felt that at worst in those ranges
when defending against advancing Japan, Japanese LMG's were as good as US .30 caliper MMG's.