Rifle infantry useless?

[Mikimoto]

Hello.

In version 6.1 rifle armed infantry is almost useless against submachinegun armed infantry, in my humble opinion, of course. If you fire before submachinegun range, say 3-5 hexes, you can not do casualties, only supression. If you fire between 1-4 hexes and the submachinegun infantry returns fire, you are dead.

I know this is intentional, not a bug, but I dont like this feature a lot, you know. My question is if I can change this setting (rifles useles at more than 4 hexes) in the Oob editor.

Thank you and nice Halloween. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[Zorfwaddle]

Well, I wouldnt go so far as to call them useless. If they are provided with adequate recce and advance slowly, they are useful. On the defensive they are deadly against nearly everything. Recce, recce, recce! Also, if other infantry is sufficiently suppresed via arty or armor gunfire, you will have an easier time.

So, if you send recce forward and they sight some infantry bunkered down, try to suppress them with tank, SPAA, or other arty fire and then advance with your rifle squads/platoons.

Any comments on this strategy are very welcome....

[lnp4668]

I agree with Mikimoto here. Rifle infantry are much less useful right now, especially in dense terrain. However, if they spot the other guys out in open, they could achieve kills from up to 8 hexes away. I guess it all depend on the situation.

[Mikimoto]

Hello again.

Well, I know they are not completely useless... if they have a LMG (specially a LMG42), grenades and some kind of anti-tank weapon. Well used they can be deadly against all you throw at them.

But the rifle as primary infantry weapon was a killer One in other versions. Now it is difficult to make casualties with them. And when confronted with smg armed infantry, you are at disavantage: You must fire when you can't kill and give your position to your enemy. If smg armed infantry closes to you... you are dead, a "cadaver".

Well, if you change fire with other rifle armed squad it can be very boring, specially at ranges over 4 hexes, until you hit something and kill a single enemy. Firing, supression, firing, supression, etc..

Snipers retain his lethality, I think its Ok. Tank panic is another fantastic thing... Medium and Heavy Machineguns are the queens of the battlefield now. Imagine Hannibal Lecter with one of them... Well, perhaps now infantry (all infantry) is more vulnerable, specially in open terrain and unsupressed(until prone). Casualties caused by SMG, LMG, MMG, HMG are very variable, from 1 to the entire squad (Where are my vets gone?)and the experience of the target unit seems to influence very little in the result (just testing).

Rifle squads killing men over 4 hexes was fine for me. It also helped with the "limits" of the oob, weapons slots for units, etc.. giving the squad, specially veteran squads, some "sniping" capabilities. Now you can have elite rifle squads than can't make a hit over 200 mts!!! Even when you read about sniper rifles given to the companies of many armies as organic weapons... and you could simulate, too, the squad leader with a winning SMG at close range.

I am a lover of core forces consisting entirely of infantry and support weapons. Only buying tanks in assaults and deep advances as auxiliaries and reinforcements. It is more challenging. Now, playing this way is a lot harder than before. I only want to know if I can change this in the Oob to play my way.

Just a thought.
Thanks.

[asgrrr]

All I have to say about this that bolt action rifles were of little use or effect in ww2. Seems I remember that the german army realized that around 3% of enemy casualties were caused by rifles - the weapon almost all soldiers were armed with. By contrast, mortars were said to claim 33%. I think rifles are well represented in this version of the game, and poorly in earlier versions.

[tracer]

Originally posted by Mikimoto:
Hello.

In version 6.1 rifle armed infantry is almost useless against submachinegun armed infantry, in my humble opinion, of course. If you fire before submachinegun range, say 3-5 hexes, you can not do casualties, only supression. If you fire between 1-4 hexes and the submachinegun infantry returns fire, you are dead.

---

I'm just finishing up a PBEM game and also noticed that SMG squads are way too powerful. I had my SO SMG squads advancing in the open, supressed, take ineffective fire from GE rifle squads in stone buildings 3-4 hexes away then kill 2-3 with their first shot. This happened so often it took alot of the fun & challenge away...even though I was winning. I think the SMG squads *should* be devestating to units in an adjacent hex, but this effect should drop off drastically, especially at 200yds (4 hexes).

But things like this are not a Matrix problem IMO. Paul Vebber has replied to this type of issue many times: 'if you think it should be different, change your OOBs...we even gave you an editor'. There's enough folks here with the knowledge to make these changes, and this forum is the perfect place for others to post feedback until they get 'fine tuned'. Then it would be an easy matter of posting the 'official' OOBs somewhere like Tankhead's or Fabio's sites (they're small enough that others could mirror them too...I would).

[Larry Holt]

SMGs are not more powerful in relation to rifle infantry than they were in real life. This is exactly why the Soviets armed their masses with SMGs, because they could hose down the Germans and gain a firepower superiority.

This happened in real life and the game models this well. While you can use the editor, perhaps a change in tactics is suggested here. Don't try and stand up to better armed forces. Instead use combined arms, call in arty, back up your infantry with MGs and assault guns, etc.

[kurtbj]

I'm quite happy with Rifle Infantry, at close range they will lose against SMG squads but at longer range they can fire on the SMG squads and keep them out of range. Different units for different situations. City battles call for SMG and Engineers, open terrain is good for Rifle Squads backed up by MGs. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Dave R]

You know. Up until a couple of weeks ago. I might have agreed with you that rifles were 'underpowered' But not now! You just have to use realistic infantry tactics. Cover and covering fire! Pour as much lead in as you can, not to kill, but to keep their heads down, while you move in guys under cover to make an assault.
Oh! and as obvious as it seems, but something that I've only cottened onto. Resisit the temptation to shoot with your assault team until the last minute. Once you get some decent supression on an enemy unit, you have a much better chance of making those 'dashes' in the open, shooting only serves as a damned good way to get spotted!

[Mikimoto]

Thank you for the feedback, guys.

Two questions:

What parameters I must tune in the oob (weapon warhead?) to make the rifles more lethal at ranges over 4 hexes?

Has the experience of the target unit, not the firing one, something to do with squad casualties?

Thanks.

[Alexandra]

Well, the Sov's also did a lot of SMG issuing because they are cheaper to make and take a lot less training. After all, you don't have to be a marksman with one <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

But, I think there is a prob with them. They should be able to do the mow down at point blank, or even up to, maybe, 3 hexes, against units in the open.

But it's when they kill 3 and 4 guys, routinely, at 4, 5, 6 hex ranges, when those guys are stationary and in cover that you see the problems.

It seems to me that the penetration capability of SMGs is a tad too high, not it's ROF or potential close in kill count.

Alex

[Warhorse]

@ Mikimoto, to change is either of the two following fields; one, the accuracy, experiment by upping it in 2 point increments, and testing. Two, the HE Kill number. But rather than do this, you can just adjust the fileds in the preferences, the hit field. Also experience has a lot to do with hitting, and also affects the result of received fire too, if the exp. is low on both ends, firefights will be boring <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> You can also adjust these in preferences, troop quality... Hope this helps.

[asgrrr]

Well messrs, m'dam, examining the OBs more closely I was surprised to find that the SMGs had so high accuracy. The MP40 even matches the Moisin-Nagant rifle! So does the Sten, which had a very short barrel, less than 8 In compared with 20 In for the Mo-Na (not mentioning the much less powerful cartridge). Perhaps the accuracy of SMGs should be lower but kill factor higher? Still, I have not found that they are unreasonably bloodthirsty.

[color]

I agree that SMG should only be effective at very short range.
If I don't get it wrong SMG weapons are more or less like the pistol.
You take a pistol and fire it, hitting anything at more than 30-40 meters will be more luck than skill. Due to the very short barrel, accuracy sucks.
I remember from shooting practices with an old WW I Colt (standard issue in WW II) pistol that getting accurate fire at even 20 meters was not as easy as I thought.

Since the SMGs has a short barrel compared to the rifles it is only naturally that they are much less accurate. Much like the difference between the German 75L24 and the 75L48. The L48 has a longer barrel and is much more accurate (higher bullet spin and velocity).
The jerks and movements of their automatic fire nature would also affect the accuracy.

So if a hex in SPWaw is 50 meters, I would guess that at ranges more than 2-3 hexes the SMG should probably just inflict suppression and not kill much. Up close it would be deadly though, a rifle would be more or less the same as at longer ranges.

Color

[Paul Vebber]

SMG ranges have been redonein v7 and some accuracy as well, but high accuracy in many cases is a product of volume of fire, (throw a lot of lot and some will hit something) rather than "aiming" with the SMG.

[john g]

Originally posted by Alexandra:
Well, the Sov's also did a lot of SMG issuing because they are cheaper to make and take a lot less training. After all, you don't have to be a marksman with one <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

But, I think there is a prob with them. They should be able to do the mow down at point blank, or even up to, maybe, 3 hexes, against units in the open.

But it's when they kill 3 and 4 guys, routinely, at 4, 5, 6 hex ranges, when those guys are stationary and in cover that you see the problems.

It seems to me that the penetration capability of SMGs is a tad too high, not it's ROF or potential close in kill count.

Alex

---

I just checked smg's and the ones I checked had accuracy of 1 or 2 max range of 3 or 4. So they are not causing casualties at 5 or 6 range, the squad mg is.

Most rifles have an accuracy of 4, much better than the 1 of USSR smg troops. The trick is keeping them at the 5+ range, so the ppsh can't fire, then all you are facing is the squad mg.

If you are being eaten alive by smgs, try throwing assault rifle armed troops against them, nearly the same firepower as the smg, but far better range and accuracy. Fg42, or mp44s hold up very well vs smg equipped Soviets.
thanks, John.

[asgrrr]

What I have seen is this:
Modern bolt action rifles (Lee-Enfield, Kar98 etc) have accuracy 4, except Moisin-Nagant, 3.
SMGs in 9mm parabellum usually have accuracy 3.
PPSH: 7,62mm acc 2.
Thompson, .45cal acc 2.
M3 .45cal acc 1.
All these SMG have range 4.
Then there is the 7,65mm Suomi with accuracy 3, range 6(!). This weapon was well made with an unusually long barrel. I have a bad experience from knocking the Finns, but hmmm... 50% more range? After all, the cartridge is perhaps the biggest factor, and this one is not that strong. The .45 guns are weak. This is not very surprising as this cartridge is a failure for serious combat. It was initially intended for knocking big holes into machette-wielding fanatics. The thompson had a higher rate of fire than the M3, so it is better for "hosing". The 9mm parabellum cartridge is widely considered the best one around, but other things matter too. The sten and MP40 have some drawbacks. For the sten it is chiefly the very short barrel, and in the earlier versions inadequate construction, making it difficult to hold. The MP40 has a folding stock and poor balance if it is held by grip and magazine, both of which make it harder to keep the aim on target. Compare this to the PPSH. While it has a more feeble catridge, it is heavy, has a long barrel, very large magazine, solid wooden butt, instinctive holding to aim, very high rate of fire. This makes it the ultimate "firehose" around. Granted of course, the Suomi has all these characteristics and then better. Food for thought.

[challenge]

I think you need to consider the tactical usage of the rifle squad before considering whether it is a worthwhile unit. Accuracy and firepower aside, the essential use of the rifleman didn't change much from the 1700s and 1800s through the end of WWII.

In Nepoleonic terms the effectiveness of a rifle line was determined by the number of rifles and the rate of fire (rounds per minute) and a crack unit could expect a rate of fire between 3 to 5 rounds per minute. (Six was considered really good.) Once the advancing infantry gets close, you don't have time to reload and you go to bayonnett and hand to hand.

By WW I the bolt action rifle makes the rate of fire fairly consistant for any unit -- even a green recruit could empty the average bolt action in about a minute if no time to aim was taken. Ammo was limited to about five or six rounds, some had a few more, but the limits were fairly close from weapon to weapon. The real killer on the trench battle line was the machinegun. Infantry rifles counted for very few kills in comparison. Anything that got past the machineguns was met with bayonnett and hand to hand.

The same basic rifle design available in WWI was in the hands of the standard grunt of every WWII army. So the rate of fire doesn't increase, effective range (as opposed to max range) doesn't increase much. What does happen is the miniturization of the machinegun. Now there are SMG, LMG, and the first assault weapons. We have the same basic infantry weapon -- the rifle -- which was just as effective as it was in WWI, but every platoon-sized unit had its own mgs and special weapons squads were organized to consolidate the firepower of the automatic weapons. The rifleman's job: keep firing until they get too close and meet them with bayonnett and hand to hand.

So of course your infantry rifle squad isn't going to get high kill numbers. The effective fire rate isn't that much higher than a crack Nepoleonic unit because: (a) his weapon only holds about six rounds; (b) slowing down the rate of fire to improve accuracy reduces the mass of lead (reducing hit probabilities) and (c) effective range is not improved all that much due to inherent inaccuracies in the weapon, the ammo and the user.

Put it all together and the primary use of the standard ground infantryman of WWII was to close with the enemy while reducing the combat effectiveness of that enemy so that when you get close enough you can take them on with bayonnett and hand to hand.

In this era of push button, long range warfare, we seem to forget that it is the combat infantryman's job to go physically dislodge the enemy infantryman from a position. All the smart bombs, tactical missles and fancy doodads hasn't changed that aspect of warfare. In WWII they had to do it up close because there was no other effective way to do it. You can't fight SPWaW as if your rifle was a man-portable field gun, you need to get close, and the way to do that is fire your rifles at them so they have to keep their heads down.

[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: Challenge ]</p>

[tracer]

Just realised my first post may not have been clear: my opponent's GE rifle squads were in stone buildings with a clear field of fire and he had suppressed my SMG squads with arty (couldn't see them, but knew I was coming that way). I took a risk (as often happens in war) and moved one SMG to a mixed terrain hex 4 hexes away; his rifle squad fired (may have caused a casualty), increasing my SMG's suppression to 16...the SMG returned fire and killed half his squad. Was I happy? Sure. Did it seem fair/accurate? No (I know, "all's fair in..."). Similar encounters (suppressed SMG squads causing large number of casualties at the limit of their range against infantry in buildings)happened a few times during this battle.

Point is, this isn't a question of tactics or support. The submachinegun's volume of fire is already accounted for in SPWAW by it high 'kill' value; it should not also have a high ACC value. All I'm saying is that the SMG effectiveness should drop off with distance...the same way that rifles in the game do. Color made a good suggestion: SMGs should be causing suppression, not casualties, when firing at distant targets.

Disclaimer: the above is "IMHO"
Fire away

[ November 01, 2001: Message edited by: tracer ]</p>

[asgrrr]

Eggsqueese me? Baking powder? I have never witnessed anything like what Tracer describes. There must have been something wrong with the preferences in that game, me thinks.