Matrix Games Forums

Ok, so I did some more reading. The link that Arkady posted above is most useful.

It appears that the Bren guns were pretty much mounted on the vehicles. The men could dismount but were little more than a rifle squad. So my proposal is revised as follows:

Carrier Rifle Section (just the men) is basically 2 to 3 SP of a rifle platoon type. Slightly weaker than a normal rifle platoon lets say. That represents that the guys are basically just a rifle section that is designed to be transported.

The Carriers themselves should then be upgraded to a 3 SP unit (3 vehicle) and have attack ratings similar to the AAMG section I keep referencing. That will give them the covering fire MG guns. It will also allow them to be used as "Light Tanks" which they were historically used as occasionally.

I guess I am not as concerned about gameyness. I would rather see the units modeled more historically accurate. It sounds like these units were frequently used in a way that might be considered "Gamey". But that is what happened.

Just more of my thoughts. (I really thought the Brens were dismounted, so maybe the unit text should be updated...)

Thanks,
Duncan

ORIGINAL: Juggalo
Well if a section is a 12-man unit with attack of 5, then a 36-man platoon-size unit would have an attack of 15 which is higher than any standard Rifle Platoon in the game so I'd say that's about right.[:)]

This analogy is not quite right for the campaign series way of design. In the game the difference between a 12 man unit and a 36 man unit is strength points. The 36 man unit would have 6 SP, while the 12 man unit would have only 2. The both should have the same attack strength, just the 6 SP unit fires 6 times and the 2 SP unit fires twice. If you cut the attack rating, you are doublely reducing the effectiveness of the unit.

Just something I wanted to point out.

Thanks,
Duncan

ORIGINAL: vadersson

ORIGINAL: Juggalo
Well if a section is a 12-man unit with attack of 5, then a 36-man platoon-size unit would have an attack of 15 which is higher than any standard Rifle Platoon in the game so I'd say that's about right.[:)]

This analogy is not quite right for the campaign series way of design. In the game the difference between a 12 man unit and a 36 man unit is strength points. The 36 man unit would have 6 SP, while the 12 man unit would have only 2. The both should have the same attack strength, just the 6 SP unit fires 6 times and the 2 SP unit fires twice. If you cut the attack rating, you are doublely reducing the effectiveness of the unit.

Just something I wanted to point out.

Thanks,
Duncan

Sorry, poor wording on my part...

What I was getting at is that your typical Rifle Platoon's TOE will include alot of heavier weapons, and thus, more firepower. If I remember right late-war SS Troops carried a MG42 per squad.[X(]
Whereas these Carrier Rifle Sections have much lighter weapons and roughly half the men per SP, so their attack of "5" at range 1 seems pretty good in all actuality.

I do like your ideas about the Carriers themselves though, but I can just see the purists clamoring for ALL armored carriers to have their MGs modeled correctly too.
I still remember those debates on the old Talonsoft boards....[:D]

And by the way, the Carriers in the game can have a SP of 3.

ChadG

Hey gang,

I have been doing some more research. So far the best source on the Internet appears to be the link referenced above. Here is something I found interesting:

The idea was that the Carrier could transport a Bren team to a position where they could dismount and begin covering fire. The armour of the Carrier was proof against bullets and shell splinters. It was not proof against airbursts or grenades, as the machine had no overhead cover. This was partly to facilitate the dismount and partly to save weight, and it was a weakness shared by both German and American halftrack carriers.

Based on this it would seem that the Carrier Rifle Section unit should retain the LMGs when dismounted. My understanding from reading several other places on the internet is that the Carrier Rifle Section was effectively the Company Machine Gun support unit that would provide either mounted, armored, LMG support for the infantry or could dismount and take the LMGs with them. So this lends more support to my belief that the Carrier Rifle Section should have LMG type fire power and 3 SP. The Carriers them selves would remain un-armed unless loaded with the Carrier Rifle Section. I don't know how that is modeled in the game, but I assume it is similar to Calvary.

If anyone has any research contrary to these statements please let me know.

Thanks,
Duncan

ORIGINAL: Juggalo
I do like your ideas about the Carriers themselves though, but I can just see the purists clamoring for ALL armored carriers to have their MGs modeled correctly too.
I still remember those debates on the old Talonsoft boards....[:D]

ChadG

Hmm, ok I was not around in the old days of Talonsoft. I guess I am a purist, as I think all the MGs should be represented as well. I don't see the big problem. Modern APCs are used in support of infantry, was that not the same in WWII? I assume the low defense of these units make it a dicey proposition. I see that at least the Universal Carriers have very low defenses but are considered a hard target.

Thanks,
Duncan

ORIGINAL: vadersson

ORIGINAL: Juggalo
I do like your ideas about the Carriers themselves though, but I can just see the purists clamoring for ALL armored carriers to have their MGs modeled correctly too.
I still remember those debates on the old Talonsoft boards....[:D]

ChadG

Hmm, ok I was not around in the old days of Talonsoft. I guess I am a purist, as I think all the MGs should be represented as well. I don't see the big problem. Modern APCs are used in support of infantry, was that not the same in WWII? I assume the low defense of these units make it a dicey proposition. I see that at least the Universal Carriers have very low defenses but are considered a hard target.

Thanks,
Duncan

Let's see if I recall....

Someone noticed SPW 251/1s were equipped with MG34 but only had soft attack of "2" at range 1. It might have been even soft attack of "1" back then....
Anyways, bloody hell is raised by the purists, with the devs saying people would use them ahistorically if MGs were modelled. Usually all they did was transport stuff, unload it, and get the hell outta dodge......they were too valuable and scarce (Germany at least) to use on the offense. Well if you nerf one country, you gotta nerf 'em all....so all armored carriers are like this.
The devs did give a small concession, and upped the offense, and assault value by one point(maybe defense too), but also added 1VP to the value of each armored carrier.

If you notice, most armored units in the game MGs aren't modeled....the Panzer IIIE (IIIF in game) had THREE MGs, but it's soft attack value is a piddly 4 at range of 1.
They're added to the assault rating instead.

Now if I screwed that bit of CS history up, I apologise....it's been like 10 years, but I think that was about how it all went down.

That brings to mind the Russian submachinegun platoons, which have pitiful attack values but excellent assault values.  The flamethrower tanks are the same way, I believe -- pitiful attack values but excellent assault values. 

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

That brings to mind the Russian submachinegun platoons, which have pitiful attack values but excellent assault values. The flamethrower tanks are the same way, I believe -- pitiful attack values but excellent assault values.

That situation is generally due to the short range of thier weapons. With 250 M hexes and a Flame thrower with a range of say 40 yards, you really can't direct fire them at much. So those type weapons are simulated with strong assault factors.

MGs mounted on transports are a different story in my opinion as most of them have good range.

Thanks,
Duncan

Correct.  The argument is that because these units weren't fighting with short-range weapons, their attack value should be higher.
 
I'm trying to follow Talonsoft's thinking.  They appear to treat the carrier units just like cavalry units.  Cavalry units typically have an attack of 5 or 6, depending on the country, and an assault of 3.  I attributed this to the cavalry's inability to carry heavy weapons.
 
The complaint is that carrier units should be comparable to, if not superior to, regular infantry units. 

So have we reached any agreement on this old issue? I still tend to lean to the school of "all units should be modeled with thier historical armerment." But that discussion of most transports can be had another day.

The primary focus here is should the Carrier Rifle Section be increased in firepower to represent the 3 Bren dismounted machine guns. I still say yes and would like to see the unit changed in the game. Perhaps make thier defense lower than usual to represent the fact that they are only a few heavily armed men.


Where if anywhere do we go from here or should I just let it drop?

Perhaps a poll in the forums? Or at least to the Campaign Series Legion?

Thanks,
Duncan

Perhaps this for an attack capability for the "13 man"* Carrier Section?
5
6 4 2
 
An hard attack of 5 becuse of the PIAT that the section had, a soft attack of 6,4,2 to better represent the LMGs with perhaps an incress of the assault rating by 1? I would also incress the VPs to two becuse of the incressed firepower.
 
* A carrier section had 3 Carriers each with 4 men and a Messenger (on a motercycle), there was 4 sections in a platoon.