This is especially true concerning specialized Squads, meaning Squads that have a dedicated purpose/weapon, they somehow massivley underperform.
Whether the things I observe and point out are related to under-performing (my 2/3 examples) of one or overperfoming (SA Rifles) of other weapons that is something I am not sure about and what needs debate, that I need input on.
MMG/HMG
Each Nation had dedicated Squads handling their MMGs/HMGs (HMGs from now on). Those were rather elaborate, advanced or simply expensive assets, expensive both in production/complexity and in weigth, maintenance, crew-/support needs (~4-5Men per HMG mirror this in game).
In realitiy and in other games which are simulating the tactical battlefield situations, normal Squads and HMGs synergize, this is not the case in this game (which is fine).
Now the Question is how "good" they are supposed to perform in a game without such (direct/obvious) synergies.
- Numbers of the game:
ALL: 750ACC, 1500Range, 3SoftDamage
Nation Name: MenPerGun, RateOfFire
GER MG34: 4Men, 70RoF
GER MG42: 4Men, 100RoF
SOV Maxim: 5Men, 55RoF
SOV SG-43: 4Men, 40RoF
ITA Breda: 4Men, 30RoF
ROM ZB 53: 4Men, 50RoF
HUN Schwarzlose: 5Men, 50RoF
What needs to be noted is, that each Squad has the HMG and usually regular rifles, those rifles can pretty much from what I have seen only be used in Urban (I assume "High intensity Combat") areas. Which makes those 4/5 Men Squads basically "1-Weapon Squads" in 90% of cases. - CV and Support:
The Machine Gun Ground Element Type has a CV of 1 and a Support need of 3 for 4-5Men.
The normal Rifle Squads have CV of 3 (for 10Men) and a Support need of 4.
(Note: CV of Rifle Squads are scaled by the manpower, so 12Men would have 12x0.3CV while 8Men would have 8x0.3CV, this is not true for Machine Gun Manpower ...or other elements, it only applies to normal "Squads", recons, pioneers and so on).
This means a 4Men HMG has a ManpowerCV of 0.25 and a 5Men HMG of 0.2 and SupNeed of 1.33 or 1.66Men/SupNeed.
While Rifle Squads have a static ManpowerCV of 0.3 and SupNeed of 2.5Men/SupNeed (not sure if that is also based on 10Men and modified for smaller/larger Squads - we simply assume 10Men Squads here)
This means that HMGs are not just performing worse Combat-Performance-wise, but also CV-wise, while also requiring more "Support". Help me make sense of this. - What the game "produces":
HMGs are performing worse in almost every metric and instance, not even on the defence or in Fort3 or 5 they get a boost that'd make them viable or "efficient". The only HMG getting close to a 1:1 ratio is the MG42 which has a RoF of 100. - My Issue/Assumption:
My assumption would be, that a HMGs should have at least a 1:1 manpower-wise performance, meaning, that 5Men manning a HMG should at least perform 50% as good as a normal 10Men Rifle Squad ([1LMG+1SMG+3SARifle+5Rifles] as an example).
If CV is worse, at least performance should be better/at least equal, or?
SMG/StG44
I'll try to combine these two issues.
Concerning (Soviet) SMGs, they were concentrated in SMG Squads already in late 1941. So they must have seen some use in Squads filled with CQC firepower, again, as with the HMGs there are no synergies, so the Squad has to perform on its own. Two things I've come across as (additional) infos/reasoning, one being the cheap manufacture of the PPSH-41 and the other being that they were rather easy to use for fresh soldiers (of which there was a constant influx of).
So over the war the number of SMGs in Soviet Divisions constantly increased, adding whole SMG Platoons, Companies and sometimes Battalions while keeping the LMGs in some instances for the line Infantry of Motorized formations.
Concerning StG44, it was intended to replace the Kar98k (after long debates) and in the end replaced almost all guns inside Squads, or was supposed to (again there were different Squad types for different purposes and with differend synergies - which is not modeled in game). It was basically the benchmark for post WW2 Assault Guns and I struggle to take it that it'd perform worse than Rifles.
- Numbers of the game:
ALL: 50ACC, 150Range, 1SoftDamage
SOV PPSh-41: 45RoF
GER MP40: 25RoF
ITA Beretta: 30RoF
ROM MAB 38A or Orita: 30RoF or 28RoF
HUN Danuvia: 37RoF
GER StG44: 20RoF, 150ACC, 450Range, 2SoftDamage - CV and Support:
not that relevant when comparing "normal Infantry Squads" with one another. - What the game "produces":
To keep it short. Both SMG and Assault Squads are underperforming compared to regular Rifle Squads, also see the initially posted Link for an example. In Defences in Fort lvl3 in Light Wood Hexes I have even seen SMG Squads perform worse than Engineer-Sappers (but that is not the "rule")! - My Issue/Assumption:
My assumption on both is, that in battles (in game) which are not "halted at range XXX" and therefore enter CQC, both wespons/specialized Squads should catch up and eventually outperform (slightly) the regular Rifle Squads. The fact that SMG Squads are even performing worse then regular Rifle Squads in Heavy Urban combat is (for me - as said, correct if wront, that's what I am asking for!) showing that there is something seriously wrong which needs some attention.
Preferrably it'd depend on the situation ofc (like, more CQC in Heavy Woods/Dense Terrain (I don't think that happens(?)), but if those Assets are not performing as "expected" in an entrenched defence (HMGs), or in Urban Combat (SMG) or generally (StG44), I don't know where they would/should otherwise.
So, what do you mean about this instances?
Where am I wrong?
What should be changed?
How do you imagine them to perform (instead)?
Have you seen instances performing otherwise - if so, in what type of battles/situations/scenarios/periods?
