Mixed rifle concept

[RockinHarry]

Hi there,

would like to hear some opinions on the Mixed rifle concept:

Purpose: The current SPWAW game system produces a high degree of suppression for every shot that an infantry unit fires at an enemy infantry unit. Normally if one desires to lessen the effects of suppression in the game, one could tweak the preferences (Rout/Rally setting), but this then works for all units in the game, not just the infantry. Normally an infantry unit has upto 4 weapons available to shoot at another infantry unit (diregarding non infantry units for this topic). Dependent upon range it´s mostly the slot1 primary infantry weapon (any common rifle) and slot2 secondary weapon (mostly LMG). For each shot fired from these weapons, normally 2-3 suppression points are added to the attacked infantry (not regarding other factors that might cause additional suppression, like losses, ect.). This mounts to very high suppression quickly, if a number of units use both weapons (slot1 rifle / slot2 LMG) on the attacked infantry unit repeatedly. It too oftentimes happens f.e that dug-in infantry is routed out of its entrenchments, by accumulating dozens of suppression points and finally,..receiving just a single kill causes the unit to pull back!

As said, I speak of suppression accumulated by medium to long range infantry shooting and NOT artillery ect.!

The effects of shots are resolved (suppression+possible kills) for each weapon slot, one after another. No news you say.

However, something interesting actually happens all the time mostly unnoticed: Assuming the first shot (Rifles slot1) makes a moving enemy infantry unit to get pinned, so what happens with the following shot (LMG slot2)?! The shot is resolved on the "pinned" unit with much less effect! Normally one would think that an infantry squad would "volley" fire its infantry weapons and not one after another. Why should the most effective squad weapon (the LMG) fire, when the "target" can not be effectively hit anymore?
Well that´s how SPWAW works, as it´s not a real time game, so the slot2 LMG mostly causes just 2-3 more suppression points, instead of doing the damage you would expect from this weapon, may it be a BAR or a MG42.

So the net effect in the game is that the LMG in slot2 does little and lots of unnecessary suppression is caused with above mentioned unrealistic effects!

Well, one solution would be to abandon the slot2 LMG weapon and merge it into a new weapon that resembles a rifle and LMG combined, with approriate firepower and range and then put into slot1! Unfortunately we can´t really finetune this new weapon with regard to the single real weapons performances. Example: Assuming a US infantry unit with crew of 10 has 9 M1 Garand rifles and 1 Bar LMG combined into a single weapon. Would it have considerable more or less firepower than a german squad of 10 with 9 K98k rifles and 1 LMG MG42??

I found that just raising HE kill for the combined (from now on "Mixed") weapon to 2, while preserving accuracy/range ect. ratings, is sufficient to simulate the effects of volley fire with rifles and LMG combined. That means higher probable kills with the first shot, but overall less suppression. Off course it depends still upon several factors, like terrain, enemy unit cautiously moving or moving fast ect. on how many kills can be achieved. The range is from no effect (targeted unit rolls a "saving throw"), to "wiping out" (enemy unit caught in the open while moving full speed!). The effect is similar to an (semi) automatic rifle like M1 Garand or SVT40 fired by 10 guys in volley fire. In fact the "Mixed" weapon has the same firepower/stats like the M1 Garand. The problem is, when you raise HE kill to say 3, then kills raise to unacceptable levels!

With the current unified "mixed" weapon stats, it means that all nations that use the "Mixed" weapon for infantry units in slot1 have roughly the same squad firepower than US squads equipped with the M1 Garand! However, other factors play a large role too! For example experience and leader skills, as well as whether the unit is given some "fire control" or even "range finder" ratings!

Ok. I play tested the new "Mixed" weapon and the overall effect is, dependent upon other unit skills/stats, that enemy infantry losses are roughly the same, but the kill range is wider! Also overall suppression is decreased, helping dug in units to hold their ground longer and help advancing units to keep moving! An additional effects is that infantry battles play almost twice as fast and chances for units to get into close combat are increased.J

The whole thing, as said is experimental and the weapons will only be available to scenario designers, if they wish to try this alternative method.

Don´t know whether many people would be willing to abandon their (largely ineffective) slot 2 MG42/BAR/Bren...or whatever LMG, but it´s worth a try for user made scenarios at least.

Note: Turn based games like Combat Leader uses the "Mixed/Volley/Volume" like fire resolution as well as "Combat Mission", which, real time though, computes fire effects of squad weapons (rifle/LMG/sub machine gun) as single volley.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

Hi there,

would like to hear some opinions on the Mixed rifle concept:

Purpose: The current SPWAW game system produces a high degree of suppression for every shot that an infantry unit fires at an enemy infantry unit. Normally if one desires to lessen the effects of suppression in the game, one could tweak the preferences (Rout/Rally setting), but this then works for all units in the game, not just the infantry. Normally an infantry unit has upto 4 weapons available to shoot at another infantry unit (diregarding non infantry units for this topic). Dependent upon range it´s mostly the slot1 primary infantry weapon (any common rifle) and slot2 secondary weapon (mostly LMG). For each shot fired from these weapons, normally 2-3 suppression points are added to the attacked infantry (not regarding other factors that might cause additional suppression, like losses, ect.). This mounts to very high suppression quickly, if a number of units use both weapons (slot1 rifle / slot2 LMG) on the attacked infantry unit repeatedly. It too oftentimes happens f.e that dug-in infantry is routed out of its entrenchments, by accumulating dozens of suppression points and finally,..receiving just a single kill causes the unit to pull back!

As said, I speak of suppression accumulated by medium to long range infantry shooting and NOT artillery ect.!

The effects of shots are resolved (suppression+possible kills) for each weapon slot, one after another. No news you say.

However, something interesting actually happens all the time mostly unnoticed: Assuming the first shot (Rifles slot1) makes a moving enemy infantry unit to get pinned, so what happens with the following shot (LMG slot2)?! The shot is resolved on the "pinned" unit with much less effect! Normally one would think that an infantry squad would "volley" fire its infantry weapons and not one after another. Why should the most effective squad weapon (the LMG) fire, when the "target" can not be effectively hit anymore?
Well that´s how SPWAW works, as it´s not a real time game, so the slot2 LMG mostly causes just 2-3 more suppression points, instead of doing the damage you would expect from this weapon, may it be a BAR or a MG42.

So the net effect in the game is that the LMG in slot2 does little and lots of unnecessary suppression is caused with above mentioned unrealistic effects!

Well, one solution would be to abandon the slot2 LMG weapon and merge it into a new weapon that resembles a rifle and LMG combined, with approriate firepower and range and then put into slot1! Unfortunately we can´t really finetune this new weapon with regard to the single real weapons performances. Example: Assuming a US infantry unit with crew of 10 has 9 M1 Garand rifles and 1 Bar LMG combined into a single weapon. Would it have considerable more or less firepower than a german squad of 10 with 9 K98k rifles and 1 LMG MG42??

I found that just raising HE kill for the combined (from now on "Mixed") weapon to 2, while preserving accuracy/range ect. ratings, is sufficient to simulate the effects of volley fire with rifles and LMG combined. That means higher probable kills with the first shot, but overall less suppression. Off course it depends still upon several factors, like terrain, enemy unit cautiously moving or moving fast ect. on how many kills can be achieved. The range is from no effect (targeted unit rolls a "saving throw"), to "wiping out" (enemy unit caught in the open while moving full speed!). The effect is similar to an (semi) automatic rifle like M1 Garand or SVT40 fired by 10 guys in volley fire. In fact the "Mixed" weapon has the same firepower/stats like the M1 Garand. The problem is, when you raise HE kill to say 3, then kills raise to unacceptable levels!

With the current unified "mixed" weapon stats, it means that all nations that use the "Mixed" weapon for infantry units in slot1 have roughly the same squad firepower than US squads equipped with the M1 Garand! However, other factors play a large role too! For example experience and leader skills, as well as whether the unit is given some "fire control" or even "range finder" ratings!

Ok. I play tested the new "Mixed" weapon and the overall effect is, dependent upon other unit skills/stats, that enemy infantry losses are roughly the same, but the kill range is wider! Also overall suppression is decreased, helping dug in units to hold their ground longer and help advancing units to keep moving! An additional effects is that infantry battles play almost twice as fast and chances for units to get into close combat are increased.J

The whole thing, as said is experimental and the weapons will only be available to scenario designers, if they wish to try this alternative method.

Don´t know whether many people would be willing to abandon their (largely ineffective) slot 2 MG42/BAR/Bren...or whatever LMG, but it´s worth a try for user made scenarios at least.

Note: Turn based games like Combat Leader uses the "Mixed/Volley/Volume" like fire resolution as well as "Combat Mission", which, real time though, computes fire effects of squad weapons (rifle/LMG/sub machine gun) as single volley.

What about the range of this strange combo? MGs can fire out more effectively to a larger range than rifles (or at least suppress effectively). If you as the SL want´s your MG to open fire first,might I suggest you disable the slot 1 weapons instead.
Close combat and bayonet fighting was relatively rare in the ETO. What does that tell you?

[Voriax]

I'll think about this a bit more, but somehow I get the feeling that the lmg problem and this rifle suggestion are a result of whining from people who believe 'Band of Brothers' series is a documentary.
Or to put it other way, trying to 'fix' a nonexisting problem. Game works nicely even without these changes, so why repair things that aren't broken?

Voriax

[harlekwin]

Indeed. Far too many people have this idea that point fire was the prime killer in WW2. WW2 like WW1 was primarily an arty war, but that just ain't as sexy as pretending everybody is defending the alamo......

ORIGINAL: Voriax

I'll think about this a bit more, but somehow I get the feeling that the lmg problem and this rifle suggestion are a result of whining from people who believe 'Band of Brothers' series is a documentary.
Or to put it other way, trying to 'fix' a nonexisting problem. Game works nicely even without these changes, so why repair things that aren't broken?

Voriax

[Belisarius]

ORIGINAL: Voriax

I'll think about this a bit more, but somehow I get the feeling that the lmg problem and this rifle suggestion are a result of whining from people who believe 'Band of Brothers' series is a documentary.
Or to put it other way, trying to 'fix' a nonexisting problem. Game works nicely even without these changes, so why repair things that aren't broken?

Voriax

Heh, how can one look at BoB and *not* get the picture of what artillery does to you? Sleep through all episodes but the 2 first and 2 last ones? [:'(]

Anyway, I like the MGs in 8.01. Leave them as they are.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
If you as the SL want´s your MG to open fire first,might I suggest you disable the slot 1 weapons instead.

Ditto.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Voriax
Or to put it other way, trying to 'fix' a nonexisting problem. Game works nicely even without these changes, so why repair things that aren't broken?

2nd ditto.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

Indeed. Far too many people have this idea that point fire was the prime killer in WW2. WW2 like WW1 was primarily an arty war, but that just ain't as sexy as pretending everybody is defending the alamo......

3rd ditto. [:D]

[harlekwin]

Yeah keke but I respect that Harry is here.


The fact is that changes like he wants could be discussed freely and without the resentment making changes like the .30 cal are engendering behind closed doors.

[JJKettunen]

I don't know how it is done, but both H2H and especially SPWW2 deals with suppression in a way that defending troops won't leave their good defensive positions as easily as in SPWAW. This feature should be in SPWAW, not überkilling volleys...

[Voriax]

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

[ Sleep through all episodes but the 2 first and 2 last ones? [:'(]

Heh, actually I'm not sure if I've even seen the last episode....that series was aired twice here in Finland and both times I watched it if I remembered and had nothing better to do. Maybe that's why I don't understand why quite a few people soil their pants due to excitement when that series is mentioned.

Voriax

[harlekwin]

ORIGINAL: Keke

I don't know how it is done, but both H2H and especially SPWW2 deals with suppression in a way that defending troops won't leave their good defensive positions as easily as in SPWAW. This feature should be in SPWAW, not überkilling volleys...

Oh I wholeheartedly agree.

My point in the above was merely to highlight why such changes need discussed and why people are now enpassioned about them not agreeing with uberkilling at all.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Voriax
Heh, actually I'm not sure if I've even seen the last episode....that series was aired twice here in Finland and both times I watched it if I remembered and had nothing better to do. Maybe that's why I don't understand why quite a few people soil their pants due to excitement when that series is mentioned.

After all the hype I saw on several forums, I was quite dissapointed by the series. I liked the first two episodes, but then it became just boring.

[Kevin E. Duguay]

RockinHarry has a point. Many times in the course of a game I have seen my LMG's not only be less effective because the enemy unit went to ground after being hit by rifle fire, but in some cases not fire at all. Then this "pinned" unit returns fire and the rest is history. The concept has some merrits and I for one was thinking about doing the same thing in a different way. I was thinking about splitting the squads into two components. LMG team, and rifle section. For example a 9 man German squad might look like this;
Slot 1 Slot 2 Slot 3
LMG sec, 1-MG-34/42 LMG, 2- Kar 98 grenades total 3 men
Rifle sec, Kar 98 MP-40 grenades total 6 men

A US squad:

Bar sec, BAR Garand grenades total 2 men
Rifle sec, Garand Tompson grenades total 10 men

Now this creates another problem. The LMG units with so few men become brittle. Also it litterally would doubble the infantry units on board for any give scenario.

Pro; It would give players more flexability, and the LMG's would always be in play for a first shot on a moveing unit. Also the ranges of the different weapons would not have to be "melded" into one compromised range. Another bennefit is that this would free up a slot in the rifle sec letting squads carry another weapon while keeping their grenades.

Well that's my two cents on the subject, and although thats all the above dribble may be worth I alway thought that, that is what these Forum's are for , the exchange of IDEAS to improve this fine game.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay
...that is what these Forum's are for , the exchange of IDEAS to improve this fine game.

Indeed. It's good to see RockinHarry post his ideas for public display instead of all the secrecy which seems to dominate the OOB-work.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay
...that is what these Forum's are for , the exchange of IDEAS to improve this fine game.

Indeed. It's good to see RockinHarry post his ideas for public display instead of all the secrecy which seems to dominate the OOB-work.

Agreed. I have just become highly critical as of late[;)]

[RockinHarry]

thanks all, I´ve not yet come to prepare the example files, compatible with V7.11. I´ll also answer in more detail next week coming, as I feel like a hunted deer in internet cafe. Time is running so fast here.[:(]

[Igor]

Kevin, the two man LMG teams (which the Nationalist Chinese OOB uses, btw) aren't a very good representation of how the automatic weapons were used in most armies. They were never told to go wander off away from the riflemen, because either they or the rifles were support weapons.

Frankly, most armies misused their automatic weapons; assigning them to support the rifles, which means that they really belong in the number two slot firing second. Only the Germans made a doctrinal point of giving the best shot in the squad the MG34 or 42, and training the riflemen to support him. If you want to model that, off the top of my head it seems that the best way is to put the LMG in slot 1, and put the rifles in slot 2...though that might raise game mechanics problems with getting the right amount of rifle fire.

[Kevin E. Duguay]

Igor,
It was something I toyed with but found to be impractical for your above stated reasons. Players would almost have to keep the two units of their squads either together in the same hex of at least as close together as possible. People not sure about historical tactics could end up with a bunch of 2 man LMG team all over the place and no where near their parent units. Just think about how hard it is to keep your platoons together inside a company formation, now double the units!! Nightmare!![X(] Might work in a very small scenario but anything bigger than a few platoons? Forget it!

[Charles2222]

This sort of thing ought to be interesting come CL, because CL will have 6 weapons slots. I'm curious if each weapon will have men dedicated to them? Of course if there's only one LMG man, and gets knocked out, perhaps a rifle man switches to the LMG. I'm not sure CL is going to be 'that' detailed.