Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

zoblamouche -> Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/27/2007 3:22:43 PM)

I am a bit surprized at the game's portrayal of the UK Carrier Rifle platoon. The description provided of their capability (F2 key) makes them sound impressive, yet their actual attack strength of 5 at one hex against a soft target and 2 against a hard target is pretty much worthless as a fighting unit. Their assault strength of 2 is equally worthless. I am wondering if that was a mistake in the original coding of these units in the game or were they that weak in reality? I find myself sacrificing them to trigger enemy op fire or to scout/recon. I am sure that was not their historic use. Any thoughts from anyone?



Arkady -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/27/2007 3:52:02 PM)

"Platoon" is in fact only a section, some nine men, equiped only with rifles (Bren LMGs are mounted on carrier)
You must judge them together with carriers, main strength is a mobility.

They was used to quickly move into contact and cover other parts of battalion as they approach. In the early years of the war when Germans and Italians lack efficient infantry's anti-tank weapons they was used as "poor man's tank"

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Tactics/Formations/FireSupport/carrier_platoon.htm






zoblamouche -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 3:02:09 PM)

Arkady, thank you for the link. The discussion on the usage and capabilities of the carrier section you sent matches pretty well the description that is provided in the game. My quandry however remains on how to use them in the game. They are apparently not modeled correctly. They were supposed to be a quick foray/strike/retreat force. In the game, they can do the quick foray and can certainly retreat, but they cannot strike worth a darn. The vaunted Bren machine gun they carry has absolutely no teeth in the game. If the vehicle was so equipped in real life, its rated soft strength of 2 at one hex does not reflect that fact IMHO; it is absolutely useless against anything but unarmored trucks. Your link shows them laying smoke to retreat, yet in the game the section is not capable of doing that either. Oh well!



Arkady -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 3:56:05 PM)

I use them as recon force or to draw attention before main force reach the area.
Sometimes I use them as assault force on weak disrupted defenders but I prefer use their mobility only for "anvil" part of the disruption/assault/capture tactic.



vadersson -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 5:07:26 PM)

I gotta agree, the Carrier rifles do not seem to match up to thier description well at all.  The are much weaker than an equivenet infranty squard and no where near an MG squad which they seem to match up well with.  A comments on this Jason?  Not sure how the combat values were originally determined.

Thanks,
Duncan




vadersson -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 5:31:35 PM)

Wow, now I am in a tizzy about this. ;)

Quote:
P09202
This is a section of armored infantry, usually carried into battle by means of Universal Carriers or a derivative thereof. The section comprised of nine men generously equipped with three Bren light machineguns was a powerful unit in its own right. Equipped with an anti-tank weapon and 2-in. mortar in addition to the soldiers' personal weapons, this infantry section possessed a level of firepower quite disproportionate to its size. In later years this section could be seen transported into battle by one of the new generation of armored personnel carriers, the Kangaroo. Prior to 1943 the anti-tank weapon would be a Boys anti-tank rifle. After this date the weapon would be a PIAT HEAT projector.

Compare to:
P09211
This unit represents a light machinegun section of eight men armed with two Bren guns. The prime purpose of this unit is to represent the light anti-aircraft section attached to many HQ formations throughout the army. They can also be used to represent "carrier" crews who have disembarked in order to provide close fire support to the troops they carry and finally they represent the guard units deployed in local defense of HQs, artillery parks and the like.


First 1 is 9 men armed with 3 Brens, a mortor and an AT rifle. The second is 8 men with just two Brens.

Here are thier stats.
Carrier Rifle Section
Hard Attak 2
Soft Attack 5 3

Anti-Aircraft Machinegun Platoon
Hard Attack 2
Soft Attack 8 6 4 2

Seems to me the Carrier Rifles are whoa fully under strength. If the carrier rifle sections had stats more like the AAMG section, they could be used a lot more like they were portrayed. In addition haveing a 3rd Bren and the motor and AT rifle, it seesm like thier HA and SA numbers should be higher.

Thanks,
Duncan




Jason Petho -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 5:55:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vadersson

I gotta agree, the Carrier rifles do not seem to match up to thier description well at all.  The are much weaker than an equivenet infranty squard and no where near an MG squad which they seem to match up well with.  A comments on this Jason?  Not sure how the combat values were originally determined.

Thanks,
Duncan


I am also uncertain where they generated the numbers for the Carrier rifles. I presume they are limited to assist in play balance and hopefully prevent gameyness.

I tend to play mostly on the East Front. Not too many British forces over there.

Jason Petho



vadersson -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 6:01:52 PM)

Jason,

So based on my research a couple of posts up it seems like the Carrier rifles should get an upgrade. The historically data also seems to speak well of a longer range and more fire power. Who needs to be talked to about this to look at the possibility of changing it. As is the Carrier rifle sections are pretty useless. (Let me tell you that I pretty much do nothing with them in the Kouba (spelling?) Trail LCG.)

Just something that is erking me. ;)

(Thanks zoblamouche for getting me started. ;)

Thanks,
Duncan



cpdeyoung -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 6:09:56 PM)

I have always loved these units for their mobility.  They do not have much firepower but let them get behind the battle and they are a terror for softskinned targets, including artillery.  Overrunning a stack of dangerous artillery with these guys is rewarding.  I usually run to the front, unload the CRS and then push deep and seek targets of opportunity.  The AI facilitates this by rushing right by with the forces which would provide security.  Then I take the pickings.

I do agree the strength sounds incorrect, but they have real value as configured.

Chuck



TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 6:19:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vadersson

Jason,

So based on my research a couple of posts up it seems like the Carrier rifles should get an upgrade. The historically data also seems to speak well of a longer range and more fire power. Who needs to be talked to about this to look at the possibility of changing it. As is the Carrier rifle sections are pretty useless. (Let me tell you that I pretty much do nothing with them in the Kouba (spelling?) Trail LCG.)

Just something that is erking me. ;)

(Thanks zoblamouche for getting me started. ;)

Thanks,
Duncan



I think maybe you have to think in terms of SPs here.
1SP of a Carrier Rifle Section equals 3 men.
1SP of a Rifle Platoon equals roughly 6 men.

Perhaps that was Talonsoft's reasoning for the low values.



1925frank -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 7:45:22 PM)

I always attributed it to the fact they were sections or half-squads.  But, now that you mention it, even when a platoon is reduced to 1 SP, it still fires at full value, but it doesn't have as many shots.  I like the question being asked.  I don't know the answer.



Jason Petho -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 7:56:11 PM)

So, considering the manpower and firepower.

It would be required to increase the firepower, but then reducing the Carriers and Carrier Rifle Sections to 2SP's?

Jason Petho



vadersson -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 9:28:26 PM)

I propose the following.

Using the AAMG Section (8 men 2 Bren) as the templete, make the Carrier Rifle Section (9 Men, 3 Bren, mortar and AT Rifle) have the same attack values as the AAMG squad (which is 2 SP), but a standard unit would be 3 SP.  That is in line with the theory of 1 SP per Gun for MG squads.  It also then requires a 3 SP Carrier section to transport them, which also fits with the historical of using 3 Carriers.

This basically assumes that the AAMG platoon properly represents the fire power of a Bren and each SP represents 1 gun as the AAMG squad is 2 SP.

Also, these guys would need to be able to fire when mounted in thier carriers.  Not sure how all that would work out.  The dismounted Carrier Rifle Section should not be any faster than other infantry, maybe slower due to thier heavy equipment.  I have not reviewed the speeds of the units yet.

Just my suggestions.



vadersson -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 9:30:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

So, considering the manpower and firepower.

It would be required to increase the firepower, but then reducing the Carriers and Carrier Rifle Sections to 2SP's?

Jason Petho


I would say that the Carrier Rifle Section is more like an MG section where each SP represents a gun and it's crew. Just for Carrier Rifle Sections that would be 1 Bren and 3 guys.

Thanks,
Duncan



TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 9:31:49 PM)

I say leave them be.

They were a small force with only rifles so they shouldn't be much of a threat.

As Arkady said, their main advantage being mobility (with Carriers), they could conceivably cause massive damage to your artillery parks, HQs, etc. that are not properly protected.

Heck, they're only worth 1VP each.....it feels "right" to me.[8D]



vadersson -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 9:36:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

I say leave them be.

They were a small force with only rifles so they shouldn't be much of a threat.

As Arkady said, their main advantage being mobility (with Carriers), they could conceivably cause massive damage to your artillery parks, HQs, etc. that are not properly protected.

Heck, they're only worth 1VP each.....it feels "right" to me.[8D]



[&:]
A small force with only Rifles? They had 3 Bren light machine guns, a 2" morter, and an AT Rifle. [sm=00000106.gif] They were designed for mobile fire support. The Carriers as modeled in the game do not include the MGs either. From what I read in the link above, the Guns on the carriers were designed to quickly dismount so the Section could fight dismounted or mounted. I would recommend leaving the carriers as is (so they work elsewhere as transport or tractors) and let the Carrier Rifles fire mounted.

Just trying to make the unit live up to the text.

"this infantry section possessed a level of firepower quite disproportionate to its size."


Thanks,
Duncan



Arkady -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/28/2007 11:44:19 PM)

I just finished two online games - WF's scenario "Kidney Ridge" (double play, one as Axis, second as Allies)
There are some carriers rifle sections, in defense they are not so good as in offensive but anyway they do their job against italian infantry. Also they help me defend precious AT guns.

The Bren LMG is mounted on carrier...so my opinions is increase by two soft attack value for carriers and left carrier rifle section untouched. Problem wil be gameyness. Mobility and better firepower allow player to use them in role similar to German's SPW 250



andym -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/29/2007 12:29:05 AM)

The PIAT(Projector,Infantry,Anti Tank)Was a pile of plop.You had to virtually be within spitting distance of the tank your targetting and then the chances are it wouldnt do anything.best thing to do was jump up on the Tank,knock on the Hatch till the tankie opens up then club him to death with the PIAT![:D][:D]



TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/29/2007 1:23:37 AM)

quote:

A small force with only Rifles? They had 3 Bren light machine guns, a 2" morter, and an AT Rifle. [sm=00000106.gif] They were designed for mobile fire support. The Carriers as modeled in the game do not include the MGs either. From what I read in the link above, the Guns on the carriers were designed to quickly dismount so the Section could fight dismounted or mounted. I would recommend leaving the carriers as is (so they work elsewhere as transport or tractors) and let the Carrier Rifles fire mounted.


Didn't know the Brens were used by the troops....
That's a tough one since MGs of any armored carrier aren't modeled correctly......and probably rightly so.
Talonsoft knew we'd use them for ahistorical purposes.[:-]
So I guess like you say the best fix would be some sort of coding tweak that gave the Carriers higher firepower if their Carrier Rifle Sections are embarked.

quote:

"this infantry section possessed a level of firepower quite disproportionate to its size."


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.[:)]



1925frank -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/29/2007 1:27:18 AM)

Andym,

You have a reference to RDP matelot on the bottom of your post.

For us non-Brits, please educate us. A "matelot" is French for sailor. I have no idea what RDP refers to.



vadersson -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/29/2007 2:28:14 PM)

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



vadersson -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/29/2007 2:31:44 PM)


quote:

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



TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/29/2007 6:56:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vadersson


quote:

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



vadersson -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/29/2007 10:50:10 PM)

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



vadersson -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/29/2007 10:53:32 PM)

quote:

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



TAIL GUNNER -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/30/2007 11:47:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vadersson

quote:

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.



1925frank -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/31/2007 12:10:45 AM)

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. 



vadersson -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/31/2007 2:24:24 PM)


quote:

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



1925frank -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (8/31/2007 5:07:47 PM)

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. 



vadersson -> RE: Woeful UK Carrier Rifles (9/11/2007 9:38:03 PM)

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



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.875