SMGs as secondary weapons (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Slayer -> SMGs as secondary weapons (12/12/2000 6:10:00 AM)

I found something rather interesting while playing as the Germans versus the British and would like to know what the rest of you think, or what, if you know, is happening. Most of the British infantry squads I fought had SMGs in addition to the primary rifles. I am not sure if the men caried both rifles and SMGs, and doubt that the men could fire both at once, and so assumed that the SMG was just a single weapon carried only by the squad commander. However, despite being less accurate and having otherwise lower ratings than the MG-34 LMG, it would generally kill 3-4 men, while the MG-34 would be lucky to get a single kill. This indicated to me that everyone in the British squads are firing both rifles and SMGs at once. I am assuming that this is because the SMG is listed as a 'prime infantry' weapon, which, as I read in a diferent post, means that every one in the squad fires the weapon, reguardless of the slot that it is placed in. So, if it indeed is meant to be just the commander's weapon, should the OOB include a second SMG with identical stats, but be listed as a secondary weapon, so that it can be placed in rifle squads so that only one SMG is fired? Any comments would be appreciated. [This message has been edited by Slayer (edited December 11, 2000).]



kao16 -> (12/12/2000 6:34:00 AM)

My understanding was that - unless the primary infantry weapon was in slot one only one of the weapon was fired. If a primary infantry weapon was in slot one, then everyone was assumed to have one (eg, 12 man squad (USMC?) with Slot 1: M1 Garand Slot 2: 2xBAR Slot 3: Rifle Grenade Slot 4: M9 Bazooka Would have 12 x M1's firing, 1 x pair of BARs, 1 x grenade, 1 x Bazooka Someone may wish to test what happens if the weapons are all changed to primary - imagine the firepower if it assumes everyone can fire everything (increase the ammo so you don't run out of ammo while testing). I'll have a go when I get home, just to see what happens.



Slayer -> (12/12/2000 9:04:00 AM)

On a previous post, someone increased the efectiveness of grenades by making them a primary weapon. I really noticed this with the SMGs because I was tired of losing 3 men to one shot with what should be a single weapon, while a single MG-34 LMG, from the stats, should be able to do a lot more, but will seldom get more than 1 kill. The BAR, grenade, and bazooka that you mentioned are all classified 'secondary' in the OOB, but SMGs are all 'prime' because they are ment to be the primary weapon of a squad, not a single secondary weapon. That is why I feel that a copy should be made, but as 'secondary', so that that copy can be used as the secondary in rifle squads. I am pretty sure that the "First slot, everyone fires" applies only to earlier SP games. [This message has been edited by Slayer (edited December 11, 2000).]



Major Destruction -> (12/12/2000 11:31:00 AM)

If what you say is indeed the case, the workload to upgrade the OOB's will skyrocket. Are you sure that some other factor such as HE Kill or accuracy is not the culprit? Don't forget that some factors may have been applied to reflect rate of fire (in RPM) and close quarters fighting. These might need some tuning.



Flashfyre -> (12/12/2000 11:41:00 AM)

What you're seeing is the increased lethality of SMGs in close quarters. Since their range is significantly lower than that of long rifles, they aren't as effective beyond about 2 hexes. But inside that, and they can pump alot of lead into a small area, with the addd benefit of better target acquisition (shoot at 100yds vs 500yds and you'll agree). MGs, likewise, aren't as lethal at 1000yds+, but get in close, and more men go down per burst. Remember...the rifles are firing, at most, 10-12 shots apiece, one bullet at a time. And due to recoil, targetting suffers with each successive round. Then there is the time needed to change clips, and, in the case of most nations, they were using bolt-action rifles, not the semi-autos that the US used. More time to chamber rounds after each shot. The SMG, on the other hand, is popping about 20-30 rounds in the same time, each shell closely following the previous one. Targetting is much better; the shooter doesnt have to bring the sights back onto the target after each shot. And as any combat soldier can tell you, more lead on target means more kills. Think of it this way: if you hit a man with one bullet, he may not go down for good. A graze, a hit to a nonvital area, even a shot to the limbs, none of these mean that a soldier is out of action for good. However...hit him with 3 or 4 bullets, in rapid succession, and he's probably gonna stay down for the count. So, to wrap this up....I don't agree with the postion taken that SMGs shouldn't be as deadly, even if only one is available to the squad. They were, and are, deadly weapons at close range. This was one reason why Special Forces units (Rangers, Commandos, SpecOps, etc.) used them as primary weapons. They knew they were going to see the enemy up close, and wanted the firepower to put him down fast.



Arralen -> (12/12/2000 4:00:00 PM)

This is a bug - so no sense in dicussing how good SMGs are at close range. As I was told by Paul, "primary" fire once for each men, "secondary" only once. This has indeed to be changed in the British OOB .. Arralen



Mac_MatrixForum -> (12/12/2000 10:46:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Arralen: As I was told by Paul, "primary" fire once for each men, "secondary" only once.
So, does this mean that for example in the Finnish OOB the Suomi SMG (227), which is listed as primary infantry, used as a secondary weapon by FI Rifle Squad 41 (135) among many others, now experiences the same bugged behaviour? Man, then there are going to be quite a lot of fixes, eh? ------------------ Markku "Mac" Rontu "Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Sheridan in B5



Arralen -> (12/12/2000 11:00:00 PM)

[img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img] S... !! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img] No no, I'wrong !! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img] Everything ok as is it is !! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img] Arralen



Paul Vebber -> (12/13/2000 12:24:00 AM)

"Primary infantry" weapons only fire "for each effective man" if they are in slot one. Flashfyre's rationale sums up the design intent behind how SMGs work. They well up close, but drop of sharply with range. THere has been a bit of "creep" in SMG HE kill in recent OOBs - they should be 3 or 4 but I think some 5s have cropped up and those may be performaing a bit "too well"



BA Evans -> (12/13/2000 2:09:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Flashfyre: So, to wrap this up....I don't agree with the postion taken that SMGs shouldn't be as deadly, even if only one is available to the squad.
So what you are saying is that 1 man firing one SMG should get as many kills as 12 men firing 12 SMGs? BA Evans



Fabs -> (12/13/2000 2:24:00 AM)

I follow the rationale in flashfyre's post, but why will a SMG do more damage than a LMG in the same situation? I have noticed this a number of times, when I fire on a soft target below 2 hexes range and get 1 kill with the Bren and 2 or 3 with a Thompson SMG. The same happens when I am fired on by German infantry: 1 kill for the MG 34 or 42 and 2 or 3 for the MP-40. Bren guns, I must say, are particularly ineffective, particularly carrier mounted ones. ------------------ Fabs [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited December 12, 2000).]



Slayer -> (12/13/2000 3:11:00 AM)

BA Evans - "So what you are saying is that 1 man firing one SMG should get as many kills as 12 men firing 12 SMGs?" This is the point that I am basically bringing up. Those 3-4 kills were what resulted from both an SMG squad that should be firing 10+ SMGs AND the solitary SMG man. The LMGs often have twice the accuracy and twice the 'kill' rating of the SMGs, but at 2-3 hexes, a supposedly single SMG will do MUCH more damage.



Mac_MatrixForum -> (12/13/2000 3:40:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Arralen: Everything ok as is it is !!
Heh, that's fine [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]. I'm really looking forward to the new OOBs. ------------------ Markku "Mac" Rontu "Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Sheridan in B5



kao16 -> (12/13/2000 5:25:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Slayer: BA Evans - "So what you are saying is that 1 man firing one SMG should get as many kills as 12 men firing 12 SMGs?" This is the point that I am basically bringing up. Those 3-4 kills were what resulted from both an SMG squad that should be firing 10+ SMGs AND the solitary SMG man. The LMGs often have twice the accuracy and twice the 'kill' rating of the SMGs, but at 2-3 hexes, a supposedly single SMG will do MUCH more damage.
I tried a quick (and dirty) test: one 9 man sqad with soviet SMG in slot one (squad1) vs 9 man squad with same SMG in slot two (squad2). There was basically no difference in the firepower effect (actually the squad2 performed better) at 2 hex range.



Paul Vebber -> (12/13/2000 5:45:00 AM)

There is a lot involved in the casualty determination that can cause this. One is that experience has a lot to do with how many men in a unit actually fire at a given designated target - its never all of them and for a low experience unit can often be only 1 or 2. The state of the target has a lot to do with it too. I'll try to look into this and see if there may be a bug...



kao16 -> (12/13/2000 11:26:00 AM)

I'm not sure what, if anything, it proves, but tested slot1 vs slot2 squads looking at the numbers firing as mentioned in OP Fire - both slot1 and slot 2 showed "n x smg firing" where n = number of survivng troops in squad. This (may?) suggest(s) that inf primary weapons in either slot 1 or 2 count all men firing rather than all for slot 1 and 1 for slot 2.



Flashfyre -> (12/13/2000 1:29:00 PM)

Hmmmm....alot of interesting points. Let me see if I can clarify my previous post: One man/SMG should NOT get as many kills as 12 men/SMGs. He should get 1 kill, 2 at the most. He is firing one weapon. His chance to hit is somewhat higher than a rifle, so a kill should occur more frequently than if he used a rifle. One man/SMG should NOT get as many kills as 12 men/rifles. Same provisions as above; he fires one weapon, they fire 12. They have 12 chances to hit, he has 1. Roll one die, then roll 12; which group has a better chance to roll a "1"? The group of 12. 12 men/SMGs SHOULD get more kills than one man/SMG. They have more chances to hit, thereby more chances to cause kills. 12 men/rifles SHOULD get more kills than one man/SMG. Again, more chances to hit, more chances for kills. All this is assuming one round of fire; over time, an SMG-equipped unit, whether it's primary or secondary, one man or all men, will achieve a higher kill-rate than a like unit armed with rifles. So much for the physics.....however, it seems that, according to these posts, that this is not happening. That, to me, seems like a bug in the damage calculations for SMGs. Does this clear it up a bit? [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]



Igor -> (12/13/2000 2:17:00 PM)

A quick test of the primary weapon effect; I set the weapon type of all the weapons of the German engineer squad to "1-primary infantry weapon". Every single man fired his rifle, threw a grenade, fired a flamethrower, and set a satchel charge against the target (entrenched) infantry squad. Granted, I had to do it several times before the target lived long enough for the satchel charges to go off; but go off they did. Then, with a faint air of regret, I set everything back the way it was. Too many Ubermensch can make for a boring game; but it made for a great fireworks display. The answer to the limited question of how to model the British squad is simple enough; create a weapon called, say, COs SMG. Give it the stats of the regular weapon, and set it to secondary weapon status. Then assign it to the squad in place of the regular SMG. [This message has been edited by Igor (edited December 13, 2000).]



Fredde -> (12/13/2000 3:28:00 PM)

I have also made some experiments with this, it doesn't matter where the primary infantry weapon is located.. they all fire it anyway. At least it looks that way from the casualties scored. Best way to look at it (like someone already did here) is to compare the squad MG effect to a so called single smg. The SMG is much much more effective despite the lower stats.



Arralen -> (12/14/2000 2:46:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Fredde: I have also made some experiments with this, it doesn't matter where the primary infantry weapon is located..
So I was right about that .. and Paul wrong, sadly. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/frown.gif[/img] Sadly, because now we have to go through all the OOBs and look for those "secondary" weapons. Or will the fix be included in the patch ?? Arralen [This message has been edited by Arralen (edited December 13, 2000).]



Slayer -> (12/14/2000 5:48:00 AM)

This leads me to another question, as I am unsure of how MMG and HMG squads of 4 men operated in regards to their secondary weapon. Were the other 3 men just there to haul the ammo when moving and occasionally help reload the gun, leaving them all free to fire their rifles, or would this be another case where only one person would be available to fire the rifle/SMG/whatever. I bring this up, because on the same German vs. British mission that I mention at the begining of this post, a Vickers fired at a rifle squad from a fair distance, and while the MG itself did nothing, the rifles got 3 kills with that one shot. Unfortuately, if this is another example of a gun or two too many, then even more OOB changes would be neccesary. However, I do not see the MMG/HMG problem, if it is even one to begin with, to be anywhere near as big a problem as the overpowered rifle/SMG squads.



kao16 -> (12/14/2000 7:40:00 AM)

Rather than play with the OOBs it would be better if the old - only primary inf weapons in slot one are fired by all personnel in unit - applied. ISTR that someone pointed out the importance of slot one when questions were asked about why squad lmgs were always in slot 2 (considering they should be providing most of a squads firepower and would be expected to be the first weapon mentioned). [This message has been edited by kao16 (edited December 13, 2000).]



Flashfyre -> (12/14/2000 10:22:00 AM)

quote:

Were the other 3 men just there to haul the ammo when moving and occasionally help reload the gun, leaving them all free to fire their rifles, or would this be another case where only one person would be available to fire the rifle/SMG/whatever.
Typically, MG teams required 2 men to service/fire the weapon, while the other 2-3 men were there for security and spotting. Most GE HMG teams had a spotter, with a telescopic rangefinder. Many other nations employed this with HMGs. MMGs and LMGs usually did not, but the "extra" men would locate targets and tell the gunner where to fire. They also protected the MG from flank attacks. So, in essence, those other 2 men are firing rifles after the MG fires.
quote:

why squad lmgs were always in slot 2 (considering they should be providing most of a squads firepower and would be expected to be the first weapon mentioned).
A squad only carried 1 or 2 LMGs, as opposed to a rifle for everyone. Therefore, the LMGs only account for 20% of the squads firepower. They were support weapons, set up to create fire lanes to "herd" the enemy onto ground favorable to the squad/company. I guess this is where the problem gets messy...if the "slot one" weapon is carried and fired by all members, then a MG-42 MMG would be firing 4 of them, in addition to it's secondary rifles. This, of course, is historically inaccurate. Perhaps the designers coded weapons based on there lethality, not just "one gun/one man". That would make sense from a programming standpoint, so each weapon was rated on it's usage. That way, an MG would be more lethal than a rifle, but the rifle would be rated as if up to 12 men were firing. ------------------ The Motor Pool http://www.geocities.com/aurion_eq/index.html?976419304550 [email]kmcferren@cvn.net[/email]



kao16 -> (12/14/2000 10:59:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Flashfyre: A squad only carried 1 or 2 LMGs, as opposed to a rifle for everyone. Therefore, the LMGs only account for 20% of the squads firepower. They were support weapons, set up to create fire lanes to "herd" the enemy onto ground favorable to the squad/company.
In a 10 man section the LMG is 10% of the weapons, not 10% of the firepower. An LMG, as a crew operated weapon has a fire power greater than that of any single rifle. For a 10 man section of 8 men with SMLE and 2 man Bren team (guesstamate figures)= 8 x SMLE @20 rpm = 160 1 x Bren @650 rpm = 650 TOTAL = 810 so lmg % = 650/810 ~80% If Bren effective rate is 120 and SMLE is 10: 80 + 120 = 200, 120/200 = 60% So for a commonwealth section with one bren, that bren is at least 60% of the section's effective firepower. For Germans the % would be higher. For US Army (and USMC?) with BARs, I'm not sure how they are used but assume that because of its bottom mounted magazine (20 rnd vs bren 28 - 30 nominal) and level of distribution of Garands and the way US forces tended to fire off rounds, that LMGs in US service may contribute a lower percentage. [This message has been edited by kao16 (edited December 13, 2000).]



kao16 -> (12/14/2000 11:16:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Flashfyre: I guess this is where the problem gets messy...if the "slot one" weapon is carried and fired by all members, then a MG-42 MMG would be firing 4 of them, in addition to it's secondary rifles. This, of course, is historically inaccurate. Perhaps the designers coded weapons based on there lethality, not just "one gun/one man". That would make sense from a programming standpoint, so each weapon was rated on it's usage. That way, an MG would be more lethal than a rifle, but the rifle would be rated as if up to 12 men were firing.
Not sure what is being said here. The MG42MMG is (at least) a secondary infantry weapon. It does not gain the one shot per man advantage of rifles and smgs. The way things are (apparently) is that a German (10 man?) section with K98's and a MG42 LMG etc will fire K98 as 10 men and one MG42. A MG42 MMG with 4 man crew (K98 armed) will fire as one MG42 MMG and 4 men firing K98 - regardless of the slot the various weapons are in. NOTE: One effect of the slots that still seems to apply is that, as manpower drops below 4, the lower weapons also drop off. Thus a one man survivor of a section will only fire his K98, while the sole survivor of the MG42 MMG team will still fire the MG42 (I think this is in slot one...), but at reduced effect(??).



Igor -> (12/14/2000 1:05:00 PM)

Just went and eyeballed the OOB; as a secondary infantry weapon, the MG42 MMG would fire full strength with a crew of one, the same way that a grenade launcher or a BAR would. Interestingly, the HMGs are all rated as crew served weapons; so the declining crew of a M2HB .50 on a tripod would reduce it's firepower by the time the gunner is alone. Perhaps, unlike the LMGs, the MMGs should also be considered crew served weapons and not something a squad will carry around. The gent who discussed LMGs as a support weapon for the rifles has, by the way, recreated the view of every army in WW II but the Wehrmacht. That the German infantry outkilled everyone in every possible tactical environment by 1.5 to 1 or better kind of establishes that they were unique in being correct; but his was the majority view. It's one which the game system kind of reinforces, unfortunately; the riflemen will fairly reliably outkill the machinegunner at all but long range. I've been working on modeling the real lethality of the MG34 and 42 as they were used; but the only routes I see are significant increases in the soft kill value, or declaring it a primary weapon. Both have problems; as a primary infantry weapon you get squads which can stop the Golden Horde, while high HE values start to affect adjacent hexes. One day, though, I'll get it right.



Reg -> (12/14/2000 3:21:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Fabs: I follow the rationale in flashfyre's post, but why will a SMG do more damage than a LMG in the same situation? I have noticed this a number of times, when I fire on a soft target below 2 hexes range and get 1 kill with the Bren and 2 or 3 with a Thompson SMG. The same happens when I am fired on by German infantry: 1 kill for the MG 34 or 42 and 2 or 3 for the MP-40. Bren guns, I must say, are particularly ineffective, particularly carrier mounted ones.
I do not think this is an unrealistic characteristic of the Bren gun. My Uncle had the opportunity of using this weapon and other during his National Service days and was most emphatic on their various qualities. He was also fortunate in that he was in the change over period where the WWII era weapons were being phased out and he could compare them with the next generation of weapons such as the M-60. His main critism of the Bren was it was too damn accurate (for an area suppression weapon). He used to joke that you had to give it a bit of a shake or all your bullets would go through the same hole. This gave a high rate of accurate fire out to the range of the rifles but you needed to shift aim to engage multiple targets. He stated the M-60 was much more effective against multiple targets in spite of it's lower accuracy as the wider spread of rounds reduced the need for accurate aim. I suspect that the Vickers gun with it's less accurate but flatter bullet trajectory was used by Commonwealth forces in the heavy weapon role for the same reason. He also used the Owen gun and commented on its high rate but inaccurate fire (the barrel tended to rise rapidly and the last few rounds invariably went high). He rated SMGs highly close in. He was probably only stating the obvious here but commented on its ability to 'blow away' close in targets with unsighted snapshots, a task more difficult with the larger and more unwieldy Bren gun. On that basis I feel that the SMG should perform better close in than the section LMG but the LMG can project its firepower over a far greater (and a tactically more useful) range. As for the argument that 1 Bren had more firepower than 12 rifles, well I don't feel I'm qualified to judge that as there are so many factors that could influence the results. The Bren would throw more round but they would be at only one target (who would be in a world of trouble). The 12 rifles could be aimed at 12 different targets and though less hits are likely, competent shots could bring down more than one target. On the other hand, the likelihood of all 12 getting a clear shot is much lower than a single Bren gunner. Unfortunately, these are all just speculations and I don't know about you but I'm not volunteering for a field test to verify them. Reg. [This message has been edited by Reg (edited December 14, 2000).]



Paul Vebber -> (12/14/2000 10:26:00 PM)

If (as appears might be the case) multiple men are firing non-slot one weapons, than that is a bug. The solution is to fix the bug not redo all the OOB's



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625