quote:

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

So the practical results of this mixed rifle concept will be a tendancy to do more casualties to units on the move, and that infantry will tend to inflict less overall suppression on other units. Right? Damn, it sounds like a no brainer. What are the general thoughts about infantry combat in SPWAW right now? It often feels like hammering away with small arms fire until the unit retreats, then... easy kill. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it means that a couple of squads have difficulty pushing a single entrenched squad out of its position. I guess it degenerates once you get a lot of units in the field though, cause my 20 infantry units can concentrate their fire on 2 squads and make them retreat, then I can occupy those positions and my 20 infantry squads can massacre 20 entrenched units along a line. This mixed rifle thing would help to mitigate this... man it sounds like such a good idea. THEN you can make assault squads that have more weapon slots full and it will simulate much more offensive infantry squads that would have a REAL effect when used on the offensive.

Tomo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

The range? Dunno, but my first guess would be 8-12 hexes. My first opinion would lean toward 8 cause I think too much action happens at the limit of rifle range in SPWAW. The LMG shouldn't go much farther than the rifles for practical use reasons.

Tomo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

I know there are instances, but I think it makes the game SPWAW play that way ALL the time. Practically speaking the game plays ahistorically as a result. If we reduced the ranges to something modelling practice rather than technical effective ranges we'd get a better result out of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

Keke..do you mean CM=Combat Mission, or Combat Leader=CL (as Charles_22 meant)?

While we are on the matter, how well do you think deals the Combat Mission (battlefront.com) game with the squad LMG?[&:]

CM = Combat Mission

It has the combined firepower you are looking for...And no, its not that detailed as having individual men manning individual weapons. When losses mount squads tend to keep most valuable weapons, like LMGs, over rifles and such.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

Any body going to tell me how to post a senario??[:(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

Keke..do you mean CM=Combat Mission, or Combat Leader=CL (as Charles_22 meant)?

While we are on the matter, how well do you think deals the Combat Mission (battlefront.com) game with the squad LMG?[&:]

CM = Combat Mission

It has the combined firepower you are looking for...And no, its not that detailed as having individual men manning individual weapons. When losses mount squads tend to keep most valuable weapons, like LMGs, over rifles and such.

Yeah, i think it works quite well there in the game...IMHO! If the the LMG guy is incapacitated then another guy steps in taking the LMG IIRC. I doubt whether all that micromanagement really can be worked into a game. Even original SL game had some problems with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

So the practical results of this mixed rifle concept will be a tendancy to do more casualties to units on the move, and that infantry will tend to inflict less overall suppression on other units. Right? Damn, it sounds like a no brainer. What are the general thoughts about infantry combat in SPWAW right now? It often feels like hammering away with small arms fire until the unit retreats, then... easy kill. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it means that a couple of squads have difficulty pushing a single entrenched squad out of its position. I guess it degenerates once you get a lot of units in the field though, cause my 20 infantry units can concentrate their fire on 2 squads and make them retreat, then I can occupy those positions and my 20 infantry squads can massacre 20 entrenched units along a line. This mixed rifle thing would help to mitigate this... man it sounds like such a good idea. THEN you can make assault squads that have more weapon slots full and it will simulate much more offensive infantry squads that would have a REAL effect when used on the offensive.

Tomo

What kind of range would this hybrid weapon possess?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

So the practical results of this mixed rifle concept will be a tendancy to do more casualties to units on the move, and that infantry will tend to inflict less overall suppression on other units. Right? Damn, it sounds like a no brainer. What are the general thoughts about infantry combat in SPWAW right now? It often feels like hammering away with small arms fire until the unit retreats, then... easy kill. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it means that a couple of squads have difficulty pushing a single entrenched squad out of its position. I guess it degenerates once you get a lot of units in the field though, cause my 20 infantry units can concentrate their fire on 2 squads and make them retreat, then I can occupy those positions and my 20 infantry squads can massacre 20 entrenched units along a line. This mixed rifle thing would help to mitigate this... man it sounds like such a good idea. THEN you can make assault squads that have more weapon slots full and it will simulate much more offensive infantry squads that would have a REAL effect when used on the offensive.

Tomo

What kind of range would this hybrid weapon possess?

Off course "combined" range would be some sorrt of compromise, thatīs not to be avoided when just a sainglöe weapon slot is used for this. I assumed "squad volley fire" (=~600 yards) would be appropiate. Assuming you would have some "sympathy" for the idea in general, what "combined" range would you suggest? Give different nations different values??[&:]

thanks

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild Bill

Don't ever go anywhere, Harry. Your innovativeness is much needed in this community. You've added so many good things to this game!

WB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

So the practical results of this mixed rifle concept will be a tendancy to do more casualties to units on the move, and that infantry will tend to inflict less overall suppression on other units. Right? Damn, it sounds like a no brainer. What are the general thoughts about infantry combat in SPWAW right now? It often feels like hammering away with small arms fire until the unit retreats, then... easy kill. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it means that a couple of squads have difficulty pushing a single entrenched squad out of its position. I guess it degenerates once you get a lot of units in the field though, cause my 20 infantry units can concentrate their fire on 2 squads and make them retreat, then I can occupy those positions and my 20 infantry squads can massacre 20 entrenched units along a line. This mixed rifle thing would help to mitigate this... man it sounds like such a good idea. THEN you can make assault squads that have more weapon slots full and it will simulate much more offensive infantry squads that would have a REAL effect when used on the offensive.

Tomo

What kind of range would this hybrid weapon possess?

Off course "combined" range would be some sorrt of compromise, thatīs not to be avoided when just a sainglöe weapon slot is used for this. I assumed "squad volley fire" (=~600 yards) would be appropiate. Assuming you would have some "sympathy" for the idea in general, what "combined" range would you suggest? Give different nations different values??[&:]

thanks

Well, as y0ou might have guessed, I am quite critical of the entire idea, since I believe it is unsuitable for SP. It combines the worst of two worlds. First of all it denigrates the ability of the squad LMG to provide long range support. Secondly it overrates the ability of the squad rifles to do the same. The best there is to say about this is that you save a weapons slot and get a more "harmonious firefight (since all weapons fire as one)

But given the premise I would work out a median average between the range of the rifles and the range of the LMG, based upon the attributes of the weapons in question. For the germans (for instance) and their K98k/Mg34/42 Combo I would for instance wager a median range of 450-500 meters for the combined weapons ability to deliver effective fire. Max effective range for LMG on bibods without any aids is in the region of 500-600 M. Combined with the effective range of the rifles (around 300-350 M) you arrive somewherew inbetween.

quote:

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 itīs 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 thatīs how SPWAW works, as itīs 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 canīt 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.

Donīt know whether many people would be willing to abandon their (largely ineffective) slot 2 MG42/BAR/Bren...or whatever LMG, but itīs 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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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.[sm=00000280.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

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 itīs 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 thatīs how SPWAW works, as itīs 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 canīt 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.

Donīt know whether many people would be willing to abandon their (largely ineffective) slot 2 MG42/BAR/Bren...or whatever LMG, but itīs 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 wantīs 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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

So the practical results of this mixed rifle concept will be a tendancy to do more casualties to units on the move, and that infantry will tend to inflict less overall suppression on other units. Right? Damn, it sounds like a no brainer. What are the general thoughts about infantry combat in SPWAW right now? It often feels like hammering away with small arms fire until the unit retreats, then... easy kill. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it means that a couple of squads have difficulty pushing a single entrenched squad out of its position. I guess it degenerates once you get a lot of units in the field though, cause my 20 infantry units can concentrate their fire on 2 squads and make them retreat, then I can occupy those positions and my 20 infantry squads can massacre 20 entrenched units along a line. This mixed rifle thing would help to mitigate this... man it sounds like such a good idea. THEN you can make assault squads that have more weapon slots full and it will simulate much more offensive infantry squads that would have a REAL effect when used on the offensive.

Tomo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

I know there are instances, but I think it makes the game SPWAW play that way ALL the time. Practically speaking the game plays ahistorically as a result. If we reduced the ranges to something modelling practice rather than technical effective ranges we'd get a better result out of the game. That being said, there should also be lmg sections that have the full range for their weapons for exactly this reason. Thank goodness your Dad wasn't at Dieppe, everything I read about it makes me feel sorry for our allies that went down there. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it's an excellent idea.

Rockin Harry is just that... Rockin.

BTW, these kinds of solutions are exactly the kind of thing people should be thinking of... we're in the late stage of this products life cycle (probably later than most games ever get really) and now is the time to find out clever ways to take whats here and make better of it.

Tomo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

Keke..do you mean CM=Combat Mission, or Combat Leader=CL (as Charles_22 meant)?

While we are on the matter, how well do you think deals the Combat Mission (battlefront.com) game with the squad LMG?[&:]

CM = Combat Mission

It has the combined firepower you are looking for...And no, its not that detailed as having individual men manning individual weapons. When losses mount squads tend to keep most valuable weapons, like LMGs, over rifles and such.

Yeah, i think it works quite well there in the game...IMHO! If the the LMG guy is incapacitated then another guy steps in taking the LMG IIRC. I doubt whether all that micromanagement really can be worked into a game. Even original SL game had some problems with it.

The problem with working the CM weapons routine in to SP, is (as you are no doubt aware) that CM can use itīs advanced software model to only apply the "LMG" part of the squads firepower at longer range, while in SP you will need to assign the same range for the entire "hybrid" weapon. This is the greatest limitation I see with your model (but then Iīm a machinegunner[;)])

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmmoSgt

quote:

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 itīs 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 thatīs how SPWAW works, as itīs 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 canīt 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.

Donīt know whether many people would be willing to abandon their (largely ineffective) slot 2 MG42/BAR/Bren...or whatever LMG, but itīs 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.

I see potential here for some good things, but I also see some problems. You say a HE Kill of 3 for the mixed weapons is to high , but under this system what basically happens is that nations armed with bolt action rifles achive parity with nations armed with semi auto's while the nations/ units armed with semi auto's basically lose any LMG / Auto Rifle fire power. May I suggest that , perhaps, If HE Kill of 2 is the upper working limit for mixed weapons, that those nation or units already armed with semi auto's with a HE Kill of 2 keep thier LMG/BAR/ BREN in slot 2, as you say they aren't all that terrible effective in slot two so keeping them would not be that big of a deal firepower wise and it would allow for some differentation between bolt action armed squads and semi auto armed squads. This way German FJ's for example with FJ42's? FG43's would have at least a little more firepower than K98 armed Infantry ? I might also suggest that in situations where you would have to make radical distortions in range , say like MP44 armed Germans that the LMG stay in slot 2. I think this mixed system can work for MOST infantry , since MOST infantry is armed with bolt action rifles firing basically the same caliber and type ammo as the squad automatic weapon. But I also think there are enough exceptions that are problematic that some flexibility should be concidered. Another thought I have is that under the mixed weapons system it looks like the squad would lose firepower with casulities at a somewhat higher rate than in the current system . Example in the mixed system essentially the HE Kill of the squad LMG is going to be reduced with each casulity, where in the current system it would not , only losing the fiepower of a rifle. In British units for example , the mixed weapons system would make a Mixed Bren equlvalent to a Mixed MG 42 is this desirable ?
On the up side ,in at least US units especially it would allow room for more Rifle Grenades. And since the M9A1 AT Rifle grenade has basically the same warhead as the Bazooka round , and since the US had the M7 booster charge to extend rifle grenade ranges out to 300 yards this could make room for some significant increase in US Squad fire power if the Rifle Grenades are properly modeled ( info on US rifle Grenades and especially the M7 booster device is available in the US Army Standard Ordnance catalog on the Carlise Army barrack library website. The M7 is listed with the Standard infantry rifle ammo , The Grenades are listed together in a different section) .
I think mixed weapons has potential , but it would need to be used with flexibility, especially if the reason behind it is to raise the effectiveness of the squad automatic weapon , the purpose certainly would not be achieved in those cases where an inflexible application would completely remove the firepower of the squad weapon, and in the cases of SMG/ MP44 troops it might lead to unnecesary range distortions. The basic Idea to open up slots for additional common infantry weapons is a good one, but only if those additional weapons are properly modeled. I have always wanted to see US rifle Grenades especially the M9A1 AT rifle grenade properly modeled, it was a very effective tank killer and commonly issued and used on all US rifles inculding the M1 Carbine The US Rifle Grenade launcher could and was usually mounted on at least 1 rifle in every squad ( sometimes more depending on the tactical situation )and had a pretty accurate sight calibrated for both the grenade launcher blank round and the blank round + M7 Booster Pellet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmmoSgt
I see potential here for some good things, but I also see some problems. You say a HE Kill of 3 for the mixed weapons is to high , but under this system what basically happens is that nations armed with bolt action rifles achive parity with nations armed with semi auto's while the nations/ units armed with semi auto's basically lose any LMG / Auto Rifle fire power. May I suggest that , perhaps, If HE Kill of 2 is the upper working limit for mixed weapons, that those nation or units already armed with semi auto's with a HE Kill of 2 keep thier LMG/BAR/ BREN in slot 2, as you say they aren't all that terrible effective in slot two so keeping them would not be that big of a deal firepower wise and it would allow for some differentation between bolt action armed squads and semi auto armed squads. This way German FJ's for example with FJ42's? FG43's would have at least a little more firepower than K98 armed Infantry ? I might also suggest that in situations where you would have to make radical distortions in range , say like MP44 armed Germans that the LMG stay in slot 2.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmmoSgt
I think this mixed system can work for MOST infantry , since MOST infantry is armed with bolt action rifles firing basically the same caliber and type ammo as the squad automatic weapon. But I also think there are enough exceptions that are problematic that some flexibility should be concidered. Another thought I have is that under the mixed weapons system it looks like the squad would lose firepower with casulities at a somewhat higher rate than in the current system . Example in the mixed system essentially the HE Kill of the squad LMG is going to be reduced with each casulity, where in the current system it would not , only losing the fiepower of a rifle. In British units for example , the mixed weapons system would make a Mixed Bren equlvalent to a Mixed MG 42 is this desirable ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmmoSgt
On the up side ,in at least US units especially it would allow room for more Rifle Grenades. And since the M9A1 AT Rifle grenade has basically the same warhead as the Bazooka round , and since the US had the M7 booster charge to extend rifle grenade ranges out to 300 yards this could make room for some significant increase in US Squad fire power if the Rifle Grenades are properly modeled ( info on US rifle Grenades and especially the M7 booster device is available in the US Army Standard Ordnance catalog on the Carlise Army barrack library website. The M7 is listed with the Standard infantry rifle ammo , The Grenades are listed together in a different section) .

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmmoSgt
I think mixed weapons has potential , but it would need to be used with flexibility, especially if the reason behind it is to raise the effectiveness of the squad automatic weapon , the purpose certainly would not be achieved in those cases where an inflexible application would completely remove the firepower of the squad weapon, and in the cases of SMG/ MP44 troops it might lead to unnecesary range distortions. The basic Idea to open up slots for additional common infantry weapons is a good one, but only if those additional weapons are properly modeled. I have always wanted to see US rifle Grenades especially the M9A1 AT rifle grenade properly modeled, it was a very effective tank killer and commonly issued and used on all US rifles inculding the M1 Carbine The US Rifle Grenade launcher could and was usually mounted on at least 1 rifle in every squad ( sometimes more depending on the tactical situation )and had a pretty accurate sight calibrated for both the grenade launcher blank round and the blank round + M7 Booster Pellet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

AmmoSgt,

I'm experimenting with a split squad concept. This gives the abillity to add more weapons to a squad and allow's the SAW to fire from weapons slot one. I made a scenario and Harry is looking at it. What is your opinion on this subject?