Well I played Most Battles in Blitz As Us Side....

[user1000]

Many infantry problems I have played more than half the battles that came along with the game. The Us infantry for most of these battles have pathetic skill set. As US side most curl or flee if they come under fire. The troops seem to spend more time fleeing or laying down curling then they do with completing objectives for the battle. In many battles the axis always seem +2 and it is rare that you see a veteran or elite on the US side, most commonly a -2. Axis always see the us troops first even if they are in the 2nd story windows and they are in the street running at the house.

I had 15 plus US troops in a house complete with an mg team only to be forced out  by an enemy command team of 4, with mp40s. Enemy MG 42s still shoot if they come under fire, Us mgs will cower or flee. panzerfausts will fire still if they are under tank or infantry fire, yet US bazookas will curl to the ground if fired upon instantly.... I don't understand why battlefront has decided to go this route with the infantry.

 

A veteran m4a1 76mm I had, pumped 3 rounds into a mark iv panzer and not 1 member of the crew was hit all fled. That's 3 76mm rounds all penetrating.

Edited November 9, 2017 by user1000

[sburke]

you can open the editor and confirm settings, but I don't know of anyone of the stock scenario creators who is into uber german settings.  Do you have some specific example scenarios?

[Combatintman]

Yes @sburke is right. I find that facts always help these discussions along. I remember being taken to task by the Beta team on one of my scenarios for giving a German unit a pretty middling rating, however I justified it based on the research I had conducted on the action being portrayed. So it would be useful if you could present your evidence.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

By this point in the war many German units were utterly p**s-poor, the very last scrapings of the barrel, stiffened by a diminishing number of veterans (or better).....IMHO you could use almost any combination of training & experience levels &, often within the same (reduced) platoon.

The Brits were in a reasonably similar position as we were simply running out of men, but we were slightly better off in that we still had decent supply and training facilities well behind the lines (ie: in the UK), so I'd be somewhat less likely to rate them conscript or use -2 experience and the overall unit settings would be a bit more uniform by & large.

The US had no shortage of manpower but their units were beginning to suffer the effects of combat fatigue.....Troops who had been in the field for long enough to consider veterans could see that the end was in sight and became very reluctant to stick their neck out (naturally this effected British & Commonwealth forces too), so I'd set many Veteran units to Low or even Poor morale.  The remainder would mostly be regulars but still with a decent number of enthusiastic new recruits (I usually chuck in a few green troops with high morale to compensate for the veterans).

FWIW

.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[A Canadian Cat]

When you are getting your ass handed to you it frequently feels like the other guy has super top notch troops.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Or the AI cheats. 

Edited November 9, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Hister]

Doesn't the user1000 describe the problems 4.0 engine brought to the infantry units perhaps? If he would play the germans he would have a very similar experience. 4.0 is bugged. 

[Warts 'n' all]

To me it certainly sounds like the problems I've experienced with both Allied and Axis troops with Engine 4. And not specific to the U.S.

I've no doubt in time B.F.C will be able to tweak a few things. Although I do seem to remember people wanting their troops to take evasive action more quickly, now they are running away too readily, and wanting them to spread out more when they move, and now they don't like the fact that two or three men will stay outside of the building their squad has been ordered to move into.  As Johnny Lenin said "It's nothing to get hung about. Just go back to engine 3". Obviously, I'm paraphrasing just a tad.

[Erwin]

"...don't like the fact that two or three men will stay outside of the building their squad has been ordered to move into."

To play well, one really should break squads down to teams - that mitigates the problem.

[Warts 'n' all]

That is perfectly correct. 

[JoMac]

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 8:32 PM, user1000 said:

Many infantry problems I have played more than half the battles that came along with the game. The Us infantry for most of these battles have pathetic skill set. As US side most curl or flee if they come under fire. The troops seem to spend more time fleeing or laying down curling then they do with completing objectives for the battle. In many battles the axis always seem +2 and it is rare that you see a veteran or elite on the US side, most commonly a -2. Axis always see the us troops first even if they are in the 2nd story windows and they are in the street running at the house.

I had 15 plus US troops in a house complete with an mg team only to be forced out  by an enemy command team of 4, with mp40s. Enemy MG 42s still shoot if they come under fire, Us mgs will cower or flee. panzerfausts will fire still if they are under tank or infantry fire, yet US bazookas will curl to the ground if fired upon instantly.... I don't understand why battlefront has decided to go this route with the infantry.

 

A veteran m4a1 76mm I had, pumped 3 rounds into a mark iv panzer and not 1 member of the crew was hit all fled. That's 3 76mm rounds all penetrating.

Well, I always advocated for less Small Arms firing per Action-Cycle and or more reactionary cover/better Savings Roll's  (more cower for  self-preservation=less firing per Action-Cycle) for Inf, HT/Armor Gunners, etc...One Minute of Intense Combat in CM (what some call a Mad-Minute) should maybe take twice that long.

I've tried everything from reducing/increasing the Moral/Leadership ratings to using 'Poor' equipment, etc, but it only helped a little in giving me the desired Realistic Tactical Effects I'm looking for.

Of course, and in saying the above User1K, in CMFB having Germans with more Auto Weapons then U.S. at the Squad Level (especially against U.S. Armored Inf) doesn't help much either, and you will end-up with U.S. Troops taking more cover and ultimately loosing more casualties...So, unless you get the Germs in an Ambush, you will be hard pressed.

Joe

 

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by JoMc67

[sburke]

58 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

Well, I always advocated for less Small Arms firing per Action-Cycle and or more reactionary cover/better Savings Roll's  (more cower for  self-preservation=less firing per Action-Cycle) for Inf, HT/Armor Gunners, etc...One Minute of Intense Combat in CM (what some call a Mad-Minute) should maybe take twice that long.

I've tried everything from reducing/increasing the Moral/Leadership ratings to using 'Poor' equipment, etc, but it only helped a little in giving me the desired Realistic Tactical Effects I'm looking for.

Of course, and in saying the above User1K, in CMFB having Germans with more Auto Weapons then U.S. at the Squad Level (especially against U.S. Armored Inf) doesn't help much either, and you will end-up with U.S. Troops taking more cover and ultimately loosing more casualties...So, unless you get the Germs in an Ambush, you will be hard pressed.

Joe

You will need to provide some kind of justification for why folks would be firing less.  As a beta tester I would be asked the same. BF is very particular about changing items like that.  It can’t be just a feeling or to create a different tactical effect. It has to actually be a real world demonstrable rationale. 

Regarding the auto weapons, you are exactly right and this is the very reason for Germany deploying them.  They are a more effective weapon and it reversed the typical fire power advantage the US had with the Garand over the Kar.  The US can not go toe to toe with a force that can put out more rounds faster. So you need to alter tactics.   Under no circumstances should that also be the norm. Every German unit wasn’t suddenly equipped with massive amounts of automatic weapons. Theoretically that means that in CM battles you should not see them that often, but then you are in the hands of those nefarious scenario designers or folks purchasing them in quick battles. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On ‎15‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 4:28 PM, sburke said:

Every German unit wasn’t suddenly equipped with massive amounts of automatic weapons.

In theory they sorta were.....The German infantry platoon was pretty much built around the firepower of the MGs, the riflemen contributed almost as much as ammo carriers as they did by using their own weapons.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[sburke]

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

In theory they sorta were.....The German infantry platoon was pretty much built around the firepower of the MGs, the riflemen contributed almost as much as ammo carriers as they did by using their own weapons.

Apples to oranges we are talking mp40 and 44 not a single mg or two that the squad was tasked to support.  It is why I would happily go against your typical German squad armed with a couple mgs and a bunch of kar 98s with a Russian squad armed with Ppsh  

Stay focused!   

 

[c3k]

I just had a knife-fight. Okay, not me: my troops. And, well, it wasn't really with knives. It was just very, very close range. "VCQB", I'd call it. I had four bolt-action Commonwealth guys against two German SMG guys. I don't care how fast and smoothly the Lee Enfield loads: against smgs at close range, it's like bringing a knife to a gunfight. End result: 3 down, 1 cowering. If it weren't for a Sherman firing into the Germans' room from the other side, they would've still been there when my other 6 men entered the slaughterhouse. Fire superiority is real thing. Once a side gets it, it's very hard for the other side to win. Full auto at close range is very hard to beat.  

[user1000]

I don't think it's a problem of whoever has the autos wins. Going back to first post. I can honestly say I see more german mg teams fire while getting shot at, compared to a us mg team which seems to always curl at the hint of a firefight. The water cooled .30 cal had a longer range than the mg-42, could shoot longer, and carried more ammo. Same with bazookas. Where have you seen a us bazooka team get a shot off with incoming mg fire? Panzerscreks and panzerfausts sure seem to.

[sburke]

37 minutes ago, user1000 said:

I don't think it's a problem of whoever has the autos wins. Going back to first post. I can honestly say I see more german mg teams fire while getting shot at, compared to a us mg team which seems to always curl at the hint of a firefight. The water cooled .30 cal had a longer range than the mg-42, could shoot longer, and carried more ammo. Same with bazookas. Where have you seen a us bazooka team get a shot off with incoming mg fire? Panzerscreks and panzerfausts sure seem to.

I can't actually say I have any experience that would align with that.  You'll unfortunately have to be able to show that as repeatable in a test if there is going to be any traction on changing behavior.  The premise is that somehow (assuming all factors are set the same) that US units behave different than German units.  BF is going to categorically deny that so it will need proof.

[c3k]

11 hours ago, user1000 said:

I don't think it's a problem of whoever has the autos wins. Going back to first post. I can honestly say I see more german mg teams fire while getting shot at, compared to a us mg team which seems to always curl at the hint of a firefight. The water cooled .30 cal had a longer range than the mg-42, could shoot longer, and carried more ammo. Same with bazookas. Where have you seen a us bazooka team get a shot off with incoming mg fire? Panzerscreks and panzerfausts sure seem to.

 

10 hours ago, sburke said:

I can't actually say I have any experience that would align with that.  You'll unfortunately have to be able to show that as repeatable in a test if there is going to be any traction on changing behavior.  The premise is that somehow (assuming all factors are set the same) that US units behave different than German units.  BF is going to categorically deny that so it will need proof.

 

To @user1000, if you think this is a problem, a suggestion is to show it, just like @sburke just mentioned. If your supposition can be shown to have some merit (or at least to get others to say, "Yeah, he's got a point"), then it can be looked at and dug into.

It could be something as simple as the MG42 firing at the US M1917 has more suppression then the US M1917 firing at an MG42. A suggestion would be to put 10 of each type (M1917 and MG42) at the same end of a series of test lanes. Have the same weapon fire at all of them. So 20 lanes; 20 "enemy" MG42s firing at 10 "friendly" MG42s and 10 "friendly" M1917s. That'd give 10 data points per weapon per run. Just time how long until the target is suppressed. Make all soft factors identical. Make the lanes so that there is no cross fire. Make leadership/command the same for all. (Either all in command or all out of command.) Next, substitute an "enemy" M1917 for each of the "enemy" MG42s. Run the test some more. Time the suppression. See if there's a difference. You'll have apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Just an idea.

[Bulletpoint]

There's really no reason to get into a groggy discussion about weapons here, because user1000 answered his own question in his first post:

If a scenario gives the Germans high motivation and the US low motivation, of course the Americans will cower and the Germans fire back. It's just how the scenario was made.

[ASL Veteran]

On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 9:20 AM, Bulletpoint said:

There's really no reason to get into a groggy discussion about weapons here, because user1000 answered his own question in his first post:

If a scenario gives the Germans high motivation and the US low motivation, of course the Americans will cower and the Germans fire back. It's just how the scenario was made.

Except that every scenario that ships with the game doesn't have the experience and motivation parameters that he says they do.  Note that he stated that this 'issue' exists with every scenario since he has 'played them all'.  All you have to do is load up Breaking the Line as the Germans and you can see that his assertion is suspect. 

 

My mistake - he said more than half.  I remembered him as saying he had played them all but when I reread his post it appears he has either dialed that back or I misread it when he first posted it.  I think he should have withheld judgement until he played them all.

Edited November 26, 2017 by ASL Veteran