Panzerfaust Allocation request

[noob]

When i play the Axis, i always split infantry squads using the "Assault Team" split command, which separates the SMG from the LMG, however some of the Panzerfausts are allocated to the LMG teams, which puts a close range weapon in the hands of a medium to long range team, thus forcing the player to use the LMG team at close ranges, or taking a Panzerfaust off the front line.

Therefore, i would like it if the Panzerfausts could be allocated to the SMG teams only if an "Assault Team" split is used.

[umlaut]

Makes sense

+1

[CM1fan]

I like the idea as well. +2, adding 1 to umlaut's previous post.

[Badger73]

I like the idea as well. +2, adding 1 to umlaut's previous post.

Good observation and recommendation. I concur. +3 to Umlaut's suggestion.

[Stingray]

+4 works for me too!!!

[Sublime]

+1 good idea

[Placebo]

I do not thing it forces you to use the LMG squad in close attack unless you are attacking a tank! In which case you are using them in a different role to suppression/fire support anyway. I would rather have them split between teams so the both have a chance to defend themselve at close range against a tank heading in their direction.

[noob]

I do not thing it forces you to use the LMG squad in close attack unless you are attacking a tank!

That was inferred in my post.

In which case you are using them in a different role to suppression/fire support anyway.

That's my point, i only want my LMG teams to engage in suppression and support at medium to long ranges, i want my PF teams to have SMG's in case they meet enemy infantry, so giving an LMG squad a PF means they have to abandon their designed role, and go out of their comfort zone.

I would rather have them split between teams so the both have a chance to defend themselves at close range against a tank heading in their direction.

The amount of times a LMG team has to defend itself against a tank is far less than the amount of times it needs to engage in med to long range support and suppression, so if it has a PF, that PF is useless, unless this less likely situation develops, so i would rather play the percentage game, and have the PF with the SMG teams, as they will then be better equipped to deal with any infantry that might be screening the tank.

[Sgt Schultz]

+1.

I am constantly giving my assault teams the spare PF from my Hannomags, while watching the organic ones sit unused.

The effective MP40 range is under 100 meters. The PF of the "future" will go up to 100 meter range.

It's a match.

Shrek is 300 meter range, so it could be placed with the LMG team without crimping anyone's style

-

Even if the assault team is not issued all the Pfs available to the squad, it should get first choice of at least one. Make mine a 30K please.

[womble]

+1.

I am constantly giving my assault teams the spare PF from my Hannomags, while watching the organic ones sit unused.

Same here.

Shrek is 300 meter range...

Only to the same extent that an LMG42's range is 800m (i.e it'll fire at that range if you tell it to). IME, its effective (as in "approaching 50% hit" to a very rough rule-of-thumb) range is sub-100m, same as MP40.

Even if the assault team is not issued all the Pfs available to the squad, it should get first choice of at least one. Make mine a 30K please.

Why do you want the little one?

[Fizou]

+1, I have also been thinking about this.

[c3k]

I will counter this. If I split teams, why am I doing this?

If I'm trying to get an assault element and a support element, why would I burden the assault element with rarely-used ordnance? I want them fleet of foot; as lightly burdened as possible. "Leave your rucks here. Just carry all the ammo and grenades you can. Now go!"

On the other hand, if I want two equal manuever elements, I'd try to distribute the weaponry somewhat equally. The obvious difference being doctrine may force one element to always be considered more of a support element and the other the manuever element. (This is a subtle distinction. Given 12 men with 2 LMG's, 4 SMG's, and 4 pf (pf carried by riflemen), the rest rifles. No doctrine stressing support/manuever elements would split into two equal units, e.g. 1 LMG, 2 SMG, 2 pf, w/3 rifleman, and the same in the second element. If I have a doctrine that specifies that there MUST be a support element then the split could be 2 LMG's, 1 SMG, 3 pf, 3 rifles, and 3 SMG, 1 pf, 3 rifles. Doctrine affects the sub-element creation.)

Finally, if I want to attack a tank, I'll create an anti-tank team. THEY should get the panzerfausts, and a bit of the SMG firepower.

Manuever elements need to be unburdened. Anti-tank elements need the special weapons.

Now, it would be nice to be able to ACQUIRE weapons from on another team within a squad, but forcing that behavior on the player would be a bit excessive. (I know you're not trying to force it, just stating a possible drawback to one type of implementation.)

So, what happens when you try the anti-tank button?

Finally, recognize that your view of what the troops should do could be highly ahistorical. Would I like to put all the automatic weapons found in a 20 man Italian squad in one team with the best leader? Hell yeah. Let the others schlepp ammo or act as medics. Or bullet sponges in the front row of an assault. The game's pre-selected team choices prevents this type of (fun, gamey) abuse.

Ken

[agusto]

I will counter this. If I split teams, why am I doing this?

If I'm trying to get an assault element and a support element, why would I burden the assault element with rarely-used ordnance? I want them fleet of foot; as lightly burdened as possible. "Leave your rucks here. Just carry all the ammo and grenades you can. Now go!"

+1. I wouldnt want my Panzerfausts in the assault team as well. After all, if the assault fails, you would need to recover them wich might lead to more casualties and make that important weapon at least temporarly unavailable. If i want to use the panzerfaust as close range anti concrete weapon like against a building with opponents within, i would perfer using the antitank team to get that job done. Besides handing the Panzerfausts to the assault team could lead to them wasting it on infantry targets without beeing explicitly ordered by the player to do so because the assault team is likelier than the support team to get within panzerfaust range to an infantry target. Recently I have seen AI controlled brits wasting their PIATS on my infantry and getting whiped off the map by my tanks 5 minutes later.

IMO it is good the way it is.

[slysniper]

iNSTEAD OF THIS REQUEST. Why not just request that the adquire button would allow us to aquire ammo and such weapons from the unit adjacent to us. Thus you could split the supplies however you wanted instead of the default split.

But Steve never likes giving that much control to the player.

but then, no matter you view, you could have it your way.

[noob]

Finally, recognize that your view of what the troops should do could be highly ahistorical. Would I like to put all the automatic weapons found in a 20 man Italian squad in one team with the best leader? Hell yeah. Let the others schlepp ammo or act as medics. Or bullet sponges in the front row of an assault. The game's pre-selected team choices prevents this type of (fun, gamey) abuse.

Ken

I have to agree with this, either BF have made a mistake with PF allocation, or they are allocated historically, so i am going to assume they are allocated historically unless i hear otherwise, and as i like as much accuracy as possible, i am now satisfied with the status quo.

[noob]

iNSTEAD OF THIS REQUEST. Why not just request that the adquire button would allow us to aquire ammo and such weapons from the unit adjacent to us. Thus you could split the supplies however you wanted instead of the default split.

But Steve never likes giving that much control to the player.

but then, no matter you view, you could have it your way.

+100

If this idea doesn't impinge on historical accuracy, it would be an excellent implementation.

[womble]

I have to agree with this, either BF have made a mistake with PF allocation, or they are allocated historically, so i am going to assume they are allocated historically unless i hear otherwise, and as i like as much accuracy as possible, i am now satisfied with the status quo.

Well, historically, the squad isn't supposed to split up. According to "doctrine". I'm pretty sure it did though, and when it did, the SL divvied out what tools were available to the Manner who would be best placed to use them.

Sure, maneuver elements sometimes need to be light and agile, when they're covering ground fast. But when you're moving in something approaching travelling overwatch, with the short range weapons up front, covered by the long range weapons further back, the short range weapons should be concentrated together. The fire team is already loaded down with LMGs and all the ammo for them; giving the Fausts to the "Assault" (actually, just "lead") team would even up the burdens.

[noob]

Well, historically, the squad isn't supposed to split up. According to "doctrine". I'm pretty sure it did though, and when it did, the SL divvied out what tools were available to the Manner who would be best placed to use them.

Sure, maneuver elements sometimes need to be light and agile, when they're covering ground fast. But when you're moving in something approaching travelling overwatch, with the short range weapons up front, covered by the long range weapons further back, the short range weapons should be concentrated together. The fire team is already loaded down with LMGs and all the ammo for them; giving the Fausts to the "Assault" (actually, just "lead") team would even up the burdens.

Sly's Aquire idea would solve this without a historical compromise i think, given that PF's, like grenades and ammo, could be passed around according to the squad leaders wishes, unless it forbidden by a superior officer.

[womble]

Sly's Aquire idea would solve this without a historical compromise i think, given that PF's, like grenades and ammo, could be passed around according to the squad leaders wishes, unless it forbidden by a superior officer.

Indeed. Roll on a comprehensive inventory management system!

[noob]

Indeed. Roll on a comprehensive inventory management system!

That too