Has this happened to you?

[sfhand]

There are also situations where there are only 1-2 people in an AS, that would seem to suffer as well. I also don't automatically buy into the idea of there being a problem.

[Michael Emrys]

If we nerf auto bursts, action spots may feel right, but passengers in jeeps and trucks will gain immunity.

My experience with trying to kill Kubelwagens suggests that they at least are dang near immune to small arms fire already.

:mad:

Michael

[JoMac]

I disagree, and think it's already easy to hit Crew & Passengers in Soft & HT's now, and this will just reduce the effects alittle...Remember Crew & Passengers are already in tight formation within a vehicle, and are already easier targets then dismounted Inf/Support Units.

However, not sure how this new formula will effect hits on vehicles themselves...It may well be that it will take much longer to KO a Soft Vehicle.

[Sailor Malan2]

Nice discussion of the issues of bursts vs squad spacings etc.

To come back to another theme, someone asked that pixeltruppen take account of the squad weapons and ammo profile when scavenging under buddy aid. I hate to worry anyone who thinks this. An average WW2 infantryman did not have a misspent youth playing FPS, nor an encyclopedic knowledge of most modern movies (good job, as we all know that the bad guys can empty an entire mag into a confined space but miss, and goody can ricochet a bullet off a metal post at 100m with a pistol to release a giant bucket of molten metal!

WW2 Squaddies are not well educated logical gamers. They are basically educated and variably trained frightened teenagers/early 20's (with exceptions - some are practically pensioners in VG units!). Anyone with initiative and brains is in the command group behind the squad (or probably already dead) . Stop trying to make them action heroes!

[JasonC]

Sure, Charles knows the easiest way to implement something like this.

I will go further, or rather suggest a pure engineering literalism approach rather than design for effect approach. If the angle the aim of the weapon varies through is modeled individually for each weapon, then one can get the same separation of aimed vs. burst fire by tightened up the angle for the rifles. That way there is no retuning of the MGs, which seem good right now.

And we could take the occasion to accurately model in firing stance, which is easily the biggest determinant of accuracy with single shot rifles. By that I mean, the present relatively weak fire power of the bolt rifles may be basically correct for standing unsupported shots, at least for regulars. There are people who are really good at standing unsupported fire, who can get reasonably close - like within a factor of two - of their supported fire accuracy. But most can't - people's groups open up dramatically even at 50 and 100 yards, enough to miss at 100 vs a man sized target.

But prone supported, or firing from a trench or foxhole across a sandbag rest, or from a building with interior furniture rests or windowsill rest, and suddenly the single shot rifle gets vastly more accurate. As in every shot within 2 inches of the point of aim at 100 yards.

I am not saying single shot rifles deserve full firing range accuracy in combat. But it would be much more realistic, and reflect tactical realities better, and the role and power of aimed fire, if shooter stance directly impacted the angle of dispersion of the shots. Leaving unsupported fire about like it is now - maybe tightened a bit fir quality level with aimed fire weapons - the dispersion angle for supported stance single rifle shots could be cut in half, and we'd still be on the wide side.

What would the tactical effect of that look like? Leaving any troops exposed for extended periods within 200 yards of prone or otherwise supported riflemen would rapidly result in those exposed guys dropping. Marching rifle fire wouldn't get any better. But multiple rifles in position and unsuppressed, stationary, with supported firing stance - bad news.

Of course, the ease of implementing that one turns on whether they are currently using a global setting for determining the angle that fire gets randomized through, or ate assigning different dispersions to each weapon type. I hope the latter. If so, could readily handle to overly accurate pistols issue too - just give them a crappy average dispersion compared to long guns.

FWIW...

[cool breeze]

Hear, hear! This idea I agree with one hundred percent. I had mixed feeing about the last idea, made sense, but too many cons it seemed, and Im not totally convinced spacing exactly is that much of an issue. Like they really did stay pretty bunched up from what I have seen in the photos. And I didn't like the idea of seeing harmless bullets fly around from the initial idea. it would be cool if the pixel troupen could be a little more agile to avoid fire, if they would do some emergency crouch running and/ or quick dropping to the ground and getting back up to avoid bursts of fire, they could maintain their generally reasonable to me seeming spacing while taking few and more realistic casualties from it. Sorta similar to your idea to reduce the damage of burst fire, but from the target side. With some nice new animations it could look really nice and provide a new kind of non-moral based suppression. Evasive micro-maneuvers supression, which slows em down and makes them more tired. Would it be too gamey to sometimes have the second and 3rd guy shot by a single burst simply dodge it by hitting the earth? Reminds me of reading All Quiet On The Western Front, where they talk about dodging/hearing mortar rounds. Would be awesome if high enough experience troops would sometimes hear the incoming mortar round and hit the earth when they are running. Maybe even get right back up after it lands.

But this new idea is super solid seeming to me. Completely agree that marching/standing rifle fire seems about right but it would be hella cool and realistic for the aim to go up more from being supported.

[John Kettler]

Some thoughts on issues discussed here.

Use of enemy weaponry is discussed in numerous places. Bidermann (In Deadly Combat) says that after having his 37mm Pak 36 nearly overrun by SMG armed Russian infantry, he picked up a plentiful Russian (PPSh 41), with two ammo drums, and used it in preference to his so-called light rifle/carbine (K98). Having fired one, I disagree with his description of its recoil properties. In the long account on IRemember.ru of a former HMG gunner who subsequently became a scout/Spetsnaz, he talks about how the MP-38/40 was the preferred weapon, despite problems generated by its tall magazine. Apparently, the German SMG was considerably more reliable than the Russian one.

I concur that there are real issues with tactical dispersion in CM, leading to much higher weapon effectiveness when shooting at infantry than was really typical for the period's small arms. Contrariwise, the phenomenon of infantry herding under fire is not only attested in combat accounts, but in plenty of combat pics. This is human nature at work, with behavior which can yield dire consequences.

Herding

US

Stacked up on the beach, Rendova Island PTO.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/American_forces_landing_at_Rendova_Island.JPEG

Practically atop each other in Germany. Wish pic was bigger.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/81/91/d3/8191d3de8aee6b8986cfbedbf9b23301.jpg

British

http://warchronicle.com/50th_div/regimentals_wwii/eastyorks.jpg

Preplanned Russian herd (in field entrenchments; note how closely the men are spaced).

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/572094-2/Russian-infantry-01

Another juicy target--practically shoulder to shoulder at a rooftop wall in Stalingrad.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-E0406-0022-001,_Russland,_Kesselschlacht_Stalingrad.jpg

Time now for an image research rant. Searches for pics in Google Images of Russian and German soldiers, let alone in combat, has now become an exercise in wading through endless pics of soldier minis and models kits, with only a smattering of actual period pics and quite few pics wholly OT to boot. I strongly suspect this is Google's doing. Granted, unless one has access to certain collections, there isn't a lot of Russian wartime combat photography, but there are tons of German stuff all over the place, something you'd never know in searching for them in Google Images. To the contrary, you'd hardly know the Germans were in World War II as far as infantry combat.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Time now for an image research rant. Searches for pics in Google Images of Russian and German soldiers, let alone in combat, has now become an exercise in wading through endless pics of soldier minis and models kits, with only a smattering of actual period pics and quite few pics wholly OT to boot. I strongly suspect this is Google's doing. Granted, unless one has access to certain collections, there isn't a lot of Russian wartime combat photography, but there are tons of German stuff all over the place, something you'd never know in searching for them in Google Images. To the contrary, you'd hardly know the Germans were in World War II as far as infantry combat.

I've been noticing that too for the last two or three years with many pictures completely irrelevant to my search and also lots of redundancies. I think it is a limitation of Google's search engine which I suspect goes no further than looking for word match ups. Anything else seems to be too subtle for it. So, say, you enter the word 'panther' you are likely to get lots of pics of felines, whether in the wild or in zoos. Google is going to refer you to any page with the word 'panther' appearing on it somewhere. And if you try to narrow the search by entering something like 'german panther tank' the returns are likely to miss pages that you would be interested in simply because those pages did not contain those words. It can be a struggle to get anything useful out of it.

Michael

[poesel]

All these pictures show soldiers in good cover. The issue here is mostly about infantry in open spaces. Show me pictures of huddled groups of soldiers under fire in an open field.

[c3k]

The meta-issue with nerfing auto bullets is that it goes against the very underlying precept of the CM universe: realistic modeling.

Once something gets nerfed or buffed, then other things need to be modified to maintain their interrelationship.

Action spot bunching was about the only "fudge" I can think of in the design. There are/were VERY good reasons for that decision.

That led to HE nerfing.

Now we want bullet nerfing. And so it goes.

The slippery slope...

We are a far way from assigning combat values to squads (4-6-7 anyone?), but we are already on that continuum.

There will be secondary issues that autofire nerfing will cause. Vehicle passengers was a quick example.

Ken

[Michael Emrys]

...we are already on that continuum.

But only a little bit pregnant.

Michael

[Erwin]

From the days when I was a DoD contractor making "realistic" sims I still think that it is impossible to have a sophisticated wargame that is "realistic" in the sense that is accurately models the real world without zillions of dollars, super computers and a staff of techies supervising the wargame. "Realistic" sims of that nature are also not fun.

I think that the CM2 series is already nerfed in many ways and the only argument is how much is sufficient to provide verisimilitude - the illusion of reality. CM2 offers the most verisimilitude of any competing COTS game available and that's why they enjoy a fanatic following including myself.

However, it is still primarily an entertainment product and needs to constantly answer questions like "does this feel correct", "do I believe that what I am seeing/experiencing reflects what I think should be happening".

Inevitably, this leads to "heated discussion" between players who get their "experience" from watching war movies vs the military professional. Accurate simulation of reality is most often boring. BF has done brilliantly imo to maintain a balance between those competing markets/philosophies.

[ridethe415]

From the days when I was a DoD contractor making "realistic" sims I still think that it is impossible to have a sophisticated wargame that is "realistic" in the sense that is accurately models the real world without zillions of dollars, super computers and a staff of techies supervising the wargame. "Realistic" sims of that nature are also not fun.

I think that the CM2 series is already nerfed in many ways and the only argument is how much is sufficient to provide verisimilitude - the illusion of reality. CM2 offers the most verisimilitude of any competing COTS game available and that's why they enjoy a fanatic following including myself.

However, it is still primarily an entertainment product and needs to constantly answer questions like "does this feel correct", "do I believe that what I am seeing/experiencing reflects what I think should be happening".

Inevitably, this leads to "heated discussion" between players who get their "experience" from watching war movies vs the military professional. Accurate simulation of reality is most often boring. BF has done brilliantly imo to maintain a balance between those competing markets/philosophies.

Very good points.

This is one reason why I never understood the appeal of The Sims. A game that makes me "play" what I already do every day?! Ugh. No thank you.

CM2 provides me with all I need. It is my escape FROM realism...YMMV

[JasonC]

c3k - engineering literalism does not increase realism when four or five factors are modeled very accurately and two are not. It just encourages players to drive trucks through the remaining two factors, rewarding them with completely unrealistic outcomes.

You can do design for effect half way, you can't do engineering realism half way and leave the other half, and get anything like realism. You can patch the parts you haven't done realistically with design for effect subsystems. Or you can continue the engineering realism push and incorporate the two bits you left out, accurately. But there will generally be two more left to do.

In the present case, men can sit in front of aimed rifle fire with far too high a survivability. And a few submachineguns routinely get much higher kills per round expended than anyone could hope for in real combat.

You get both from trying to model fire bullet by bullet, but not modeling how men spread out and use all available cover in combat. You get both by modeling fire by an average dispersion of the angle of aim for all weapons, then letting the SMG "try" 6 times more often than the rifle gets to try - in other words because you modeled rate of fire carefully but only made a wild guess about accuracy. The SMG gets a boost from the part you were careful about, and the thing the rifle is much, much better at in real life doesn't come through because you couldn't model that as carefully, for lack of data or for any other reason.

If you gave me a choice between which end of a rifle range to stand on, where on one end you got an MP40 and 1 30 round mag, but had to fire standing unsupported - and at the other end, 150 yards away, you got a bolt action rifle with just one 5 round clip, but got to fire it prone supported, I'd take the rifle every day of the week and twice on payday. (And the rifle wouldn't even need the second bullet to win). In CM, everyone would take the reverse. The reason why is *not* realism.

[c3k]

How would your rifle range scenario srand up if we each brought 10 friends? All yours have bolt actions, all mine have smgs?

Adrenaline does amazing things to aimed fire.

Personally, I -think- more dispersion from full auto fire would be more realistic. I am not convinced that the technical solution you presented is altogether correct. Nor am I convinced that bolt action ineffectiveness in-game is unwarranted.

I am fully capable of great shooting on a range. I have also been amazed at how poorly I fared in adrenaline laced shooting houses. One is far different than the other. Combat shooting and range shooting only have the firearm in common.

The current CM battlefield has a lot of lethality and suppression. There is a reason why no military fields bolt action rifles to line soldiers.

[Michael Emrys]

There is a reason why no military fields bolt action rifles to line soldiers.

Mainly I think that is because it was discovered that on the battlefield suppression was more important than inflicting casualties via small arms and that automatic weapons were better at that than single shot weapons operated by the same number of soldiers. Once the enemy was suppressed, he could be wounded, killed, or have his morale broken by other means, usually involving HE delivered in a variety of ways. This is not to say that bolt action rifles were useless for causing suppression, just that automatic weapons were usually better, especially in the hands of partially trained inexperienced troops.

The issue of possibly excess lethality of small caliber automatic weapons as depicted in CM is a separate issue that has already been discussed here.

Michael

[JasonC]

C3k - modern militaries can have accurate ranged fire when they need it for no opportunity cost. That wasn't true in WWII. Modern militaries still use bolt action rifles when long range accuracy is the only important mission parameter and there is no need to compromise.

And you didn't really answer the question. Is there any evidence that a bolt rifle, or 5 guys with them fir that matter, prone, can outshoot an equal number of SMGs at 150 yards, in CM? I submit the answer is no. The SMGs would be superior in CM. But they would not be superior in real life. Not even close. At that range, they are simply an inferior weapon, in real life, and the bolt rifle in its element would smoke the SMG half squad inside of fifteen seconds. Tops - it could easily be all over in five seconds.

And no we are not talking about CQB house clearing, or marching anything, or anything at 5 yards range. Absolutely an SMG is better in those situations. But it is not better in real life in the ranged fire situation I describe. The bolt rifles in that situation, in CM, are unlikely to do much of anything, certainly in a short span of time, either in terms of hits or suppression. Overall small arms lethality in CM is not too low. But in that situation, the small arms lethality of aimed rifle fire is very clearly too low.

I have explained why I think that is. Small arms effectiveness tuning has aimed at the overall effectiveness of whole forces, of mixed weapons. Revisits after detailed discussion have tuned MG fire specifically, in addition, and has gotten them about right. All good things. Rifles might even be as ineffective as CM depicts them, sometimes, e.g marching fire, stressed and standing unsupported fire. But a prone or braced bolt or semi auto rifle firing single aimed shots is a very deadly weapon. CM acknowledges as much by handling scope rifle marksman teams quite differently.

Supported aimed rifle fire needs the opposite of nerfing.

And we all know that our CM soldiers clump too tight and that makes burst fire more effective than it would be if the took natural intervals instead of being chained to narrow action spots.

I claim those two facts are behind the original poster's impression, that bolt rifles are practically unarmed in CM as it stands, so much so that he wants his men to chuck them at the first opportunity, to pick up a real weapon like a machine pistol.

Any game about WWII tactical combat that is leaving that impression is flat wrong about relative small arms effectiveness. Full stop.

[c3k]

JasonC,

You threw a few strawmen into your last post.

Given the same prone, supported fire position, the same incoming, and the same targets, at what range are bolt rifles more accurate than SMG's? (Effective accuracy, meaning a shooter hits his target. I don't care if the smg hits with the first bullet and the next 10 miss. Trigger pull=hit?)

At what range are they equivalent?

At 400m, I don't think there's any doubt that the bolt has more potential and actual accuracy.

Accuracy is NOT effectiveness.

[c3k]

Oh, just for giggles, I saw a video this morning. A famously good shooter used a 9mm revolver to shoot at a balloon. Off hand (meaning he just stood there and held the gun out; no support.)

It took him 2 shots to hit it. The 9mm parabellum is obviously less accurate than a rifle cartridge.

Oh, wait. It took him 2 shots, with a 6" barrel, to hit a balloon AT 1,000 METERS!!!

If that doesn't impress you, you need to find another hobby. Go.

There is NO accuracy benefit to one round or another. The ability to fire a round with a predictable path is important. THAT leads to repetition. THAT leads to accuracy.

The burst from an auto weapon throws off round number 2. Round number 1 still goes where the weapon is aimed.

A 9mm revolver, 2 shots, 6" barrel, 1,000 meters. (Maybe yards.)

Wow.

JasonC, I'm gonna give him my SMG to go up against you and your bolt rifle.

Ken

[JoMac]

People need to be reminded that it took several thousand rounds of Small Arms per Casuality in WWII...Just something more realistic to ponder.

c3k, Please, and dont confuse Sport Shooting with that of Combat...You know better then that to incorporate this into a discussion...Sigh.

Unlike Jason C, I do think that Rifle fire ( Bolt or Semi ) in CMx2 works fairly well as is...Just need to nerf SMG's alittle ( along with pistols ). However, he does make a point that CM probably lumps all firing positions together giving them the same accuracy...Stand-Up vs Prone is all one in the same.

[JasonC]

c3k- answering your actual questions... At 100 yards, an SMG and a bolt rifle are about equally effective, given the same firing conditions. Inside that, the SMG is more effective and its edge grows as the range drops. Outside that, the rifle is more effective and its edge grows as the range increases. Of course it is rough, but that is the approximate crossover range for their effectiveness.

They also interact quite differently with stance. The SMG gains much less from a prone supported position than the rifle gains from it. The SMG gains much less from longer prep time between shots; the rifle loses more by "snap" shooting without a few seconds of aiming time.

The difference in accuracy with a rifle from stance is very large. Supported fire is accurate to about 3 times the range as unsupported.

The SMG requires a very large increase in user skill and experience to be effective at all beyond about 200 yards. The sights become nearly useless and the shooter must provide the equivalent of a ballistics trajectory calculation himself, at such distances. This falls to more like 150 yards for the slower muzzle velocity, heavier round versions like the Thompson.

The rifle remains flat shooting out to 200 to 250 yards with practically no operator skill required to compensate for range, or to estimate the range correctly. Out to 400-500 yards, reasonable skill and experience still allows effective fire, assuming a supported firing position and a stationary target. (Or a large enough one, come to that).

Back to tactical essences and why these things matter...

WWII armies equipped practically all their infantrymen with single shot rifles, and expected them to use those rifles for aimed fire at located enemies. The only other infantry weapon of comparable importance was the crew served MG, and between them those defined the WWII infantry battlefield.

There is a specific match up or tactical picture that single shot aimed rifle fire needs to be highly effective. If they get that match up, then they become highly effective. If they do not, then they are relatively ineffective and less than average effectiveness as a whole weapon system.

That match up is that the riflemen need to be stationary themselves, to have supported firing position if only from being prone, to have some minimal cover likewise, again with just being prone sufficient for this need in a pinch. They then need to be facing the direction where enemy infantry are located; they need the ability to physically see at least some of those enemy soldiers. They need those enemies to not be in heavy stone building or bunker cover, not to be in deep trenches or prepared sandbagged field fortifications. They need the enemy target to remain exposed for at least a minute so of time, and preferably for extended period, at ranges under 500 yards and preferably under 250 yards.

If a side commander can arrange that match up tactically, single shot aimed rifle fire will be highly effective. It will dominate engagements and whole areas in which initial lines of sight are 200 yards or longer. It will make enemy infantry maneuver within sight of the riflemen prohibitively expensive in lost men.

Now, of course the enemy strives to avoid that effective situation for enemy riflemen. Or to retaliate for it happening, by e.g. calling in 155s on riflemen that just got such an effective set up, or putting tanks on their flank with LOS to them and elevation enough to negate their prone position cover, or what have you.

But that match up is quite common, it is in no way exceptional, especially in infantry defensive postures. In fact it shapes the entire war, defining its characteristic scale, formations used, roles for other arms, etc.

A secondary version of the above occurs when the riflemen maneuver into positions that bring about a match up against a small portion of an enemy force. This is the most common offensive use of rifle infantry (closing to grenade range in limited visibility conditions is another, but doesn't depend on rifle capabilities). It is a passive aggressive sort of offense, not aimed at occupying enemy locations but merely at getting close enough to see them, then dropping into a defensive stance.

Over the war as a whole, rifle infantry was a less than average effectiveness weapon system. But not because there was anything ineffective about it *when* it got the tactical situation described above. In fact, the defense dominance that situation involves and describes, between rival rifle armed infantries, shapes the whole war.

When and if the aimed rifles get that match up, they are fired (suppression and cower does not stop them), they get hits (fear and excitement does not make the men miss), and the men hit go down and stay down (full rifle caliber ammo is not playing around).

Any lack of effectiveness of rifles as a weapon system in the WWII era came from the difficulty getting that match up or target picture, not from anything the rifles couldn't do once they got it.

That difficulty starts with the enemy simply avoiding getting that close, when he can. They use their own firepower to keep enemy riflemen farther away than all that. They use their heavy weapons to break up concentrations of enemy infantry that get close enough or threaten to.

Here is what they don't do. They don't figure the rifles will just miss and charge straight at them and overrun them, firing from the hip with their own small arms. They'd never make it. The French in red striped pants in 1914 tried that one out, and they lost a million men in about a month; so no, no elan and morale and enemy fear don't defeat rifle firepower.

CM will have the tactical relationship right if and when people reviewing their forces at set up time see all the guys with bolt rifles and think to themselves, "where can I set these up with 200 yards initial LOS, and get them into a stationary defensive stance there, with the enemy having to come at them or sit in front of them in view for a long-ish period?" Instead of "oh I have 4 LMGs, and 12 SMGs, and 48 unarmed nobodies carrying ammo".

[Sgt Joch]

[c3k]

CM will have the tactical relationship right if and when people reviewing their forces at set up time see all the guys with bolt rifles and think to themselves, "where can I set these up with 200 yards initial LOS, and get them into a stationary defensive stance there, with the enemy having to come at them or sit in front of them in view for a long-ish period?" Instead of "oh I have 4 LMGs, and 12 SMGs, and 48 unarmed nobodies carrying ammo".

Umm, isn't that amazingly close to the German doctrine?

[JasonC]

No, German doctrine did not regard riflemen as unarmed nobodies. And it did not regard SMGs are superior weapons to rifles. It regarded rifles as much more serious weapons than SMGs, and regarded SMGs as short range close combat weapons only. They gave them to men expected to command and direct rather than to fight, who only expected to pull a trigger to defend their immediate area. Later in the war they use more of them, in large part to enable less trained troops and fewer bodies to do something, but they always regarded that as a stopgap measure for the untrained. They never considered the SMG a superior weapon to a rifle. They certainly considered a full MG a superior weapon to either and the basis of the firepower of the squad. And they developed the Sturmgewehr to have both abilities in one weapon.

The Germans issued something like 10 million K98s and only about 1.1 million MP40s, and 400k assault rifles late. 7 times as many rifles as SMGs did not reflect any belief in the superiority of SMGs as small arms - quite the contrary. Nor did Americans regard SMGs as superior - they gave them to rear area troops, vehicle drivers, and some special commandos who expected to fight in limited light conditions. The Russians issued lots of SMGs to some troops, but precisely to those meant to rely on the tanks they worked closely with for ranged fire, rather than those expected to provide their own defensive, ranged firepower themselves.

Nobody denies that MGs are superior to other infantry small arms. But nobody at the time thought that SMGs were universally superior to rifles. They thought of them as specialized assault weapons for CQB, low visibility conditions, and the like. That is all.

Current CM players do not rate their squad weapons that way. Instead they consider SMGs only marginally less effective than full MGs, with their limitations (only compared to MGs) seen as coming as much from their limited ammo (each) as from their limited range. They don't care at all about any limits on their accuracy or their penetration, because those just don't matter in CM combat.

CM players would consider it perfectly normal and sensible if every rifleman in a squad carried spare magazines for the squad's SMG gunners instead of more rifle ammo for themselves. Nobody in WWII would have considered that anything but crazy.

[Pelican Pal]

I'm going to swing in here and comment.

At ranges above 120-130 meters (generally out of effective SMG range) I am quite happy to have rifles. Infantry advancing on open ground from 300 meters out and closing will take enough casualties over that time to make them much more brittle if they do manage to close.

However, once that 120 meter range is broken rifles become dramatically less effective (because SMGs suddenly become much more effective at killing the riflemen) and SMGs become dramatically more effective.

Importantly, losses become more compacted in time. While at 300-150 meter range rifle fire will accrue casualties over a period of minutes. This allows the player to correct mistakes and avoid further casualties. The squads morale will also be mostly intact.

At SMG range you will lose half a squad + in a period of 10 seconds. That squad will be effectively destroyed. One man can do this repeatedly.