"SMG Gap" A Proposal

[Gyrene]

If you happen to be following JasonC's "Where are all the allied SMG's?" thread you will probably have formed an oppinion of whether or not the Allies are shorted or misrepresented when it comes to SMG's so I offer the following proposal:

Make the # of SMG's available in squads random, just like Pf's & rifle grenades.

The exceptions would be the SMG & Heavy SMG squads which are supposed to be what their names mean.

The quality of the squad would be the determining factor for the chances of a squad having adopted an exra SMG or two, with Veteran and up having the better chances.

This would add yet another layer of realism &

unpredictability to this already excellent game.

Let the flames begin

Gyrene

[offtaskagain]

Sounds like a decent plan to me.

[Michael Dorosh]

No flames here, but really -

a) what historical precedent is there to do this?

how much unpredictability is needed to make CM "fun" as a "game"?

There is already a fair amount of chance everytime a squad fires at another; I don't see that the small firepower added by a single SMG would make that much of a difference in the game. It wouldn't have in Real Life TM either.

Much ado about nothing.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I think there is "much ado about something" Dorosh.

But my solution would be to let the allies pick Airborne and stanard troops if the Germans get to have SMG platoons.

[offtaskagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

No flames here, but really -

a) what historical precedent is there to do this?

how much unpredictability is needed to make CM "fun" as a "game"?

There is already a fair amount of chance everytime a squad fires at another; I don't see that the small firepower added by a single SMG would make that much of a difference in the game. It wouldn't have in Real Life TM either.

Much ado about nothing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many units anywhere ever carried a full TO&E? I think it would make more of an effect with LMGs in Fallschirmjager squads. They usually didn't have 2 per squad.

[Gyrene]

Michael, this proposal all stems from the fact that too many people take a clinical approach when it comes to deploying their squads to the point that once enemy units are identified you can almost work against them in a system, with precise incoming firepower values at different ranges precisely known.

After all, we don't know if that tank or AT has any T rounds, or how much HE that TD is carrying. This kind of lack of information forces us to issue more realistic orders, unlike the "Once I get within 50m of them with my Heavy SMG Squad those bolt action Brits are toast according to the numbers" orders that happen so much.

If that Brit Rifle Squad happened to be blessed (Or cursed if its a long range fight) with some extra SMG's it could cause enough damage to that rushing Heavy SMG squad in the critical closing up phase (Especially between halted Rifle Squads vs running SMG squads) to make these tactics not worth it anymore.

Gyrene

[Slapdragon]

Again, I agree with Mike on this. Does not add realism to the game, does not really change out come one SMG more or less, and mulitplies coding for generating initial force strength. Maybe if we had tank platioons modeled, having a chance to get a 76 armed tank in a 75 armed platoon would change things.

People who want to play heavier SMh units could turn to airborne as has been mentioned, and that is even realistic and historical, requires no coding, and no mucking with point values. Or you can choose veteran or elite troops to multiply the abiliy of the soldiers and just pretend that all your men picked up better weapons before marching onto map.

[Michael Dorosh]

What did SMGs do in action, really?

I thought that German squad leaders used them mostly to mark targets (they also used flare pistols for this - firing Very lights at enemy positions) with tracer.

Close in fighting was usually done with grenades.

You do raise a good point Gyrene, about the clinical approach - but enemy squads are often not positively IDed for a long time.

I think perhaps a better solution is the ability to split squads into more realistic fire teams - so that the enemy can't count on you always having 8 riflemen, 1 Bren and 1 Sten in an "infantry squad?" unit.

Or have some squads start depleted, as would be realistic. Many British and Canadian squads purposefully left men out of battle (LOB).

I would vote for variable squad size rather than composition, in order to address this problem.

You raise a valid concern.

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What did SMGs do in action, really? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as Platoon/Squad leaders go they were to be used solely as a self defense weapon, as the jobs of the leaders was to tell the troops where to go and what to shoot.

Close range fighting doctrine really depends on the nationality of the units, with the US approach being this, in order: rifles - grenades - bayonet.

I do like the idea of random unit sizes, hopefully something like this will be implement in the game some day.

Gyrene

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ]

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene:

As far as Platoon/Squad leaders go they were to be used solely as a self defense weapon, as the jobs of the leaders was to tell the troops where to go and what to shoot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's my understanding as well. Those who have never served in an infantry squad don't realize how busy the squad leader actually is in a firefight.

Of course, this does not address the alleged use of "extra" SMGs but there are already 5 pages on that subject. I will agree that in Commonwealth units, extra SMGs were held at the unit level for issue as Simon describes in the other thread, however, I don't see that giving extra SMGs to squads in CM is in any way a decent "fix" for the problem of clinical gameplaying, or the fact that obscure types of German infantry can outgun regular Allied infantry.

The trick to avoiding the gaminess of Quick Battles is not to play them - not make them even more gamey.

[Dunnee]

"What did SMGs do in action, really?"

Kill people. But you knew that right?

[JasonC]

I like the idea of slightly varying small arms mixes. I think it would be nice if they were also tweakable for scenario designers, like initial ammo already is. But those are items for BTS to consider, because they aren't things players can do themselves, by agreement or not.

For players the practical approaches are greater use of Allied airborne types on the one hand, and more use of vanilla German infantry types (44, 45, security, VG rifle for example) on the other. For designed scenarios, slightly lowering ammo for automatic weapon heavy squads and slightly rising it for rifle heavy ones is an additional trick.

Personally, I would consider regular acceptance of those ideas far preferable to being told before a game "no SMG hordes", in all the pristine and well defined glory of that phrase, or seeing "no more than 3 SMG platoons" posted as a requirement for games in a given club, or see glib references to "gamey SMG rushes", and similar ad hoc approaches thrown around these days. Which frankly I find less than sporting.

Does that mean no use of 2 LMG squad types or pure SMG VGers? No, certainly not. But if German players didn't -always- use them, and if it were understood that some or all Allied paras, even mixed with other force types, was "kosher", then I think there wouldn't be much need for such stipulations.

In closing I have only one final, entirely rhetorical, point. Real men use German infantry with 1 LMG and rifles in each squad - LOL.

[JasonC]

The nickname of the tommy gun was "trench sweeper". No doubt it acquired this nickname through its renowned services on a camping trip with somebody's maiden aunt...

[Xavier]

Are SMG so effective? I remember using The Mat49(a post war SMG) during my service. At 30 meters, nearly 1/3 to half of the rounds didn't hit the target (and I wasn't the worse shooter ). It's may be better for a door 2 door city fight but in countryside(even in the bocage) I think it's better to have a rifle. Did the guys changed each time their weapons according to the incomming battle? I don't think so. The "QB approach" isn't always realistic. What I call "QB approach" is by instance to choose units which are the more adapted to a particular map ("Oh,oh, there is a lot of fog this morning.. Send only the SMG squads to the battle. Yes Sir!". In a few words, it's gamey

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Xavier ]

[Slapdragon]

One of the two major problems with endlessly variable units is that it does open the game to really gamey combinations.

hmmm. Lets see. I am fighting at night in the forest. Lets dump the Garands and get all subguns in my squads.

[The_Capt]

I think that it might be better to tone down the "firepower" of the current SMGs.

The term "firepower" is deceptive. Yes the SMG can put out a hell of a lot of BBs but there is more to it than that.

Penetration, stopping power and accuracy to name a few. The SMG was and is a sloppy weapon. The 9mm round is a low powered slug which won't punch thru a car door or a tree, let alone a brick wall.

A .303 rifle will do much more but a lower rate of fire.

Correct me if I am wrong but I can't remember if BTS actually went this far in modeling small arms.

Either way I think a lessing of SMGs value may be in order rather than escalate the SMG race.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

Correct me if I am wrong but I can't remember if BTS actually went this far in modeling small arms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was discussed, with their participation, at length. SMGs were already reduced once, in efficacy at longer ranges, IIRC.

The effectiveness of small arms is abstracted to a degree, but is reflected in the FP (that's how this discussion originated in the first place).

Most GIs were not gun aficionados or ballisticians, and got their training on the M1. For many Americans, it was the first "real" gun they had ever fired. Since it was a reliable, powerful weapon and they were tasked with keeping track of it, they tended to stick with it. Most of the time they were facing K98 Mausers, and there would be no reason for the average GI to believe his M1 was inferior in any way.

On the other hand, a German commander whose unit was equipped primarily with SMGs would be an idiot to engage in a long range shoot out with bolt-action .303s, or M1s. Given the task at hand, it would be obvious that his advantage lay in a close range battle, preferably in cover. Part of what is abstracted in the FP is suppression, and SMGs do this very well at short range. MP40s, fired in 3 round bursts as they were designed to do, suppress well. They also burn ammo at a higher rate. They are faster handling in heavy cover and house to house conditions, though the "real" rifles would have better penetration (even this is of more value for suppression than lethality, however, because you rarely hit what you don't see).

Under 100m, anyone hit with the 9mm is probably incapacitated for the duration of a CM battle.

I think this is abstracted pretty well.

[Slapdragon]

BTS's system is an abstraction were firepower curves were created for weapons. The abstraction is a firepower rating based on weapon effectiveness that took dispersion, rate of fire, and effecting killing distance into account. When one unit fires at another it generates a suppression zone were the other unit starts to duck. Casualties are random generated in this zone.

Casualties may be over stated in the game all together a bit, but a "dead soldier" actually just means one that is out of action for more than an hour and thus no longer able to participate in the action. Charles and Steve did quite a bit of work on the model before creating the programming abstraction.

Firepower ratings for different weapons can be tweeked, they just add a new firepower level at x range.

Two of the true difficulties that comes up time and again in these discussion is what replaces the current system, and how do you model something beyond the mathematical horizon of the system in use. The first is that everyone wants uberFinns, uberGermans, uberUS, uberShermans and the like, but few people come up with any math to fit it into the game. For example, if we give an extra SMG outside of TO&E to a US squad just for the hell of it , how does that change the US squad's firepower and cost.

The second issue is that many of these discussions revolve around urban legend. One legend is that the SMG is a killing machine of devastating effect rather than a cheap, mass produced suppressing weapon put into troops hands to make up for unskilled troops, lack of resources, or utter desperation. So you have one SMG with a 30rd magazine, and another with a 71rd magazine. Is that enough to change the firepower rating of the weapon? Maybe, but the change would be microscopic despite Urban legend that the 71rd drum is a real killer in combat.

The Canadians had the best pistol in WW2, the GP35. Some British and German troops also carried it. In a pistol fight, a GPs magazine is a distinct advantage. But how much would it change the game? Should we say double the firepower of a Canadian squad to give deference to this fine weapon? Or was it, as I suspect, such a minor weapon that its presence or absence never is felt in a game the size of CM.

Finally, there is the whole can of worms issue, open this up, and we will have to do quite a bit of work on the Germans also. The Germans used in the last year of the war a massive number of old rifles including a version of the 98 that did not fire the type "s" 7.92 cartridge, an 8mm Lebel straight pull, an 11mm service rifle from the 1880s, and quantities of French, British, US, and Russian gear. The first examples in the last year existed even in units supposedly standardized on the 7.92x33mm but are considerably inferior to the MP44 / STG45, while Garands, Enflieds, and Mosins could be found in units standardized on the k98. German units often were forced to retreat because they needed one type of ammo, and only held stocks of another. So we are going to have to add at least 20 new rifle combinations to the Germans to maintain the level of accuracy, and add them randomly to squads.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunnee:

"What did SMGs do in action, really?"

Kill people. But you knew that right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You remind me of the little dog in the Merrie Melodies cartoon, yipping along with nothing significant to say other than "hey Spike! hey Spike!" And if you bother to read Gyrene's post, you will see this is wrong. The number of men who died from SMGs is probably about the same as those who died from bayonets wounds.

An interesting anecdote in Charlie Martin's book BATTLE DIARY - he took a burst full in the chest at close range at the end of the war and lived. Probably not a common occurence, but the SMG was not an uber weapon, despite that scene in the Stalingrad movie.

Jason - I agree with your assertions of manliness! And I agree that using Fionn-like rules to limit forces to players is less than sporting - if you play QBs, you are kind of asking to play on poor terrain and with unbalanced forces to start with. I was just rereading an ASL Annual, and it strikes me that no well known SL/ASL tournament revolved around DYO (point purchase) scenarios and instead were premade "tournament" scenarios (few of which could be classed as "meeting engagements").

Xavier, my own experiences with Sten and Sterling SMGs are the same as yours. On the 25 metre range, I did ok semi-auto with the Sterling, but didn't even hit the target on rock-and-roll.

To kill people with, indeed.

Slapdragon, you are right on the point as usual. How do we even know what calculations are made when one infantry squad fires at another one? I think perhaps it was a mistake to publish both firepower listings and also the number of firepower points on each Target (ala Squad Leader) if all it does is get people to "count firepower factors" before every attack. I always thought that was a general guide for new players to get an understanding of the basic capabilities of the squads (especially those with little military history knowledge or little experience with wargames) rather than a means to devise cunning gamey strategies.

[The_Capt]

How about the question of Cover. If I am in a gun fight with an SMG squad and bullets are not penetrating the tree/wall I am behind, I would think to be under far less surpression than if .303 rounds are flying thru either. Again this is tied to troop quality and experience. Was this all tied in as well?

I think there is more to the Firepower question than meets the eye (as I am sure the developers have figured out, so exuce me for being slow). Do SMGs suffer a greater penalty for cover and experienced troops on the receiving end than weapons of larger calibre?

If the answer is "Yes" than not only am I really impressed but it would negate the SMG issue to a great extent. If it is "No", I would ask why not and wouldn't that balance out the uberSMG issue?

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The number of men who died from SMGs is probably about the same as those who died from bayonets wounds.

An interesting anecdote in Charlie Martin's book BATTLE DIARY - he took a burst full in the chest at close range at the end of the war and lived. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that first statement is supportable, but would be interested in any sources. Deaths aren't relevant to the discussion really, only incapacitation.

Re: the second, did Mr. Martin continue fighting for the next 30-60 minutes after he took the "SMG burst" in the chest?

Slappy: I guess there aren't many Belgians posting here, but the GP35 (or Browning Hi-Power) was a Browning design put into production by Fabrique National. They were manufactured in Canada during the war by John Inglis & Co., but I know a lot of these were for China.

The Germans also coveted this weapon, and since they owned the FN factory for a few years, immediately began cranking them out with their own proof stamps for issue to Heer and police. [brag]I have one.[/brag] It outshoots the P38, though it lacks the handy double-action feature.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

I don't think that first statement is supportable, but would be interested in any sources. Deaths aren't relevant to the discussion really, only incapacitation.

Re: the second, did Mr. Martin continue fighting for the next 30-60 minutes after he took the "SMG burst" in the chest?

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Martin was unconscious, and spent long weeks in hospital, if I recall correctly.

Nope, this is a broad generalization completely unsupportable - but I would love to be proven wrong (or right) with a solid source or two.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Martin was unconscious, and spent long weeks in hospital, if I recall correctly.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did he wear the body armour provided to Commonwealth troops? Blackburn (IIRC) recounts a story of a Canadian officer rescued by the body armour (which he, unlike many others, did not discard on day 2 in Normandy) when he took an MP burst in the chest. Bullets apparently did not penetrate but only break his rips. Without the body armour though it would have been a shallow grave and a telegram to the recently bereaved...

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt:

How about the question of Cover. If I am in a gun fight with an SMG squad and bullets are not penetrating the tree/wall I am behind, I would think to be under far less surpression than if .303 rounds are flying thru either. Again this is tied to troop quality and experience. Was this all tied in as well<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what I've read, the average soldier is going to keep his average ass behind any cover he can find when average bursts of average-caliber bullets of any kind are flying in his average direction.

Maybe a grizled commando vet of some kind, when fired upon, could do a quick comparison of estimated bullet penetration against closest cover available and calculate odds of penetration. But I rather suspect even he would simply duck or move instead.

-dale

[Jeff Heidman]

The thing that annoys me the most about SMGs in CM is that it makes the Garand look lame.

SMGs are *so* powerful in this game, that everything else becomes relatively meaningless. The Americans had the best battle rifle generally issued in the war, by a decent margin. The M1 Garand was an outstanding weapon. When you compare it to its contemporaries in CM, its advantages seem obvious, if understated. Higher firepower at short range, slightly higher at short-medium range, fires more often on the move, etc., etc.

But all that pales in comparison to the massive firepower of the SMG. Who cares if my M1 is better than your K98, because you are not toting many K98s around anyway, and why would you?

Personally, I think that CM overstates the firepower of the SMG at ranges up to 100m, or understates the FP of rifles at short-medium ranges (100-200m).

M1 Garand: 13-7-3-1

Lee-Enfield: 10-6-3-1

K98: 6-5-3-1

MP40: 36-11

M1 SMG: 45-11

Sten: 40-11

Those are the firepowers at ranges of 40m-100m-250m-500m. I am at work, so those numbers are from the altest copy of the DB I have. Have they been changed? I want to think that the 100m SMG FP might have...

Anyway, my question is whether a SMG, even at 40m, really has 3 times the firepower of a rifle. That seem like way too much. Further, the M1 Garand only has slightly more firepower than its contemporaries at a range of 100m. That is too little. Since most firefights at more than 150m are inconclusive in CM, there is no incentive in CM to use rifle based infantry. Since rifles are considerably more expensive to produce, if the real world was the same as CM, no nations would outfit their line ifantry primarily with rifles, especially since the bulk of medium to long range firepower comes from the LMG anyway.

I think the reality that SMGs were not the primary weapon of the infantry in WW2 means that either they were not as powerful as they are shown in CM, or that the battle rifles were more powerful at moderate ranges, and hence more useful.

Who wouldn't give up 3 FP at 250m (insignificant) to gain 20 FP at 40m?, or 6 FP at 100m?

Jeff Heidman