Where are all the Allied SMGs?

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Dunno all i saw was some negative posts concerning Patton, with the current revisionist theme. None indicated any hero worship in their content etc.

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, didn't mean to imply there was; its an interesting question though - revisionism. Many would suggest the current literature on Patton is the revisionism, and Slapdragon's comments are closer to the "truth" of the matter.

I'm on the fence on this one, personally. I know there are some that loathe the man (Andy Rooney is one), other revere him. Everyone has their reasons.

I would never deny that Patton had personality, a degree of charisma, was anything but heterosexual (not that there's anything wrong with that!), as well as leadership ability. I also wouldn't deny that he was a martinet and that he encouraged differing standards of conduct.

When he slapped the two soldiers, I don't doubt he honestly felt he was doing the right thing.

I also empathize with his dyslexia, and am impressed by his Olympic games showing.

A very complex man. Not one to insist to others that he was good or bad. He was both, in large quantities.

[Spook]

I think this topic is heading for a rendevous with Mr. Padlock, but before then, I'd like to relate something more "on-topic" on this SMG issue.

Why did this SMG topic come up in the first place? Well, one reason I perceive is that some CM gamers are tired of seeing primarily one side (the Germans) have access to the classic "SMG rush," due to the variety of German squads allowed as TO&E as SMG-heavy. So based on various anecdotes, the allies (or mainly the US) are asked to have expanded squad arms options with more SMG's.

As I don't see it mentioned here often, what has to be remembered is that the "SMG rush" issue is being responded to by BTS with added infantry commands in CM2, such as "assault." Thus in the future, an SMG-heavy squad is gonna have a harder time to close in if it wants to fire on the move. Another response of BTS is that rifle-heavy squads are to get higher ammo loads by default.

Will this suffice? I dunno, but I'll wait to see it in action before issuing judgement.

Regardless, in "stand-off" close firefights, some gamers here still argue that the US is getting shortsheeted due to the disallowance of possible squad variations having more SMG's or carbines. I tend to lean to an earlier view of Slapdragon's, in that a case can be made to create some scenario-design squad TO&E "variance" to allow in some more carbines, instead of just SMG's.

A bigger view to me, however, is that I personally regard the US M1 rifle to be underrated in CM. Yes, it's double the German Kar 98 close-in, and still better than the Enfield. But in considering ROF possibilities vs. close firefight circumstances, I think the M1 should have better firepower. And it should have better firepower also for mid-range (100-250 meters) engagement. That's more of what it was designed for anyway.

Have I figured what the M1 fire ratings should be? No, not yet. And for now, I can only speak in the SUBJECTIVE sense, with basically zero authority. And of course, I still think the M1 has to rate lower than better "balanced" weapons like the German MP44 except at the longest ranges.

If the M1 rifle was better rated, I doubt that many posters here would pursue the SMG issue with as much earnest. Because then, players preferring the US infantry would feel more comfortable utilizing the US infantry fire at a bit longer of range.

I'll wait to see what CM2 and the CMII engine brings. But I do hope that indeed a LITTLE more "variance" is given to choices on Allied squad types when CMII rolls us back to the ETO.

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Sten]

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

Like all mortals, they had their faults. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that's not true for all mortals.

Take Lewis for example. There is a man without faults. Well-read, polite, interesting, non-inflammatory, compassionate, forgiving, and always displaying a very respectful attitude to his peers.

I so long for the day when he will display his true personality in all its grandeur.

But since this board is populated by people who Lewis obviously doesn't deem worthy of the term "peer", there'll probably be a cold day in hell before Lewis stops treating the other members on this board like sh*t.

[BloodyBucket]

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

Thanks for the weapon info. I didn't know they still made them. It would be nice to have a M1 made during or around WWII for the historical value, but I could live with a new Springfield if it saves me a lot of $$$.

Ren<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not too long ago there were quite a few Garands that were surplused from South Korean service, mostly WWII vintage that were making the rounds. I got a nice one, recrowned the barrel and it shoots great. Cost about three years ago was $500. I still see those rifles at Big 5 sporting goods, but for about $100 more nowadays.

Even if you get one with a tired barrel, a new barrel of average quality is better than the ones that were made in WWII. Most of the Garands I have seen surplus have a fair amount of wear at the muzzle, since you have to clean them from that end.

The U.S. Government used to sell surplus Garands, but this was privatised during the Clinton years. The CMP is the new agency. You can find them

Here

Good luck. I love that Garand of mine, I only wish I got to shoot it more often.

[Slapdragon]

Thanks for the support, but as for Lewis, he is sort of like static on a radio, just ignore it and assume it never happens. His buttons are easily pushed, which makes him totally controllable, and his posting is erratic, which keeps most people from trusting anything he says. In fact, as a tactic of debate, other people have used Lewis in the past by pushing his buttons, letting him go off on one of his fruit loop tirades, which makes their arguments look quite a bit stronger in comparison. The usual side you want Lewis is on the opposite side, since he cannot handle provocative ideas or complex concepts without name calling.

As for Patton, I am far from a worshipper. I believe he was dangerously erratic, but he was far from the worst General in the war, and he was supporting by an extremely able group of advisors. The trend was always to worship the man, look at D'Estes and Patton, A Genuis For War. Indeed, as Hogg and Rickard point out, Patton's instability was an asset during rapidly moving situations of exploitation where some other Army had breached the main German front. When he faced an entrenched enemy though his leadership when straight to hell. Lorraine is a great example of his inability to pay attention to a firm objective, and his wasting of time on side issues. Metz is another example of his callous attitude toward the men fighting under him, and the men under him hated him. Just look at Hutton, the director of Kelly's Heroes. The whole movie was aimed at Patton. Or read any of Mauldins books about average joe soldiers.

So if someone wants to point to his genius at fighting a retreating enemy and exploiting a collapsing frong, I would agree one hundred percent. He was the best true exploitation person in the Army and was certainly better than Montgomery, but just as Clark never could get a handle on fighting a determined enemy (causing him to throw away endless lives at the Rapido and other actions), Patton's screw ups at Metz and other places mean that I prefer to place my respect in the Generals which where more technician like,Hodges, Bradley, and the like.

[Spook]

But there again lays an earlier point of mine, Slap. Dig deep enough, and you'll find questionable decisions by the "technical" or "solid" generals too.

To me, it's hard to top the Hurtgen Forest in US operational SNAFU's. Just throw in one division after another to push through crappy terrain in lousy weather. The "coffee-table" S Ambrose view ("Citizen Soldiers") holds that the Roer River Dams, the objective past the Hurtgen, could have been advanced on from further south instead of through the forest.

If indeed true, why were divisions thrown in to get ground up for minimal gain? And who was responsible? Bradley? Hodges?

Bradley, in turn, made an earlier logisitical choice to push winter clothing down on priority vs. the usual bullets, beans, and gas. Understandable, given that in Sept. '44, most everyone thought that the Germans were through. But how many combat soldiers dropped out as "exposure" casualties as a result of Bradley?

As time moves along, Patton certainly loses some luster from my view. But other leaders have been taken their knocks too. It also still amuses me how often the "Monty vs. Patton" or the "Ike vs. Monty" debates come up, when my reading so far suggests that Bradley was as embittered a Monty rival if not more so. No one ever argues "Bradley vs. Monty" though.

[JasonC]

Would those interested in discussing the sex lives of famous generals and each other's posting proclivities please get your own thread? Thank you so much. I am sure Goebbels will be oh so interested.

On the idea that it is only undermodeled M-1s behind the concern expressed in this thread, I can assure it is not. I developed the concern primarily by playing German SMG equipped infantry. I noticed all the ins and outs of their use and the way CM ammo limitations, and a few supporting HMG teams, mask all of their weaknesses and play to all of their strengths.

I am well aware that BTS thinks the issue is only about moving fire. But while I welcome their improvements to assault behavior, I never thought and do not now think the issue is one of assault movement. It exists in at least as extreme a form on defense as on offense. It exists in light woods no less than over open ground.

I've posted various tests on the subject here. For instance tests in light "open woods", with the defenders in denser full woods clumps and dug in. 2:1 point odds attacks with US paras and engineers are easily repulsed by outnumbered SMGs, while 1:1 point odds attacks by SMGs on standard US infantry results in crushing German wins. Not by rushing, but by fire and movement tactics, with the SMGs attaining fire ascendency in a few minutes and afterward shooting far more than their pinned opponents.

My initial diagnosis of the problem was point costs, that the SMGs were just too cheap, that greater odds would be needed to balance them. In fact, SMGs cost only the same as rifles, while in practice outperforming them. When I raised the issue to BTS, they responded, in effect, that they preferred to correct underlying problems with how items were modeled, instead of tweaking unit prices. A perfectly defensible position.

I then pointed out the ammo issue, that SMGs beat rifles because rifles cannot afford to waste fire at long range, since shots are limited and fp rises so fast as range falls. That if they try, the result is the SMGs have both more shots and higher fp to deliver at 100m or less, while costing less. BTS more or less dodged on the ammo issue, but then responded with the claim that realistic rariety factors in CM2 will make everything better, and that this will be more practical than point tweaking.

Thus I was lead to realistic rariety factors as an issue. So the question naturally arose, how rare were German SMGs compared both to German rifles, and compared to allied SMGs? Not in TOE terms but in actual terms? The result was this thread.

The balance issue was not underperforming M-1s - Enfields are just as "discriminated" against, or K98s for that matter. It was not a desire to get better performance from US infantry, but a sporting disgust at the ease with which German automatic weapon infantry blows away everything else - even with poor play, and whether rushing or not. My reaction in the meantime has been to play vanilla German infantry types - Security and Rifle 44-45 types in particular.

I have proposed two solutions in the meantime. Tweaked ammo levels that give rifle-armed infantry more overall shots than automatic weapon armed infantry, as one. That is meant to address the real balance issues between rifles and SMGs. And recommended unit types used for another - Allied paras mixed with other types as "fair game", and urging Germans to use some of the rifle-heavy infantry types.

Naturally the first also encourages the second - if one takes rifle 44 squads one can have 45 ammo apiece, vs. 30 for VG SMG squads for example, under my ammo proposals. Brits can choose between airborne squads with 4 stens but with 40 ammo, and rifle ones with 8 rifles but 50 ammo. So far, I have received a few passing comments in support of either idea (very much welcome) and an enourmous amount of flak, static, distraction, and changing of the subject.

My own hypothesis about the opposition is that it stems from four distinct sources. One, some here are so silly as to have already developed the attitude that anything I say must be opposed, even if it is about motherhood and apple pie. Two, some like anything that stacks the cards in favor of German wins, usually without having the imagination to notice that such stacking reflects on the honor and capability of both themselves and the historical counterparts being modeled. Three, some think that anything once done by BTS is chiseled into marble tablets by the direct finger of the Almighty and may not be questioned or improved in any way. And four, some have quite varied notions about how effective and common SMGs actually were, and at what - some based on anecdote, some on impressions that seem to me pure Hollywood, some based on official documents or doctrine.

From my point of view, I am trying to carry on a conversation with the perfectly respectable last group mentioned, amid the crashing cymbals of all the other three, who in my opinion haven't a leg to stand on between them.

[Slapdragon]

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

Would those interested in discussing the sex lives of famous generals and each other's posting proclivities please get your own thread? Thank you so much. I am sure Goebbels will be oh so interested.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or, which is probably more useful, you can just not read posts that are not to your liking. The list has an excellent set of moderators already, and the best discussion often spring from lame topics that get put to bed early (such as this one) and migrate to other areas of historical interest.

[Michael Dorosh]

Some people like girls, too, Jason....

[Slapdragon]

Here is an issue JasonC is missing which is very important in his mistaken reading of the current debate. It is easier to not change the game, than to change it. The game is the current yard stick, and changes to it will either make it worse or better, more realistic, or less realistic. Thus changes should nopt be entered into by whim, nor by half baked arguments looking to create uber snipers, SMG killing machines, SMG squads with no teath or killing power, or anything for that matter.

Each month, there is an article that says something like, "a Sherman killed my Tiger, I thought Tigers were invincible, change the game. No evidence is present, or if it is it is very sparse. Merely a call for BTS to do somefink about this or that problem.

This is just another case of that. As uptight as some are getting, there has been no good evicence to support changing the game, and lots of spurious evidence.

The better argument hounds on the list, lets just trot out Dorosh and Waters as two examples and admit that there are 25-30 more equally competent people, Present theories and facts that can be checked by all. Sometimes their information is not applicable to the issue, has holes in it, or does not present a good picture of the issue. Others will point out the holes and others will point out the pacthes for the holes, while still others will kick new ones, until a problem either gets solved, or everyone admits it is unsolvable.

Jason, so far you have presented no compelling argument for changing the system. You may be able to in the future, but you would need to:

1) Define the problem (ie. how does reality differ from the game).

2) Support #1 with a list of facts, theories support by fact, or other information that is wide enough, and varied enough, that it does not stand and fall on a single snippet.

3) If needed, defend your evidence in a rational manner.

4) Present an alternate reality and possibly suggest how the game should be changed (the paradigm shift as it were).

5) Support this new way with facts, which may be the same ones as listed in #2, or may not.

While you did #4, your argument broke down On 1/2. While you and others created a logic that SMGs are more common, and another that they are less effective and need less ammo, you backed each up either with disacciated facts (# of SMG produced) or by spurious logic (SMGs fire faster and thus should have lower ammo in the game) but no documentary evidence, experimental evidence, oral history evidence, or even a good logic chain.

So I propose that:

A) People are not against you, just your methods.

The game is written in stone, but it can be shaped. It is just that shaping it is such an effort a good reason must be had to make any change. Measure twice, cut once, not the way your propose. In addition, as current canon, the game is innocent and correct unless proven guilty and flawed.

C) There is a huge uberGerman group in wargaming that sees undefeatable Germany in an almost pathological manner, but oddly enough the people you are accusing of it are the opposite if they are anything, at least that is what they get accused of. The Ubergermans have mostly not even stuck their heads in this list.

[Spook]

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

On the idea that it is only undermodeled M-1s behind the concern expressed in this thread, I can assure it is not. I developed the concern primarily by playing German SMG equipped infantry. I noticed all the ins and outs of their use and the way CM ammo limitations, and a few supporting HMG teams, mask all of their weaknesses and play to all of their strengths.

(snip)

My initial diagnosis of the problem was point costs, that the SMGs were just too cheap, that greater odds would be needed to balance them. In fact, SMGs cost only the same as rifles, while in practice outperforming them. When I raised the issue to BTS, they responded, in effect, that they preferred to correct underlying problems with how items were modeled, instead of tweaking unit prices. A perfectly defensible position.

(snip)

The balance issue was not underperforming M-1s - Enfields are just as "discriminated" against, or K98s for that matter. It was not a desire to get better performance from US infantry, but a sporting disgust at the ease with which German automatic weapon infantry blows away everything else - even with poor play, and whether rushing or not. My reaction in the meantime has been to play vanilla German infantry types - Security and Rifle 44-45 types in particular.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Duly noted, Jason, but I didn't mean to infer that underpowered M-1's (or other rifles) was the ONLY issue here.

It still remains my view, however, that if rifles have comparably closer firepower to SMG's in CM than is the present case, then I doubt that as many gamers would see SMG usage as an issue.

So what is it really? Underpowered rifles, or overpowered SMG's & other auto weapons, as compared to historical trends of close-range fire? Well, this is no easy & direct thing to answer, but still it's the initial crux to be answered before seeking revisions in CM's future.

Also, in the general sense, "firepower" comes in two stripes: potential damage effect (casualties) and suppression effect. At a range of 100 meters, we could all readily recognize that an SMG has greater "firepower," but most of this applies to suppression, IMO, rather than enhanced ability to hit a target at that range. As an extension, I feel that semi-auto & machine rifles (M-1 & MP44) could give reasonable combinations of suppression & damage potential in the 100-300 meter range bandwidth.

Again---at this time, I don't have a firm view on what is "right" or "wrong" with the "firepower" values of various small arms. But what I think would be needed, when discussing the issue in the future, would be a recognition as to how much a weapon could apply in potential damage (accuracy & bullet energy) and in potential suppression (ROF/dispersion) at various ranges.

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Wreck]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I developed the concern primarily by playing German SMG equipped infantry.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As did many others. In competitive play (by which I mean: my experience at TH it is well known that the SMG types are superior. Because of that, and the fact that Germans are slightly superior anyway, most games at TH avoid allowing SMG infantry.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

My initial diagnosis of the problem was point costs, that the SMGs were just too cheap, that greater odds would be needed to balance them. In fact, SMGs cost only the same as rifles, while in practice outperforming them.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you were right -- SMGs are too cheap. The prices are supposed to reflect CM-power and not any real world thing. I agree with BTS that tweaking the prices is worse than fixing the engine; but tweaking prices is easily done and could even be in a patch. Also it is easily undone in the event that they do fix the engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

BTS more or less dodged on the ammo issue, but then responded with the claim that realistic rarity factors in CM2 will make everything better, and that this will be more practical than point tweaking.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think rarity is going to be a solution to the problem. It will help, perhaps, but the underlying problem is in the modelling, namely, the ammo/firepower issue that IMO you correctly identify.

Another inflated aspect of SMGs' CM power that bears analysis, is that of human factors. In the real WWII, getting a platoon to close with the enemy to grenade range was nowhere near as easy as CM makes it. Look at BloodyBucket's dad: "The idea of closing with the enemy and overwhelming him with SMG fire had few advocates in his little circle." Not necessarily because it was a bad tactic from the POV of the battalion commander. It was merely a bad tactic from the POV of the men. In that sense, my earlier facetious suggestion that all the extra SMGs were in armories may well hit close to the mark: it may be that GIs always had the option to take an SMG but they never did, for fear of being noticed by officers who might then order a charge into close range.

I think that in CM we see more grenade-range battles than there were in the real thing. If that is so, then it is also going to inflate the power of SMGs relative to rifles, in a completely "historical" manner if we only think about firepower, ammo, range, etc, and not human factors.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

My reaction in the meantime has been to play vanilla German infantry types - Security and Rifle 44-45 types in particular.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW, this happens even in competitive play, if you restrict Germans to Heer, and play pre-Nov 44. In games where mortars are not useless, security companies will be chosen; otherwise rifle-44s with extra platoons as security. Another thing which happens in competitive play is allied players want to be allowed to mix paras with regulars, especially playing brits. This makes for a pretty even battle IMO, albeit, somewhat gamey since if you are allowed any paras you typically take all paras (slanting the thing in the opposite direction).

Your other proposed solution (ammo tweaking) would be better. But it cannot easily be used in competitive quickbattles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

So far, I have received a few passing comments in support of either idea (very much welcome) and an enourmous amount of flak, static, distraction, and changing of the subject.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the net you can never expect as much confirmation as criticism. This is natural. You know this, or should. "Me too" posts (like this one) always read as pretty lame.

For scenario designers, I think tweaking the ammo is a fine idea, as well as mixing types of infantry for the allies.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

My own hypothesis about the opposition is that it stems from four distinct sources. One, some here are so silly as to have already developed the attitude that anything I say must be opposed, even if it is about motherhood and apple pie. Two, some like anything that stacks the cards in favor of German wins, usually without having the imagination to notice that such stacking reflects on the honor and capability of both themselves and the historical counterparts being modeled. Three, some think that anything once done by BTS is chiseled into marble tablets by the direct finger of the Almighty and may not be questioned or improved in any way. And four, some have quite varied notions about how effective and common SMGs actually were, and at what - some based on anecdote, some on impressions that seem to me pure Hollywood, some based on official documents or doctrine.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem is that there are a *LOT* of people in the third group, who try very, very hard to make sure that nothing be heard that would imply in any way that CM is in need of any change or improvement. They pay lip service to the idea of improvement only in theory.

From a practical standpoint, they consider the game to be nearly perfect and suggestions to improve it bordering on heresy. Of course, if a change *does* happen, then the "new" game becomes canon, and is even more perfect than the previous perfection.

If, in CM2, BTS flipped a coin and cut SMG firepower or ammo in half because the coin came up tails instead of heads, those people would be just as strenusouly claiming that it is certain that the new numbers were just right. Rinse and repeat.

Jeff Heidman

[JasonC]

1) Define the problem (ie. how does reality differ from the game).

Problem One - SMGs in CM are more accurate than rifles.

Problem Two - German SMG armed infantry fights absurdly well.

2) Support #1 with a list of facts

Problem one

Fact one - SMG ammo loads were about twice rifle loads.

Fact two - SMG firepower is 3-6 times rifle firepower at close range.

Fact three - SMGs get the same ammo as rifles.

Fact four - 3-6 times is more than twice.

Deduction - SMGs are modeled as more accurate than rifles.

Problem two

Fact one - the allies made far more SMGs than the Germans.

Fact two - CM gives Germans far more SMGs than allies.

Fact three - CM overmodels SMG effectiveness (see problem one).

Deduction - German infantry rocks because of CM innaccuracies about SMGs.

3) If needed, defend your evidence in a rational manner.

1.1. BTS stated SMG loads were around twice rifle loads, MP40 vs. M-1. You maintained on another thread that SMG men could carry "2 to 2.5 times the rounds". SMG rounds weigh somewhat more than half as much as rifle rounds.

1.2 The firepower tables gives SMG types 45, 39, 36 fp at 40m, vs. 13, 10, 6.5 for the M-1, Enfield, and K98 respectively. 3 times 13 equal 39. 6 times 6.5 equals 39.

1.3 All infantry types get 40 shots in all QBs. Squads with 1 LMG and the rest rifles get 40 shots. Squads with all SMGs get 40 shots.

1.4 3 is the number that comes after 2. 6 is twice 3. Multiplying by 2 increases numbers.

C1 Over their whole ammo loads, SMGs will generate 3-6 times the fp at close range as rifles (by 1.2 and 1.3). By 1.1 and 1.4, this means each bullet carried by the SMG generates more fp than a rifle bullet does. Thus, SMGs are modeled not merely as shooting faster, but as shooting straighter. This contradicts the historical reality that rifles are more accurate per bullet than SMGs, at all ranges.

2.1 The US made 1.2 million Thompsons and 608K grease guns in WW II. The Brits made more than 2 million Stens. The Russians made 5 million PPshs. The Germans made only about 1-1.5 million MPs - some say 908K for MP38 and MP40 combined, those who give higher figures are well under the above end of that range. Discounting 1/3rds of the western Allies figures for Japan and partisans etc, still leaves 2.5 million SMGs. Facing only what the Germans had on one front, the shorter one in time and distance. Out of all small arms provided over the war, the Germans only had 1/6 automatic weapons, or being generous perhaps 1/5 on the highest estimates of MPs. The Allies had about the same, 1/5 weapons provided.

2.2 The most SMG intensive squad on the Allied side is the Brit Para with 4 SMG and 1 LMG, or half automatics. Most Allied squads have 2 (late 3 for US) automatic weapons and only 1 SMG. The German squad types average slightly more than half automatics (126 out of 243 weapons, listing all squad types). The only German squad types with as few automatics per squad as the average Allied one are a few pioneer types. The German *average* is more heavy on autos than the Allied *maximum*. The Allied average is the same as the German *minimum*.

2.3 In addition to the reasoning in problem one, tests presented showed a 2:1 point odds US infantry attack by airborne and engineers on German SMG infantry in foxholes, defenders in regular woods attackers moving through light woods. The result was a clear German victory, with the Paras and their target platoon exchanging off, and the engineers wiped out for slight loss. A reciprocal attack with the same set up but with only 1:1 point odds for attacking SMG-armed Germans against regular US infantry in foxholes, resulted in a crushing win for the German attackers. Nothing about rushes or assault movement was involved. It was not the run command. The SMGs gained fire ascendency in a few minutes in either case.

4) Present an alternate reality and possibly suggest how the game should be changed (the paradigm shift as it were).

For problem 1, the ammo levels should be varied by squad weapon type, between the range of 30 shots for pure automatic weapon mixes and 50 shots for mostly rifle weapon mixes. Specifically, units with less than 25% automatics should get 50 shots, units with 25% to 39% automatics should get 45 shots, units with 40% to 56% automatics should get the default 40 shots, units with 57%-75% automatics should get 35 shots, and units with 76-100% automatics should get 30 shots.

For problem 2, Allied players should be allowed to choose paratroop infantry types at will and to mix them with other types, even to represent non paratroops, without it being considered "gamey". And German players should make regular use of the rifle-armed infantry types, and especially the ones with limited automatic weapons overall (rifle 44, rifle 45, VG rifle, security e.g.), instead of always using either SMG hordes or 2 LMG infantry types with majority automatic weapons.

5) Support this new way with facts, which may be the same ones as listed in #2, or may not.

Comparing rifles to SMGs in the extreme squad types with this proposal, an SMG would have the following relative characteristics to rifles (MP40 vs. M-1 match up, the closest case) -

At 40 meters

fp per unit time - 2.77 to 1

fp over whole ammo load - 1.66 to 1

assumed ammo load - 2 to 1

implied accuracy - 83% of M-1 accuracy per bullet

At 100 meters

fp per unit time - 1.29 to 1

fp over whole ammo load - 0.77 to 1

assumed ammo load - 2 to 1

implied accuracy - 39% of M-1 accuracy per bullet

This change would encourage use of the German infantry types that include rifles, as they would have greater ammo per squad to make up for their smaller short range firepower. It would eliminate the need for current ad hoc rules restricting the use of SMGs (like "no more than 3 SMG platoons", or "no SMG hordes"). It would allow rifle armed infantry the ammo needed to engage in some long range fire without breaking the bank. It would more accurately reflect the true strengths and weaknesses of SMGs. And it would force SMG infantry type users to strive for close ~40m ranges to outperform rifles in the long run, rather than only needing to close to ~100m, as things are today.

US para types have 25-30% automatics plus a few carbines, while Brit para types have 50-57% automatics. If Allied players use them to reflect front line small arms mixes, and if in addition German players make use of their "vanilla" squad types, which have 33-50% automatics, then the ratio of automatics on the two sides will be closer to even instead of 2-6 to 1 weighted toward the Germans. The ratio will at any rate close somewhat compared to the regular gaps seen now - ~1/5th allied autos to ~2/3rds and up for german ones. Players may respond to the ammo incentives and the "skew" toward automatics may reduce as well.

Reducing ammo levels of squad types with many automatic weapons will more accurately reflect the relative strengths of small arms types. Greater use of Allied para infantry types and of German rifle-armed types will reduce the wide gap between German and Allied automatics as well. SMGs will no longer generate more than twice the fp over their ammo loads at close range; they will no longer be modeled as more accurate than rifles. Automatic infantry will still have just as much peak firepower as it does today, but it will not fight as absurdly well in other respects, notably "wind" or staying power.

And players will get to explore actual tactics, instead of applying a cookie cutter formula that exploits CM ammo system abstractions and force type range of choice, to win mindlessly with gamey SMG hordes. Nor will they have to put up with charges of "gamey" when they do use SMGs, if they can get a scenario designer or 3rd party to tweak ammo levels for them, since they will be taking a compensating weakness to offset them - fewer shots per squad. And because it will be acknowledged "fair game" to meet them with paras if desired.

All of which I have said before. But apparently you haven't been paying too close attention. The proposals and evidence I have been offering have absolutely nothing in common with your straw man of "I lost my Tiger - BTS do somefink!" It is dishonest to pretend otherwise. In addition, my proposals can be implimented by scenario designers and players, with current code. So the address of the "do somefink" is rather off.

[Andreas]

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

2.3 In addition to the reasoning in problem one, tests presented showed a 2:1 point odds US infantry attack by airborne and engineers on German SMG infantry in foxholes, defenders in regular woods attackers moving through light woods. The result was a clear German victory, with the Paras and their target platoon exchanging off, and the engineers wiped out for slight loss. A reciprocal attack with the same set up but with only 1:1 point odds for attacking SMG-armed Germans against regular US infantry in foxholes, resulted in a crushing win for the German attackers. Nothing about rushes or assault movement was involved. It was not the run command. The SMGs gained fire ascendency in a few minutes in either case.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you please state whether your test involved arty preparation before the Allied attack, or defensive arty support when they were attacked? Otherwise it is not reflecting reality. End of story. In case you did not know, German infantry overran Allied infantry in a number of cases, although usually with tank support. Your test does prove that ceterus paribus the Germans rock. Unfortunately for the Germans (and fortunately for the rest of the world) ceterus was not paribus, and the Allied arty, air and tank superiority negated the advantage of the 'rocking' German infantry.

Nice try at testing, shame it was pointless. Back to the drawing board.

Andreas (who no doubt will be painted a naziworshipping sickening sycophant of BTS next)

[Spook]

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

Reducing ammo levels of squad types with many automatic weapons will more accurately reflect the relative strengths of small arms types. Greater use of Allied para infantry types and of German rifle-armed types will reduce the wide gap between German and Allied automatics as well. SMGs will no longer generate more than twice the fp over their ammo loads at close range; they will no longer be modeled as more accurate than rifles. Automatic infantry will still have just as much peak firepower as it does today, but it will not fight as absurdly well in other respects, notably "wind" or staying power.

(snip)

All of which I have said before. But apparently you haven't been paying too close attention. The proposals and evidence I have been offering have absolutely nothing in common with your straw man of "I lost my Tiger - BTS do somefink!" It is dishonest to pretend otherwise. In addition, my proposals can be implimented by scenario designers and players, with current code. So the address of the "do somefink" is rather off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I appreciate the latest effort you made in laying out this viewpoint again, Jason. But on the note of ammo load, I had pointed out that BTS stated on one occasion that it intends to increase the default ammo load, in CM2 & afterwards, of rifle-heavy units.

The time that BTS stated this, however, was just before a forum "crash" earlier this spring that lost about two weeks' worth of posts. So a search might reveal BTS's ruminations at that time, or perhaps not.

Perhaps you would prefer instead that SMG ammo load also be decreased, in combination with increased rifle ammo load, as a synthesized solution. Maybe that'll come to pass instead, but BTS would be in a better position to say.

The point I wish to make here is that BTS, at one time earlier this spring, DID try to address the "SMG" issue directly. And it'll probably be about 5-7 months before CM2, so there's still time to make a case to BTS if you're still uncertain about what CM2 will bring. Just address BTS directly on this forum, or send an e-mail.

Until BTS's relative "SMG adjustments" for CM2 are clearly understood, we're just second-guessing to a degree.

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The problem is that there are a *LOT* of people in the third group, who try very, very hard to make sure that nothing be heard that would imply in any way that CM is in need of any change or improvement. They pay lip service to the idea of improvement only in theory.

From a practical standpoint, they consider the game to be nearly perfect and suggestions to improve it bordering on heresy. Of course, if a change *does* happen, then the "new" game becomes canon, and is even more perfect than the previous perfection.

If, in CM2, BTS flipped a coin and cut SMG firepower or ammo in half because the coin came up tails instead of heads, those people would be just as strenusouly claiming that it is certain that the new numbers were just right. Rinse and repeat.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps it's as you say about this "third group" in its size, Jeff, but that still shouldn't be a deterrent if you think that BTS can be reasoned with directly.

The bigger issue is if you think that BTS is open to changing the CM models based on rational discourse here that can be supported. If you don't think that BTS is open to such discourse, then why should it matter how people "group themselves" in here?

[JasonC]

I thank Wreck for his comments. I realize agreeing can seem pointless, but I am interested in how many others see the problem, what is done about it in practice today, and whether people doing various things about it think my alternatives would work. In the end it is all simply a matter of whether people use the suggestions, not a matter of academic debate here at all. In that respect it is quite unlike a debate of an historical controversy, or about recommendations to BTS.

Wreck said "most games at TH avoid allowing SMG infantry." That is just the sort of thing that concerns me. Personally, before a recent game I got the comment "I'd prefer if you didn't buy SMG hordes, but you are welcome to do so if it suits you", which was sporting enough, but the meaning was clear. Any victory with super automatic infantry would be hollow, and to a sporting player that is tantamount to a ban.

I would much rather have tweaked ammo and a mutual understanding that Allied paras in the mix are perfectly kosher - even with armor etc - than either the forced ground rules or the ad hoc honor-based comments that amount to the same thing in practice. If I take rifle armed German infantry I'd like to do it for better ranged fire and more ammo, or because I like the supporting weapons mix in that company type, or because it fits the force I am imagining involved in the battle - not because doing otherwise is notorious knavery.

People who think anything BTS has touched must be holy writ, of the type Jeff was talking about, sort of overlook the fact that many of their fellow players don't exactly act that way in practice. Pretending it is all perfect as is ignores the realities of what players do. It also, incidentally, prompts me to invite those that think so to take the Allies - sans paratroopers - against my (unrestricted) German infantry sometime.

And that momentary notion can be generalized. Anybody who thinks the present default systems are perfect should have no problem granting his opponent choice of sides in every fight. So my proposals might be used this way - if one player wants to use them, *offer* choice of side if they are used, but *ask* for choice of side if they are not, with no infantry restrictions in that case.

Either way, it would become possible to play SMG types again. But they'd either be balanced, or yours - LOL.

[Slapdragon]

Jeff has always, and now you have joined Jason, a group who believes critical thinking is meaningless, that rhetoric proves a point. Cognitive dissonance being full in force, there is no way to sway you both from this way of thinking, and myself, Mister Dorosh, Germanboy, and others probably are foolish to try.

For others, it is important to cut through the rhetoric. First off, no one says that the SMG is right or wrong, merely that it is coded into the game. The game is hard to change because it requires a programming effort. Thus, why would anyone want to change a possibly flawed portion of a system for what will be a possibly more flawed and untested system without good reason.

Each time there is whining for immediate and unconditional change, people forget that the person who needs to make the change has to devote time to that change. This is why a change must be fully explored. Just because Jeff Hiedman, yourself, me, or anyone wakes up one night after watching an episode of Combat! and says, gee -- SMGs were not so good, does not mean Charles should spend two weeks coding a fix.

Rather than your four groups whose existance is questionable (or in some cases, as a few of us were laughing about on another list, some of the people you accuse of being "Germans always wins" types are actually quite the opposite), there are two, those that want changes to included imperical and historical reasoning, and those who want changes to "balance the game" or who work from gut feeling. We are the former, you are the later.

The good thing about you stating your thesis and trying to support it is now we can look at it from an imperical, historical, and decide does your data warrant your conclusion. We can discuss off group this issue with people who are experts in small arms employment, history, firepower, and the like, but who may not be present on this list, and we can refer to primary and secondary sources.

In addition, and more important, you are now locked down into your assertion, which was the biggest problem for Germanboy. He may have agreed with you, except your arguments were so weak at the start and varied so much, and you were so upset people pointed that out that you lost a bit of "face".

In the next 24 hours, the peer review of the board will swing into action, looking seriously at your assertion. It wont be the slavish "ditto" you desire even if people agree with you, but it will be much more useful to BTS. And I can assure you that BTS reads and digests everything that goes on here, looking for a diamond in the coal. Maybe yours is a diamond, maybe it is a peice of coal, but now we can imperically look at your issue and see if it holds water.

Germanboy, myself, and others hold you in no ill will. We just have seen so many people who cried to change the game saying that it could always be changed back, without realizing how much work that is involved, that it gets a bit tiring. Please understand that this is all for the subjects own good. If you post a whiner thread, it wont even get past first base, but if you can come up with something better than gut instinct people can and will listen to you.

[JasonC]

Yes Spook, BTS did say they would vary shots per squad for CM2. And do you remember why? Do you remember who Steve was discussing it with? Yours truly. Same argument.

But contrary to your implicit assumption, I am not addressing BTS here. (I already did that). I am addressing scenario designers and players. Because they are the ones that can make the changes I recommend, not BTS. And for CMBO, not just CM2. BTS could of course offer options for squad ammo varying by side of type, and I've recommended that to them in the past, and that would help with QBs that don't have a 3rd party set up.

But it is players that make rules like "no SMG hordes" or "only one force type", so it is players that can change them. And it is scenario designers that edit unit details, not BTS. Not everything about CM is about the holy code. Quite a lot is about what people do with it, which depends on their agreements with one another, which depends on their sense of realism and balance, not BTS's sense of them.

[JasonC]

Thanks for the supercilious lecture Slapdragon. I don't think I need any informing about advising BTS; they have already taken quite a few of my suggestions over the last six months. You still seem incapable of grasping the fact that I am advising the players and scenario designers, not the BTS programmers, in my proposals in this and the related "SMG proposal" thread.

BTS can't make the TH ladder allow use of SMG squad types, can they? They can't inform my recent opponent who wrote to me "I'd prefer if you didn't buy SMG hordes" that he ought not to say such things because all is perfectly balanced in balmy Gilead, can they? You talk as though it were nearly unquestionable that SMGs with exactly the same ammo as other types, are perfect, when it is notorious that SMGs as currently modeled are "gamey", and BTS itself has identified numerous points about them they intend to change for CM2 (from revamped rush behavior to rariety based cost to varying ammo per squad).

I breathlessly await your conclusion from discussions with off board experts about whether, in fact, SMGs are truly more accurate per bullet than rifles. Or about whether, in fact, SMG gunners routinely carry 3 times the weight of ammo of riflemen. The fact that you consider such questions "balance" issues rather than "historical", or feel unable to decide on them without "expert" advice, is rather amusing.

As for the "importance of stating it clearly", I've stated it if not clearly, at least at great length, a dozen times by now over the course of several months. Changes have already been announce to several related systems. You are still at the "go ask the off-board experts" stage, it seems. You might try coming to a conclusion instead.

Simply put, the next time you play Germans what infantry type do you plan to use? If the next time you played Germans, the Allied player took some Brit paras, some Brit rifles, along with tanks, what if any comment would you have to him on his force selection? Would you refuse to play a scenario that tweaked ammo for squads with different weapon types, or welcome it?

They are not theoretical questions, nor are they about the consensus of the College of Cardinals. They are practical ones about what you do in CM games.

[Username]

While I agree with Jason about Slapdragons inability to follow what he is proposing (ie scenario designers vs BTS programming), I must state that in CM2, smg's take on a major role. So it is , in my opinion, worth BTS programming effort also.

I must again insist upon my idea of "pure" smg units having low loadout intially and the ability to loadup out of LOW ammo DURING the scenario.

I have been in the military and the use of full auto M16 is very similar to smg use. In close prox to the enemy, you just simply blow through your ammo in the attempt to win the firefight. It is very range dependant. With an enemy at 100-150 meters, you can get the luxury of firing slowly. With someone at 25-75 meters, its a firehose situation.

Dont get to concerned about slappys rhetoric. He is a total bookfed warrior.

Lewis

[imported_Kampfgruppe_Commander]

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

I have been in the military and the use of full auto M16 is very similar to smg use....

Dont get to concerned about slappys rhetoric. He is a total bookfed warrior.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Being in the Army in peacetime for ten minutes doesn't make you an expert on SMG use. M16 is nothing like an SMG and the firepower mix of a modern squad is nothing like any of the WW II squads.

Unless you've seen combat, you too are a "bookfed" warrior.

Most of the leading historians - including all the ones quoted widely here - have never seen combat.

So why is it ok to quote them and not a professor? They're the same thing.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Jeff has always, and now you have joined Jason, a group who believes critical thinking is meaningless, that rhetoric proves a point. Cognitive dissonance being full in force, there is no way to sway you both from this way of thinking, and myself, Mister Dorosh, Germanboy, and others probably are foolish to try.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a bunch of crap.

Anyone who knows me would laugh at someone accusing me of not using critical thinking. You define "critical thinking" as agreeing with you, and anything else as "rhetoric".

There is no data or evidence possible to sway you. Jason has provided reams of data, reasoning, arguments, and solutions, and you close your eyes and refuse to see it.

As usual, you have elected to pontificate from your ivory tower when someone calls you on your bluff. Well, stay up there. It suits you.

Jeff Heidman

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

Dunno all i saw was some negative posts concerning Patton, with the current revisionist theme. None indicated any hero worship in their content etc.

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Timor Email is bastables@hotmail.com

hope to hear from you old chum,even that lunatic ratty can berate me for some imagined wrong. Although Leave in Sydney has seen a warming of my heart to the aussie scum Don'tworry Mace turn comming soon!