British Infantry

[Phorncastle]

Just wondering what peoples thoughts were on british inf. What advantages do they have if any over the American and German ground troops as their firepower is pretty poor. The PIAT I find okay, I see at more as a long range Panzerfaust than on par with the Shrek and Zook. The 2inch mortars okay for suppressing say a german squad and can smoke, but all to often in the attack its targeted to keenly, as its slower too its harder to keep a coheseive unit together

The actual squadies though are armed with so many rifles they dont seem to be able to pack any kinda punch in attack so Im not sure what to do with them, particularly in built up areas.

How did the Brits fair in the reality? I can only assume that they relied heavily on things like Bren carrier support and Wasps and couldnt really be too effective with the arm out that CMBO gives them.

Cheers

[Michael Dorosh]

Commonwealth troops won their battles through use of artillery, which is a little undermodelled in the game - at least in terms of flexibility. JonS and Simon Fox and possibly Andreas and maybe even Brian or JasonC will be along shortly to explain....

"Use Guns Instead of Men"

[Gen-x87H]

A real hit or miss for me. I prefer the Brits if I play Allies.

Sometimes they seem to really lay some smack. Other times they get routed after the first round.

If it wasnt for the 4.2inchers and Cromwells. I would never use them.

Gen

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Commonwealth troops won their battles through use of artillery, which is a little undermodelled in the game - at least in terms of flexibility. JonS and Simon Fox and possibly Andreas and maybe even Brian or JasonC will be along shortly to explain....

"Use Guns Instead of Men"

Interestingly, Jary states in '18 Platoon' that the most successful actions he fought with 4th Somersets were without artillery or tank support, and just pure light infantry stuff (e.g. Vernonnette).

Another interesting tidbit in that respect is Harrison-Place 'Military training in the British Army 1940-44' in which he lays the blame for many of the initial failures at the overdependence on the fire plan, and the inflexibility of battle school drilling.

So I guess Jary's answer to the question would be 'Use brain, not man'. I.e. overcome the German firepower by innovative and quick maneuver, something that is difficult to do when you are constrained by a fire-plan. He maybe a bit biased, but he was also the longest-serving infantry platoon commander in 21st Army Group, so I guess that would lend some credence to his argument.

I guess the same solution would work in CMBO.

Having said all that, more flexible artillery will be welcome in the engine rewrite, but Allied players should not kid themselves into believing that the guns will sort all their problems. They did not on the tactical level in the war, and they never will in CMXX.

[Brian]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Commonwealth troops won their battles through use of artillery, which is a little undermodelled in the game - at least in terms of flexibility. JonS and Simon Fox and possibly Andreas and maybe even Brian or JasonC will be along shortly to explain....

"Use Guns Instead of Men"

Not quite. While Andreas has covered it partly, the real saying should be "use technical means, not men" Doesn't have to be guns, can be tanks, can be Kangaroos, can be Funnies. Make it possible for your men to close with the enemy and to get onto the objective.

The key is, maneauvre, lots of smoke and utilise the battalion assets for direct fire support - MMG's and 3in Mortars. Call on Brigade assets, such as 4.2in Mortars and Field Artillery. Finally, use the division's and the army's - heavy artillery, armour and so on, up the chain of command suppress the enemy and make his shooting less accurate.

Oh, and one other factor which IMO is poorly modelled in CM to date - cold steel. Remember, the role of infantry is to, "sieze and hold ground". If you can, move up quickly and get right in. As the old Corporal used to say, "They don't like it up 'em!"

[Redwolf]

As a side note, the British player comes very weak in infantry partly because he has to get mortars and PIATs even with the platoon.

If other players would always buy companies and battaltions and paying for assorted support weapons it looks more even, however first they don't need to since they can shop individual platoons instead and second there are many companies without additional stuff.

Early versions of CM allowed you to delete the support weapons even in a Quickbattle. Anybody remembers why it had been removed? I can understand you can't delete sqauds, but the support stuff?

I don't mean to say PIATs and 2" mortars are useless (the 2" mortars got so many towed and SP guns for me they are probably amoung the most effective weapons for me), but especially on laddergames people get very infantry-heavy, and then you need men, men, men.

As another side note, the British non-airborne squads also have no in-squad goodies. That is not a problem per se, but the other squads in the game get the goodies at a very low price. So, overall some smaller items add up to substancial infantry shortages for British and Commonwealth. Which in turn is very realistic

[JasonC]

British infantry is underpowered in CM compared to history because rifles are undermodeled compared to automatic weapons, and because CM players who notice this take lots of cheap and powerful automatics in the German infantry types they select.

Realistically, German squads with lots of autos would have fewer shots (in ammo terms) than the rifle-heavy Brits, since they are shooting faster, not straighter. I've recommended in the past, and still do, that scenario designers tweak upward the ammo of rifle-heavy squads and downward the ammo of automatics heavy squads. 30 for pure autos, 35 for more than half autos; 50 for almost all rifles (LMG and 1 SMG only); 45 for mostly rifles. The default 40 shots for roughly half and half. Whether anyone agrees and does it is up to them.

As for the support weapons, the PIAT is a capable weapon. Its penetration is better than a zook and it can be fired from inside buildings, and is less likely to be spotted on the first round.

The 2 inch mortar is best used in one of two ways. Against small point targets nearby, like MGs, they can each suppress one item for a minute or two. Don't chuck the rounds at 300-400 yards, get closer. The fast speed and lack of a minimum range are useful.

The second use is to overload a particular target - a building is typical - with fire from every 2 inch and PIAT in range, from as much as a whole company, for a "mad minute". This produces a rain of small HE rounds which can break squads and sometimes ignite things. It is slightly gamey, but it works.

In ordinary infantry fighting, you have to bring more men to the local party to expect good results. Their use winds up being close to that of German rifle 44 infantry. Use the company HQ as a "4th platoon", lending it a couple of squads. Then maneuver in pairs of the smaller platoons that result (4-5 squads and 2 HQs each).

The company then "walks" in alternate bounds, and so can each half. Each half should be able to handle a single enemy platoon, with help from the usual preparations by other arms, naturally. The side with 5 squads should lead off, with one of its squads split. A half squad without the Bren is always your "point".

The strength of the Brits in CM lies elsewhere, but you don't have to use the (slow and historically rare) up-armored Churchills to be competitive. In tank fighting, they have 17 pdrs on Fireflies (or cheap Achilles TDs, once available) - only the US Jackson is close among Allied armor-killers.

For light support vehicles, use the MMG carriers. They are speedy and hard to hit, and have plenty of ammo for infantry suppression. They are also cheap. I recommend them over the foot Vickers, unless you are defending dug in (and possibly even then). Take a pair of them per company, so each "leg" can have its own ranged and armored fire support.

In CM one of the great strengths of the Brits is the wide availability of artillery modules of modest price, up to quite large calibers. It is well known that the larger calibers give more bang for the buck in CM. The 5.5 inch is particularly useful. 138 points for a module with more than 200 blast per round is quite an offer.

Don't let the low number of rounds deter you. They fire slow enough that you can hit multiple targets, and anyone near a single round will notice. The 4.5 inch is far more powerful than the US or German 105mm, and is also affordable.

The 3 inch mortar FO is more powerful than other light mortars and has abundant ammo, but lacks the punch to hurt dug in troops. Use it in meeting engagements or on defense (non-dug in infantry targets), against wooded areas (to get airbursts). The same goes from the 4.2 inch - 47 blast is not enough against dug in enemies. Compared to the heavy 4.5 and especially 5.5 stuff, the mortars are popguns.

Avoid the 25 pdr. It was historically the standard type and its blast is somewhat generous in CM, but its ROF is far too low (about .6 times the realistic rate). Combined with the high cost and abundant shells, this gives an endless drizzle rather than hurting any one target seriously. You are much better off with a heavier howitzer module.

On defense, the 6 pdr is more useful than you might think. It costs the Brits only 1 pt more than a US 57mm ATG, but can come with APDS rounds (T rounds in CM) that can wax Tiger Is from the front. Just make sure the target is fully IDed before coming off hide, if you expect the crew to use their T ammo. The 3 inch mortar is also a bargain in stationary defenses, because it has enourmous ammo and more punch than 81mm mortars.

So, the infantry stays in somewhat larger groupings and advances in bounds, in the usual fire and movement manner. Avoid getting too close to German SMGs - stay out at 125-150 yards and just shoot until their heads are down.

Heavy artillery breaks anything behind rises or on rear sides of woods or buildings, or large groupings - but avoid spending your shells on small targets or places you only suspect enemies. You will fire the rounds off, don't worry about that. Let the scouting infantry take the heat first.

Tanks and MMGs suppress anything forward, taking their time about it and expending ammo rather than men. The infantry (normally) and sometimes the MMG carriers (wide open ground) do the scouting and leading. A 17 pdr AFV stays well back and out of LOS until enemy armor comes out to stop your other vehicles, then hunts them.

If you have leftover points, take another MMG carrier. It less than that, take an additional PIAT, then another 2 inch, for the company HQ platoon. I hope this helps.

[MikeyD]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Brit Lee-Enfield a bolt-action rifle, and therefore less firepower-intensive as the clip-fed M1 Garand?

I've read other posts where people complain about the firepower of all bolt-action rifle German squads too.

I haven't tested this in CM but the Brit infantry should theoretically have a slight advantage at longer ranges where the accurate Lee-Enfield would shine. In close combat the Brits would have as much trouble as you'd imagine they would would fighting house-to-house with a bolt-action vs smgs.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JasonC:

British infantry is underpowered in CM compared to history because rifles are undermodeled compared to automatic weapons, and because CM players who notice this take lots of cheap and powerful automatics in the German infantry types they select.

Oh boy.

To contradict Jason's repeat soap-box monologue, here is a statement from Sydney Jary (from memory, my copy of '18 Platoon' is with Moon at the moment) 'In a contest of firepower, the Germans win hands-down'. Now you can take the word of him, who commanded a platoon in 4th SLI from July 1944 to May 1945, or Jason's calculations.

*shrug*

MikeyD is right BTW - the Lee-Enfield is bolt action, and comparing it to the Garand is apples and oranges.

[edited for false attribution of quote]

[ March 22, 2002, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Redwolf]

I think the comment about the automatic weapons requires some qualification. The "good" automatic weapons like MG42 and MP44 have a higher price in CMBO. The SMGs are considered not to be more useful than a rifle and have the same price.

However, game engine reality is that the SMGs are much more useful than in real life because of the run and MG problems.

And rifles are not as useful as in real life because the better ammo efficiency is not modeled. Besides rifles versus SMGs this also applies to MG42 to weaker LMGs, the Bren gun models less bullets used for each bursts, but all squads carry the same number of bursts, not the same number of bullets. The German squads carry many more bullets, but are as fast as the Allied ones.

[MikeyD]

Ammo efficiency not modelled?

I would'a sworn I've regularly been able t outrange smgs with rifles.

[JasonC]

"I've regularly been able to outrange smgs with rifles"

Outranging and ammo efficiency are not the same thing. Rifles have 3 firepower at 250 meters while SMGs have 1/2 firepower. Thus, the rifles clearly outrange the SMGs. But the total firepower the rifles can put out at 250 meters is tiny, and they have 40 shots worth even at that low rate of plinking. The SMGs just don't fire at such ranges. Drop to close range, and the SMGs have more firepower than the rifles. But there the overall firepower is much higher, so the damage done per shot is higher as well.

When the two fight at a mix of ranges, the upshot is that the rifles fire off half their ammo at long range, doing relatively little, but without reply. By the time the range is close, the SMGs have more ammo remaining, as well as far higher fp per shot. Even with a few men hit so far, they thus put out far more firepower over their whole ammo load. A mix of high ammo HMG teams for ranged fire, and SMGs for close range work, is thus far more ammo efficient than rifle+LMG infantry for both. Higher fp too.

Automatics ought to put out more firepower per unit time, and no one disputes that - so the other fellow's firepower comment from his favorite veteran is completely beside the point. It is not in dispute that SMGs throw bullets faster, and thus have higher firepower. (Per shot). But in CM, they do not just shoot faster, they shoot just plain more, by large amounts. Because they not only have higher firepower, they have it for just as long as the rifles can shoot slowly.

And in reality, automatics get their high fp not from superior accuracy per bullet fired (they are far worse off than rifles in that regard), but by throwing more bullets per unit time. But the number of bullets that could be carried per automatics was not higher in proportion - at most it was about 2-2.5 times as many. The SMGs have up to 6 times the firepower and the same number of shots, making each bullet up to 2-3 times more effective with the less accurate weapon, which is silly.

It simply comes from the simplified infantry ammo system, with everyone getting 40 shots per squad as the default level, regardless of weapon mix or the ammo consumption involved in the firepower numbers each weapon is given. More ammo to the rifles and less to the SMGs does not give the rifles higher absolute firepower, certainly not per unit time. (If the SMGs fire off most of their ammo at long range, perhaps, but that is realistic). But it does more accurately reflect the fact that SMG mags can be burnt off a lot more rapidly than bolt action rifle rounds.

As for the claim that "good" automatics do cost more, the MP 44 costs only about 1/2 point more per weapon than rifles, and SMGs cost the same amount as rifles. Their firepower is 2-6 times higher. Everybody knows infantry with more automatics is a bargain compared to infantry with few, as a result, to the point where many limit or ban certain types of infantry in QBs. The costs are tiny compared to the ability conferred. Only the LMG-42 is significantly more expensive, and it has to be, since it is the best infantry weapon in the game, bar none.

It is far better, in scenarios where such things are completely up to the designer, to just make a modest tweak to the ammo levels, than to eliminate whole classes of infantry out of play balance concerns. But as I said previously, if anybody doesn't think so all they have to do is not use the recommendations.

Personally I think it would be sporting for anyone who thinks so to give his opponent the choice of side, and so prove he isn't just talk, by letting his opponent have Germans with lots of automatics. I recommend a similar challenging attitude to anyone who encounters an opponent who nay-says such ammo tweak balancing. Let him extol rifles to his heart's content, and then tell him "fine, so you get the rifles and I get the automatics".

[TSword]

JasonC

Your post has something for it.

For rifle at mid to long ranges (250 - 400 m) the single aimed bullet counts per man, whereas closeup (In an attack rushing the enemy) or ambush at close range the volume becomes the deciding factor (Of course still the aimed shooting is still highly advisable).

In short, the close range effect of automatics is off the mark about the same. It is just plain ridiculous when a squad can tramp into an ambush in a pine wood at 30 m range and 4 automatics of the ambushing squad are not able to annihilate them within 2-3 seconds, instead the probabilty to even win the fight are quite good for the foolish squad. The same on a rushattack, where you have a very decisive advantage from ranges 100 m downward even while moving fast, whereas the rifle is just helpless.

Automatics like the german assault rifle overlap with the "rifledomain" as they can be used as a rifle at somewhat lowered ranges but certainly up to 250 - 300 m with similar effectivness.

In short, higher effectivness at long ranges for rifles (the aimed shot per man), higher effectivness of automatics at short ranges (bullets/second or volume of fire).

The MG delivers volume up to ranges, but is of lesser use than the automatic rifle below 30 m (The mount hinders you to cover a wide enough arc, actually too much volume for too narrow a field of fire)-> but whatever lays in it's initial field of fire is shredded to pieces at 30 m. This is atleast true for the german bipod mount (LMG), which is best at ranges 50 - 200 m G and 50 - 300 m for the HMG (The allied MG's being more like the HMG with it's tripod mount). Ok, an Arnold Schwarzie type of squad may hold the MG like an automatic rifle for very close range fighting...

Of course the effectivness of the MG at 300 m is lower than the rifle in regard to aimed killing shots, BUT delivers volume to ground(pin) the enemy in numbers (several squads), panic him etc. (Nobody likes bullets zipping around his head like an angry swarm of bees..)

Of course certain automatics like the assault rifle are too present in "vanilla" german squads.

In 1944 mostly the specialized "Sturmtruppen" where largely equipped with them or certain elite units in the SS-units.(Late 1944 there was an acute shortage of automatics for instance).

=> Price/point/rarity/distribution adjustments necessary for automatic rifle heavy units.

[ March 22, 2002, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: TSword ]

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Andreas:

To contradict Jason's repeat soap-box monologue, here is a statement from Sydney Jary (from memory, my copy of '18 Platoon' is with Moon at the moment) 'In a contest of firepower, the Germans win hands-down'. Now you can take the word of him, who commanded a platoon in 4th SLI from July 1944 to May 1945, or Jason's calculations.

[/QB]

To be fair my impression is that Jary is principally talking about the firepower superiority of the MG42 rather than SMGs. Also the apparent profusion of German medium mortars. After all he relates a tale of an FJ emptying his SMG at him from about 20m away and being unscathed

I think it would be fair to say that when operating in close terrain, urban areas or at night the Brits would equip themselves with a greater proportion of SMGs than seen in the standard CMBO Brit infantry

[Brian]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

To be fair my impression is that Jary is principally talking about the firepower superiority of the MG42 rather than SMGs. Also the apparent profusion of German medium mortars. After all he relates a tale of an FJ emptying his SMG at him from about 20m away and being unscathed

To be fair, one has to wonder how many people on this board have even seen, let alone fired an SMG? They are the most ornry of creatures, I can assure you. Unless you place yourself in either the most uncomfortable of range poses or display exceptional control over the trigger firing short bursts, the weapon is indeed, extremely inaccurate. As the usual effective range for an SMG is given as being 25 metres from the hip or 100 metres from the shoulder, I'm actually not surprised that Jary survived the experience.

Funnily enough, the best soldier I ever saw in the Oz Army with an SMG was a little Vietnamese fellow in our Army Reserve, who I coached on the range one day. When I asked him where he'd learn to shoot so well, he said, "In the war." "Which war?" I asked. "Vietnam," was his reply. "ARVN?" I asked. "No," with a big grin he replied, "VC!" It was more than likely true, as well. I never told my fellow instructors, many of who had served in South Vietnam, though.

I think it would be fair to say that when operating in close terrain, urban areas or at night the Brits would equip themselves with a greater proportion of SMGs than seen in the standard CMBO Brit infantry

This is indeed what happened. Weapons picked up from dead comrades/enemy, different weapons issued for different missions, none of these sorts of factors are modelled in CMBO. Units withdrawn from the line and outfitted for a particular attack would also tend to exchange their weapons, if possible, to those appropriate to that particular mission.

One area, which has not really been touched upon and which has been mentioned a long time ago, is fire discipline. The Germans were not very good at it, the British excellent. Directing the fire of an entire section, platoon or even company onto single targets at medium to long ranges. In CMBO, it is nearly impossible, because the TacAI will always take control of your fire instructions and change them to attack the threat which it thinks is more immediate than the one which you've directed your fire onto. This is simply silly. British troops were schooled to have their fire directed. They did not fire wily-nily at all and sundry, unless given leave by their section/platoon/company commander.

If aimed fire was introduced for the British, you'd see a significant improvement in their performance in fire fights, as they eliminated each adversarial section, in turn, while their fire was directed at the entire British unit as a whole.

[Brian]

Originally posted by JasonC:

British infantry is underpowered in CM compared to history because rifles are undermodeled compared to automatic weapons, and because CM players who notice this take lots of cheap and powerful automatics in the German infantry types they select.

I think the real problem is the artificially short ranges which most scenarios inflict on the players prevent the British battalion's long range firepower, its mortars and MMG's in particular, as being unable to function properly. Vickers in particular should be placed well out on a flank, preferrably in an elevated position, in order to provide supporting fire.

One way to overcome that is to create larger maps, say 2,000m x 2,000m to allow proper maneauvrability and weapons to function at their most effective ranges. Even larger, would be better IMO.

However, as MG's don't have beaten zones, nor are they capable of indirect fire in CMBO, the matter becomes somewhat moot.

The other problem for British Infantry is there is no minimum range for the 2in mortar in CMBO. This should effect its usefulness in many of the firefights that CMBO portrays, because of that artificially close horizon.

Jason, I also found your comments on the use of the MMG carrier typical of a great deal of what you post. MMG carriers did not fire their MG's from the carrier, generally. It was dismounted.

One of the problems is that players assume the Universal Carrier is an AFV (Armoured Fighting Vehicle) it is not and was never intended to be. It is an Armoured Vehicle which was intended as a battlefield taxi. Troops were always intended to fight dismounted.

To better reflect that, it would be better to purchase the Vickers and the carrier seperately to reflect that. However, BTS then penalises the British player that does that.

[Michael Dorosh]

I have original documents here somewhere that indicates that Canadian infantry battalions (and no doubt Brit ones) held extra Sten Guns, and they were often parcelled out to frontline infantry - espeically for patrols or raids.

I've fired the Sterling and the Sten both, and yes, they are a tricky little critter to shoot well with; my experience was limited in both cases to a couple of magazines, but you know, remustered infantry and recruits fresh from Canada were showing up in the front line from the Scheldt onwards with even less experience in weapons handling than that.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for the claim that "good" automatics do cost more, the MP 44 costs only about 1/2 point more per weapon than rifles, and SMGs cost the same amount as rifles. Their firepower is 2-6 times higher. Everybody knows infantry with more automatics is a bargain compared to infantry with few, as a result, to the point where many limit or ban certain types of infantry in QBs. The costs are tiny compared to the ability conferred. Only the LMG-42 is significantly more expensive, and it has to be, since it is the best infantry weapon in the game, bar none.

You continue to throw the SMGs and long-range automatics into one basket.

A 10-man British rifle squad costs 29 points. The 10-man Panzergrenadiere cost 37, the 10-man Fallschirmjaeger 38.

The cost for the LMG42 and MP44 is not very high, it certainly does not account for the combat power when going head-to-head to the British squad. But it is certain quite an offset, 30% more for the Fallschirmjaeger at same number of men. Consider that the high-cost squads may as well come under artillery or ranged tank fire and throw away these points for no gain, or that may have to enter hand-to-hand combat where they have no gain from these weapons. You cannot price these weapons like they were standalone, they are thrown into whatever trouble the platoon gets into, and only in some situations do you get something out of the long-range automatics. The above quoted costs sound like a very good pricing for me, 30% more for the well-armed squad.

You are correct that the SMGs are priced like rifles and that doesn't make sense given the current state of the CM engine, however the real cure here is to get the ammo usage straight and to give the opponent realistic means to stop the SMG squads from closing. Discussing prices to fix game mechanics problems is futile, while the suggestion that scenario designers edit the ammo level is certainly good.

[JonS]

To be fair, Jason was talking about how to use UK inf in CMBO, not how they (and their support weapons) were used in Real Life™

[JasonC]

Of course I was talking about British infantry tactics in CM when I talked about the usefulessness of MMG carriers. Also when I talked about the usefulness of 5.5 inch howitzers. It is a curious mistake to make, indeed, when I noted the 25 pdr should be avoided precisely because it is not modeled correctly, not because it wasn't common. I notice that nobody has had any real comments on the "how to fight with Brits" aspect of my previous post.

As for the infantry weapons, of course I am the one suggesting changes to the ammo levels, so it is kind of silly to argue that I shouldn't be talking about prices and instead should fix the broken aspect of the modeling. I don't hear a ringing endorsement of my proposed fix. Why is that?

As for the pricing comparison with 2 LMG German squads, you bet the price doesn't cover the ability. The Pz Gdr platoon has 1.63 times the firepower at 100 meters, and an even higher ratio at longer range. And no it does not cost 30% more, because you can't buy single squads, only platoons. The Brit platoon costs 127 and the German one costs 129. The Brits get a 2 inch mortar and a PIAT in addition. The Germans get 4-5 fausts. The PIAT may be better, but worth 63% more firepower and the same number of shots? Hardly.

As for the pricing of the weapons, it is around 2.75 per rifle or SMG, 3.25 for MP 44s, 3.75 for BARs, 4.25 for Brens, and 7 for MG 42s. The extra squad cost is due to not the difference between an MG 42 and a Bren, but the difference between 2 MG 42s and 2 MP 44s, and 1 Bren and 3 rifles. The former cost 8 more points than the latter, and just those 4 weapons have more firepower than the whole British squad.

As I mentioned, the only automatic with anything like a significantly higher price is the MG 42, and its higher price stills falls far short of its higher firepower. It is priced like 2.5 rifles. Anybody think an MG 42 is only worth 2.5 rifles?

More to the point, 2 MG 42s and 2 MP 44s have such high firepower because they are high ROF automatics. The MG 42 fp is far above that of the Bren because it is a belt fed MG with more than twice the cyclic rate of fire. The firepower of the MP 44 is far above that of the Enfield because it is an automatic rifle firing 30 round clips.

Well guess what? Firing multiple 50-100 rounds belts and 30 rounds clips burns a lot more ammo a lot faster than one 30 round clip Bren and 3 bolt action rifles. That is where the 63% higher firepower of the German platoon comes from. But do they run through their ammo 1.63 times as fast? They do not. For all the world as though they were shooting straighter instead of faster.

Now, adopt my tweak and give the almost pure rifle British squad 50 shots, and leave the half automatic German one with 40. Have I made rifles more powerful than MP 44s? I have not. I have only made the German platoon's edge 30% in firepower over whole ammo load (1.63 per shot x .8 number of shots = 1.3), while leaving it 63% in firepower per shot. The more expensive squad type still gets more absolute firepower, and dishes it out faster. Just not 5/3rds as much on the first score.

The difference is more pronounced with the pure automatic squad types, like the VG SMG platoon. It costs not more than the British rifle platoon, but 27% less. You can buy 4 VG SMG platoons, with 112 men, for the cost of 3 British rifle platoons, with 114. The former has 8 MG 42s, vs 9 Brens for the latter. The former also has a whopping 96 SMGs, vs. 12 for the latter. Even at medium range, 100 meters, the former has 38% more firepower. At 40m it is an obscence 2.23 times. But hey, in return the Brits get 3 2 inch mortars, so it is fair, right?

Now, give the pure automatic Germans 30 rounds of ammo per squad, and the mostly rifle Brits 50. Then at 100m, the Germans still dish out 38% more firepower per unit time, but the Brits have 21% more firepower over their respective full ammo loads. At 40m, the Germans still have 34% more fp over their whole ammo load, in addition to the still present 2.23 times fp per unit time, which will break or buzz saw the Brits, preventing replies to use the extra British ammo, if the Germans get that close. But at least they do have to get close to make the SMGs pay. Right now they can sit at 100m and outshoot rifles with SMGs, not just in fp per minute, but before running low on ammo.

The ammo tweak is balancing and well thought out. It makes perfect sense. It is a moderate measure, not anything extreme. It is regrettable there is no easy way to impliment it in QBs - it can be done but requires a 3rd party "ump" to set the scenario. The opposition to it stems mostly from people who want to eat their cake and have it, from people who haven't examined the issue, from sheer contrariness opposed to any sensible improvement, or anything certain people support.

The acid test of genuineness in opposition is a willingness to live with what one defends as fair. If you cut, I choose. Those opposed to the ammo tweak should be willing to give their opponents choice of side, and make due with the rifle armed Allies they claim are not disadvantaged by the present state of things. If they aren't willing to, it is because they don't believe their own arguments, and just want to defend what they know is an unwarranted edge for the unit types they prefer themselves.

[mchlstrt]

I just read this thread & think it's worthwhile, had to add my 2. Notwithstanding JasonC's bedside manner he is a smart & thoughtful guy who has a point I agree with. I was just frowning about the ammo loadout thing myself in my last game, & I had all the SMG squads. I'm an AI battlin' guy, so I'm not really qualified to comment on the price part of it, but I've been aware of ithe ammo part long enough to believe it would be a good idea to have standardized into CMBB if possible. I might give the Heavy SMG Squads a little more to account for the xtra long range work I give 'em, but I'm already starting to talk myself out of that.

[xerxes]

JasonC's ammo adjustment is an excellent recommendation and nobody has even really tried to argue against it's realism or game balancing effects.

I always adjust ammo in my scenarios and I appreciate sensible ammo adjustment in scenarios I play.

The only problem is it's a pain to go in and edit all those ammo loadouts. Too bad you can't just make it global when editing.

'nuff said.

-marc s

[Redwolf]

I commented on the scheme last time it came up, I think it is worthwhile. Unfortunately most scenario designers are not really willing to follow recommendations like these "as they are for gamey player only anyway" or something like that. Same issue with the number of victory flags.

My last post in this thread was merely meant to say, yes the pure SMG squads and Gebirgsjaeger are way off and broken in the game sense, but the expensive squads like Fallschirmjaeger or Panzergrenadiere have a price that may be too low depending on what you count, but I can certainly live with it. The argument that you can't count a squad-internal MG42 as a standalone one because of all the squad-typical dangers it has to face leads my idea of a "right" price for these squads into a lower region than Jason's anyway.

I would have to dig up my recommendations for British play from former threads, they include the Cromwells which are fast and have good going in difficult ground, 3" mortars, 5.5" arty, especially VT, the Wasp and MMG carriers, 17pdr tanks but certainly not the ROF-broken 25pdr. A realistic weather mix also makes the British look better, the Axis infantry can't close the range fast enough in mud and snow and the StuGIII variants including the StuH have very tough going - or not, at least not for long )

[ March 23, 2002, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[dieseltaylor]

Yep

Jason C has expressed the point well [as always] - differential ammo loads would seem to be fair both as a balancing mechanism and as a reflection of actuality

[JasonC]

I am glad some people like the idea. I think two things would make it easier to make such tweaks.

One, it would be great to have a global setting in the QB and scenario header screens, "abundant ammo" and "scarce ammo". The former would give +25% to all ammo loads, the latter -25%. Like the handicap in point terms, quality level settings, etc. Designers would make more use of that I think.

And two, an interface trick from another game. Have the moves of the ammo setting jump in 5 point increments if "shift" is held down at the same time as the left click. Jump to the maximum or the minimum if "ctrl" is held down. Those would make it much less tendious to tweak ammo levels, especially when combined with the previous. It would be a matter of 2-3 mouse clicks per unit instead of left-click-holds and corrections back the other way, etc.

For what it is worth.