Modifier(s) for Semi-Automatic Rifles?

[Shaka of Carthage]

What are people's thoughts on having a modifier for semi-automatic rifles vs bolt-action rifles. Do you think there should be one?

If so, what kind of modifier and why?

Thinking specifically of the US M1 Garand. But lets not forget that at a squad level, the US was at a serious disadvantage in that its automatic weapon was the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) compared to a Light Machine Gun (LMG) like the British Bren or Soviet DP. And yes, I am intentionally not mentioning the German MG 34, as that is a whole different discussion.

 

[KDEstroy]

The modifier is represented by the support weapons and improved infantry equipment technologies.

Infantry technology - Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

hoi4.paradoxwikis.com

The description does not specifically mention semi-automatic weapons, but they do mention assault rifles and machine guns.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

The modifier is represented by the support weapons and improved infantry equipment technologies.

I don't agree with that. Infantry Equipment covers rifles, not Support Equipment. I believe the Support is a representation of Heavy Infantry weapons, like heavy machine guns, the larger mortars, etc.

 

[sekelsenmat]

I don't agree with that. Infantry Equipment covers rifles, not Support Equipment. I believe the Support is a representation of Heavy Infantry weapons, like heavy machine guns, the larger mortars, etc.

No, it isn't. The Field Hospital costs "30 support equipment", why would it require heavy machine guns? Same for Logistics Company, Signal Company, etc.

"Support equipment" is non-weapons miscellaneous goods, like hospital surgery tools, radios, etc.

"Infantry Equipment" is precisely what "Semi-auto rifles" are. Unfortunately almost all equipment is bundled into two techs without much realism. The only realist part is the extra tech for anti-tank bazookas. I wish the base techs also had such ramifications. Ideally they would also add cost to the equipment to represent the increased stuff for the kit.

 

[Zauberelefant]

It's hard to gauge whether the M1 was a way better weapon than the K98 or Lee Enfield. The higher rate of fire may be vital in close combat, then again, grenades, entrenchment tools and support fire were probably more important. On standard firing range, I don't think it really mattered when comparing trained riflemen, but I am no shooting person, so that's a guess.

But I've never come across any hard data that would support different stats on the scope of hoi4.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

No, it isn't. The Field Hospital costs "30 support equipment", why would it require heavy machine guns? Same for Logistics Company, Signal Company, etc.

"Support equipment" is non-weapons miscellaneous goods, like hospital surgery tools, radios, etc.

Agree, in the base game. My statement was influenced by my mod(s).

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

But I've never come across any hard data that would support different stats on the scope of hoi4.

Same with me. No hard data to support a change in HoI4. When you compare submachine gun usage, specifically the Soviet PPsh, you get increased supply consumption, but no increase in effectiveness (ie soft attack) at the scale of HoI4.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Same with me. No hard data to support a change in HoI4. When you compare submachine gun usage, specifically the Soviet PPsh, you get increased supply consumption, but no increase in effectiveness (ie soft attack) at the scale of HoI4.

I guess the weapon of the infantryman is just used to its best abilities then. And tactics are then adjusted.

 

[sekelsenmat]

Same with me. No hard data to support a change in HoI4. When you compare submachine gun usage, specifically the Soviet PPsh, you get increased supply consumption, but no increase in effectiveness (ie soft attack) at the scale of HoI4.

Isn't the submachine gun significantly superior in close-quarters situations like urban and trenches (when already in the melee part)? While inferior at long-ranged duels like in hills/mountains.

I think the game should have combat phases during a day, something like:

* dawn -> 1-3 hours of artillery duel
* morning -> one side advances exposed to enemy fire (the exposed side takes more casualties depending on it's cover possibilities)
* mid-day -> Close-quarters fight (both sides do about equal damage)
* second half of the day -> Depending on the tactic it could be another advance+close quarters for more speed oriented tactics, or long-range file + artillery, or even a counter-attack

I'd split provinces in "10-flags", when attacking one sides starts with 2 and the defender with 8, the province is taken when 1 side has all 10.

Also there is the whole question that plains are actually a terrible terrain for infantry to advance, unlike in the game. Just read any war account. Open plains are a death trap for advancing infantry, they get mowed down by machine guns, or even rifle fire. Just like in beaches. Forests lead to ambush opportunities but also provide cover for advancing infantry, so they take less loses. Urban terrains were extremely hard to fight, they should decrease the power of artillery and tanks significantly, so the casualties were about equal in urban duals nearly always.

Unfortunately the game doesn't allow for radical changes in land & sea combat like I have in mind, so there is no way to test if my ideas would end up more realistic then the current system...

Back to the original question of the thread, I think it would be a great addition to the game if "Infantry Equipment" was split into 2 things "Support Weapons" meaning mortars, machine-guns, bazookas, etc, and "Rifles". An infantry battalion would require both, but you could also train a Militia with only rifles.

 

[Yanotoshi]

I am not expert, what I guess I based on movies and my own army swrvice.
In most movies, every platoon fields a various mix of infantry weapons like in "Band of Brothers" M1 Garand and Thompson mixed with a support machine gun and mortars.
In my army service, a group of 8 were equipped with G36 rifle plus one guy carried the additional MG3. Our group leader fielded an UZI.
Going back to WW2, the mix of weapons covers best all terrains and situationsof combat. Some may assault while others cover.
If you do large scale assault, select all the guys withs MPs from your military unit,give them all the grenades from their comrades and use the rest as good as possible.
The other way round, on distance combat, the MP guys do spot, help wounded ones or carry ammo.

 

[Spelaren]

They could make assault rifles give an big advantage over regular guns. So for example USSR rushing that tech would be very potent indeed versus someone NOT having assault rifles for every man.

 

[Flipity]

i think some of you are confusing this game with a tactical game. This is a grand strategy game. The addition of semi auto weapons is already baked into the game under the upgrade of infantry equipment and doesn't need to be added.

 

[Zauberelefant]

i think some of you are confusing this game with a tactical game. This is a grand strategy game. The addition of semi auto weapons is already baked into the game under the upgrade of infantry equipment and doesn't need to be added.

My feeling exactly. It's not like the US boys exactly wiped the floor with the "obsolete equipment" germans.
Hell, the Vietcong used Mauser K98 vs the French and won - 10 years after the war.

 

[Vlad123]

The Vietcong carried out guerrillas. In conventional warfare they would have been wiped out. At the beginning of WW2 everyone had old rifles (even members of the allies) ditto tanks (perhaps only Germany in 39/40 had something better) Italy was as strong as weapons of the 30, unfortunately its update came late. Example the Breda 30 was a great weapon, but not in the desert, because every bullet was covered in oil and jammed in the desert due to the sand. The p40 and other wagons arrived late also because it was not clear whether they wanted to make their own or licensed German productions. everyone's idea that "France surrenders, UK demands surrender"). Returning to weapons, if I remember the games of the Medal of honor series and the first Call of duty, brothers in arms, each team you met with enemies had at least 1-2 armed with Mp40 (even if we are talking about 44) the others of k98 (sometimes with optics) others with gewer43 (or G41 before) which was a semi-automatic rifle (the k98 and the G98 have a sliding shutter or better "bolt action") the m40 is better than the m38 because it is easier production ... if you do a quick search on wikipedia you can see all the WW2 weapons and the various soldiers of the various nations, they often had a mix (especially the puppet states that had a mix of their own and those of the overlord / overlord allies).

 

[Orlunu]

i think some of you are confusing this game with a tactical game. This is a grand strategy game. The addition of semi auto weapons is already baked into the game under the upgrade of infantry equipment and doesn't need to be added.

You are missing something here, though. The decisions made for production were strategic in nature. With the above-mentioned Garand the US introduced a semi-auto as the standard infantry rifle well before others did - this was not because they had better tech, but because they were willing to spend a great deal more money on individual soldier equipment relative to the effect. Britain, Japan, and probably most of the other majors had trialled semi-autos in the mid '30s but had essentially rejected them on these grounds. That is a major strategic decision.

The Soviets, in making the switch to the Papasha and PPS, again, made a strategic level choice. Many infantry units were decisively altered in their capabilities and manner of combat, and not simply on the basis of better technology, but on the basis of doctrinal and economic decisions.

While Germany was setting up production of the STG, they were also setting up new production of bolt-action rifles; while the STG was far better on a per-item basis, both of these still had a strategic reason for inclusion.



The addition of different types of weapons may well be baked into the game already under the upgrade of infantry equipment, but this is an entirely inadequate protrayal. You may as well just mush the medium and light tank lines together and say "oh, well, the development of medium tanks is already portrayed by the upgrade of the cavalry tank equipment".

 

[Timmysoboy]

From what I understand, self-loading rifles effectively rendered bolt guns obsolete, so it is a significant development.

orlunu is right that it was a matter of investment. France particularly dragged their feet in weapons development, and had a self-loader in production only right before capitulation.

If weapons 2 represents only bolt guns, then there should be an optional weapons 2.5 that eats more equipment, but is better. That being said, I believe infantry_equipment represents the full load-out of an infantry squad (platoon?; I did quick math once, it’s definitely not by soldier), so self-loading rifles should be abstracted within the general infantry equipment. Maybe give an NF to Soviets and Americans to make Weapons 2 better, but even then I think it would be splitting too many hairs.

My source is mostly Forgotten Weapons on YouTube. I understand it isn’t academic, but I trust his research includes a healthy amount of rigor.

 

[Zauberelefant]

You are missing something here, though. The decisions made for production were strategic in nature. With the above-mentioned Garand the US introduced a semi-auto as the standard infantry rifle well before others did - this was not because they had better tech, but because they were willing to spend a great deal more money on individual soldier equipment relative to the effect. Britain, Japan, and probably most of the other majors had trialled semi-autos in the mid '30s but had essentially rejected them on these grounds. That is a major strategic decision.

The Soviets, in making the switch to the Papasha and PPS, again, made a strategic level choice. Many infantry units were decisively altered in their capabilities and manner of combat, and not simply on the basis of better technology, but on the basis of doctrinal and economic decisions.

While Germany was setting up production of the STG, they were also setting up new production of bolt-action rifles; while the STG was far better on a per-item basis, both of these still had a strategic reason for inclusion.



The addition of different types of weapons may well be baked into the game already under the upgrade of infantry equipment, but this is an entirely inadequate protrayal. You may as well just mush the medium and light tank lines together and say "oh, well, the development of medium tanks is already portrayed by the upgrade of the cavalry tank equipment".

I contest this position. Your comparison would hold true if you compared a musket to a bolt action rifle.
The Garand was a technically better weapon, but it wasn't a gamechanger to infantry combat as the Assault rifles later on. Reasons were the clip being too small, the rifle being designed for ranges up to 500m (5 times the distance actual firing took place), etc.

A medium tank of 1942/43 is something entirely different from a light tank. It's impervious to anything not dedicated to tank busting, capable of engaging any target it finds and still mobile.

Hence, it makes perfect sense for hoi4 to differentiate between tanks, but not between bolt action and semi auto rifles.

The soviets switched to purely machine pistol fornations for the reasons mentioned above: fighting distance was shorter than anticipated, weight of fire was more important, mobility of firepower was vital.
The Germans tackled that with Sturmgewehr/light machine gun units.

The US did it with semi auto rifle and inadequate automatic rifles.

The results were comparable, afaik.

 

[Flipity]

You are missing something here, though. The decisions made for production were strategic in nature. With the above-mentioned Garand the US introduced a semi-auto as the standard infantry rifle well before others did - this was not because they had better tech, but because they were willing to spend a great deal more money on individual soldier equipment relative to the effect. Britain, Japan, and probably most of the other majors had trialled semi-autos in the mid '30s but had essentially rejected them on these grounds. That is a major strategic decision.

The Soviets, in making the switch to the Papasha and PPS, again, made a strategic level choice. Many infantry units were decisively altered in their capabilities and manner of combat, and not simply on the basis of better technology, but on the basis of doctrinal and economic decisions.

While Germany was setting up production of the STG, they were also setting up new production of bolt-action rifles; while the STG was far better on a per-item basis, both of these still had a strategic reason for inclusion.



The addition of different types of weapons may well be baked into the game already under the upgrade of infantry equipment, but this is an entirely inadequate protrayal. You may as well just mush the medium and light tank lines together and say "oh, well, the development of medium tanks is already portrayed by the upgrade of the cavalry tank equipment".

why is it not adequate? that makes no sense whatsoever. Improved infantry weapons give you better soft attack. Thats all that is needed. There aren't any other modifiers that it would effect. Majors not investing in auto weapons is modeled by deciding whether to research Improved Weapons III. In, other words, everything you described in your post is already modeled in the game.

Also, your caparison to light and medium tanks is just silly and makes no sense. Comparing a 9 ton tank to a 22 ton tank is NOTHING like comparing soft attack infantry weapons.

Sound like Black Ice maybe the direction you should go if you want a bunch of needless equipment to produce.

 

[Flipity]

If weapons 2 represents only bolt guns, then there should be an optional weapons 2.5 that eats more equipment, but is better.

It is already in the game...its called Infantry Weapon 3. Why would you need a 2.5 as well?

 

[Zauberelefant]

From what I understand, self-loading rifles effectively rendered bolt guns obsolete, so it is a significant development.

orlunu is right that it was a matter of investment. France particularly dragged their feet in weapons development, and had a self-loader in production only right before capitulation.

If weapons 2 represents only bolt guns, then there should be an optional weapons 2.5 that eats more equipment, but is better. That being said, I believe infantry_equipment represents the full load-out of an infantry squad (platoon?; I did quick math once, it’s definitely not by soldier), so self-loading rifles should be abstracted within the general infantry equipment. Maybe give an NF to Soviets and Americans to make Weapons 2 better, but even then I think it would be splitting too many hairs.

My source is mostly Forgotten Weapons on YouTube. I understand it isn’t academic, but I trust his research includes a healthy amount of rigor.

Has anyone ever considered to manufacture Inf I like crazy as Germany, and inf II and III only in smaller numbers? Because that was the German decision, after all. Go cheap, go numbers.
Their plan was not to replace the K98 with Schmeissers (although they wanted to use StG44 instead of k98).
The US basically had Inf II when entering the war and stuck with it.
The soviets went from basic inf to Inf II quickly after the German attack.

If you think how the game uses techs and factories, I find little reason to change anything major. The problem might be that players enjoy ahistorical levels of industrial production, because you won't run out of infantry equipment when upgrading, while in reality, that was a major reason to stick to established designs.