Modifier(s) for Semi-Automatic Rifles?

[mursolini]

On the tanks, a medium tank is an entirely different weapon than a light tank.

Armor classification is very far from ironclad. Game has separation mostly for armor value and speed, which is good enough.

You are wrong. The British trialled and rejected the Garand. The difference between the US converting to the Garand and the UK rejecting the Garand in favour of updating the Enfield wasn't that the Garand was a much better rifle than the Garand, it was the difference in requirements and strategic situation between the countries making the choice.

Am I? If so, do tell me, what were the major complaints about Soviet SVT-38 and German G41, that prevented mass adoption. Especially SVT-38, since when that design debuted, SU was in same position as US. At peace, at no real threat, and having enormous reserve of older rifles. Instead, they started manufacturing SVT-40 when war in Europe was already ongoing. Oh and G43, also entering service late in war.

As for Brits, well, they decided to maintain their own armor, despite better and more numerous American tanks available. Germans captured hundreds of thousands of SVT-40, decided against mass-producing it. Same goes for a number of foreign designs of armor, and planes, and Garand wasn`t exception for that. Simply adopting foreign weapon usually was a desperate case, to be avoided.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

The whole point of this discussion is ignoring a very important point: semi-auto rifles a re a weapon used at the Squad-level, while infantry equipment represents a catch-all for Battalion-level. The effectiveness of an infantryman's rifle is vastly less-significant at the battalion level (considering the reliability of standard bolt-action rifles like the Lee-Enfield or KAR 98) as opposed to the effectiveness of its anti-tank weapons, machine guns, or mortars.

For instance, an American infantry battalion's infantry equipment in 1944 consisted, excluding small arms, of 20 .30cal lmgs, 6x .50 hmgs, 9x60mm mortars, 8x81mm mortars, and 26 bazookas. At the squad level, you're looking at something like 9 M1 garands, an M1A1 carbine, an M1 Thompson, and a BAR (give or take a few depending on squad makeup). I'm having trouble getting the same stats for 1936 or 1939 equipment (the US Army unhelpfully barely existed in 1936), but you're often looking at almost 100% bolt-action rifles in infantry squads, and far fewer machine guns and mortars per squad (although infantry guns were proliferated oftentimes instead). More importantly, AT rockets didn't exist yet, and AT rifles were still fairly rudimentary in 1936 (most infantry had to rely on hand-held explosives like mines or AT grenades instead).

Then consider that a US squad with semi-auto rifles compared to a German squad with one or two LMGs as opposed to an autorifle evens out the firepower difference pretty drastically, and that certain nations had preference for different types of equipment throughout the war (such as the Soviets making larger numbers of SMGs than the Germans, who fielded large numbers of LMGs). Similarly, differences in the capabilities of something like a German battalion's 150mm infantry guns compared to American or British mortar sections are hard to nail down to anywhere specific.

Then consider the simple question of how to represent the above concerns within 13 technologies, representing the gap from 1918 to 1944 (not including night fighting). At some point, the strategic implications of semi-automatic rifles are fairly insignificant when you consider that the game doesn't represent such massive divisions as light versus heavy AT (37-57mm versus 75-128mm), artillery (75mm versus 150mm), or AA (20mm versus 90mm). Battleship guns are all equated as identical despite ENORMOUS divisions between something like a 281mm c/34 German gun and an American 16-inch Mk.IV gun (281mm has half the explosive power of most 305mm guns, let alone 406mm ones). Tank destroyers and SPGs don't upgrade with artillery tech, while regular guns do (i.e. 1918 artillery still benefits from the passive buffs in artillery research). The Bf 109 is technologically comparable to such awe-inspiring fighters as the I-16 (no supercharger, low speed, minimal power), the P-36 (obsolete before the war started), and the Hurricane (which deliberately avoided 109s in the Battle of Britain).

I'm not suggesting that small arms aren't impactful enough to affect the soft attack of a division, but I'd argue that the existing "Infantry Equipment" techs already represent a whole doctrinal shift rather than one or two upgrades. Infantry equipment upgrades show the proliferation of man-portable AT, automatic weapons, and explosives more than just the equipment of infantry squads.

 

[Vasious]

Given Infantry equipment is for everything in a battalion as opposed to a specific piece of Kit, I usually assume, ditto to support equipment.

Infantry equipment technology level + Support Equipment Technology level + Land Doctrine would then be what would actually determines what the soldiers are issued.

So a Country with Infantry equipment Tech II, Support Equipment II and Grand battle Plan will be equipping their infantry different from a Country with Infantry equipment Tech II, Support Equipment II and Mobile Warfare or a Country with Infantry equipment Tech II, Support Equipment II and Superior Fire Power.

And the choice of number of SMG and LMGs SLR etc will come in there somewhere rather than a single tech

 

[Ffire]

When you look at infantry efficiency, the german doctrine (emphasing around the squad LMG) proved far better

"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."
source : American military analysts Col. Trevor Dupuy and Martin Van Creveld

Parts of their work, which is a statistical review, had been criticized, but that conclusion was never really contested. That level of performance was reached during the late phase of the war, with a german infantry cleary less trained than in 1940. The UK and US infantry was very well trained and supplied, so there's no other explanation than doctrine and equipment. The germans fared even better against the poorly trained soviet infantry, with casualties ratio consistently 4 to 1 until early 45 (after that, they really collapsed).

So there's not much need to bla-bla about semi auto vs bolt action, what's really matters in WW2 era is the squad machine gun and it's pratical rate of fire (which depends from multiple factor, cooling, ease to replace the barrel, ease to reload). And german's machineguns designs where far better than any other nations.

 

[King Of Heroes]

Is it possible to make equipment enhance effectiveness of combat tactics ingame?

I know some of it might be a requirement in the first place for the tactic to even be considered by the game but what about applying modifiers to the tactics themselves?

For example if you have more modern Infantry Kits your infantry battalions get a stronger during Close Combat and Assault phase, if you have more/better artillery you get better performance from the Artillery related tactics like Suppressive barrage and Overwhelming Fire.

 

[Zwirbaum]

Is it possible to make equipment enhance effectiveness of combat tactics ingame?

I know some of it might be a requirement in the first place for the tactic to even be considered by the game but what about applying modifiers to the tactics themselves?

For example if you have more modern Infantry Kits your infantry battalions get a stronger during Close Combat and Assault phase, if you have more/better artillery you get better performance from the Artillery related tactics like Suppressive barrage and Overwhelming Fire.

Having better and more modern equipment gives better base stats, which in turn are modified by tactics, so you get better performance.

Applying modifiers to tactics would also be quite problematic and messy IMO.

 

[SophieX]

When you look at infantry efficiency, the german doctrine (emphasing around the squad LMG) proved far better

"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances (emphasis in original). This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost."
source : American military analysts Col. Trevor Dupuy and Martin Van Creveld

Parts of their work, which is a statistical review, had been criticized, but that conclusion was never really contested. That level of performance was reached during the late phase of the war, with a german infantry cleary less trained than in 1940. The UK and US infantry was very well trained and supplied, so there's no other explanation than doctrine and equipment. The germans fared even better against the poorly trained soviet infantry, with casualties ratio consistently 4 to 1 until early 45 (after that, they really collapsed).

So there's not much need to bla-bla about semi auto vs bolt action, what's really matters in WW2 era is the squad machine gun and it's pratical rate of fire (which depends from multiple factor, cooling, ease to replace the barrel, ease to reload). And german's machineguns designs where far better than any other nations.

Agree, but i have one point to add; a very important point in my opinion. ( regarding: ... so there's no other explanation than doctrine and equipment.)

I read both books ( "genius of war" and "fightingpower" ); both Authors you mentioned, gave a huge "weight" to Leadership in combination with "Auftragstaktik"
( literally means "mission-tactic" but it is more complex and there is no english terminus for this ).
Sadly a point which can't be mirrored well in a game.....

 

[Zauberelefant]

Agree, but i have one point to add; a very important point in my opinion. ( regarding: ... so there's no other explanation than doctrine and equipment.)

I read both books ( "genius of war" and "fightingpower" ); both Authors you mentioned, gave a huge "weight" to Leadership in combination with "Auftragstaktik"
( literally means "mission-tactic" but it is more complex and there is no english terminus for this ).
Sadly a point which can't be mirrored well in a game.....

Simple: create an efficiency modifier called "trained NCO" or similar, give the German doctrine a boost for it, done.

 

[SophieX]

Simple: create an efficiency modifier called "trained NCO" or similar, give the German doctrine a boost for it, done.

I did that since the first version of HoiIV was released by modifying the base stats like org, morale, army_attack, etc . in the "general staff" spirit

I should have written: "Sadly a point which can't be mirrored exactly in a game....."

 

[Ffire]

Agree, but i have one point to add; a very important point in my opinion. ( regarding: ... so there's no other explanation than doctrine and equipment.)

I read both books ( "genius of war" and "fightingpower" ); both Authors you mentioned, gave a huge "weight" to Leadership in combination with "Auftragstaktik"
( literally means "mission-tactic" but it is more complex and there is no english terminus for this ).
Sadly a point which can't be mirrored well in a game.....

Auftragstaktik is one factor, but, doctrinally speaking, the main reason imho is Wehrkreis system (Wehrkreis = military region). Each Wehrkreis was responsible for recruiting, drafting, training and mobilizing German soldiers for an army division. It also provided replacement. In the Wehrmacht batalions were raised, trained, and sent to rest at once. So all soldiers would come from the same place, speak the same regional languages, share the same traditions. When a replacement rejoin the batalion, he will find neighbourn, friends, even family and be quickly integrated. Wounded are not replaced if they are able to recover. The German army prefered to keep units understrenght rather than adding external manpower. In the US army, a wounded soldier that recovered from his injuries was sent in a random unit (except if he ran away illegaly to join his original unit).

That allowed the german small units to be based around groups of soldiers (that are called in studies primary groups) within individuals rwere bounded together, trusted themselves and would risk their lifes for each others. Those primary groups are essential to an unit cohesion and efficiency. The idea behind that is described in the Steven Spielberg series "Band of brothers" and "the pacific" (masterpieces that anyone who is interested in fighting during ww2 should watch). In the US army, units like the big red one, the infamous 101th and 82th airborne divisions outperformed any other units because they were created and trained long enough for those primary groups to naturally form. Units raised later did not respect those rules and performed poorly. The soviet army tried the same approach, but casualties rates were so high that primary groups never had time to form.

 

[King Of Heroes]

Having better and more modern equipment gives better base stats, which in turn are modified by tactics, so you get better performance.

Applying modifiers to tactics would also be quite problematic and messy IMO.

The idea behind it is that specific battalions would be buffed more than others from the battle situation.

And I just realized that is something I completely neglected mentioning too

Making it messier and more chaotic is the intention behind my suggestion

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

So there's not much need to bla-bla about semi auto vs bolt action, what's really matters in WW2 era is the squad machine gun and it's pratical rate of fire

Correct, but didn't want to address this as it complicates the original question. Since you have an understanding, let me pose a different question then. Should the squad, based on a LMG, have different combat values if they are armed with semi-automatic rifles instead of bolt-action rifles? Please ignore the national differences. We want an apple to apple comparison.

Auftragstaktik is one factor, but, doctrinally speaking, the main reason imho is Wehrkreis system (Wehrkreis = military region). Each Wehrkreis was responsible for recruiting, drafting, training and mobilizing German soldiers for an army division. It also provided replacement. In the Wehrmacht batalions were raised, trained, and sent to rest at once. So all soldiers would come from the same place, speak the same regional languages, share the same traditions. When a replacement rejoin the batalion, he will find neighbourn, friends, even family and be quickly integrated. Wounded are not replaced if they are able to recover. The German army prefered to keep units understrenght rather than adding external manpower. In the US army, a wounded soldier that recovered from his injuries was sent in a random unit (except if he ran away illegaly to join his original unit).

Could not the same be said for the British regimental system?

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

Auftragstaktik is one factor, but, doctrinally speaking, the main reason imho is Wehrkreis system (Wehrkreis = military region). Each Wehrkreis was responsible for recruiting, drafting, training and mobilizing German soldiers for an army division. It also provided replacement. In the Wehrmacht batalions were raised, trained, and sent to rest at once. So all soldiers would come from the same place, speak the same regional languages, share the same traditions. When a replacement rejoin the batalion, he will find neighbourn, friends, even family and be quickly integrated. Wounded are not replaced if they are able to recover. The German army prefered to keep units understrenght rather than adding external manpower. In the US army, a wounded soldier that recovered from his injuries was sent in a random unit (except if he ran away illegaly to join his original unit).

That allowed the german small units to be based around groups of soldiers (that are called in studies primary groups) within individuals rwere bounded together, trusted themselves and would risk their lifes for each others. Those primary groups are essential to an unit cohesion and efficiency. The idea behind that is described in the Steven Spielberg series "Band of brothers" and "the pacific" (masterpieces that anyone who is interested in fighting during ww2 should watch). In the US army, units like the big red one, the infamous 101th and 82th airborne divisions outperformed any other units because they were created and trained long enough for those primary groups to naturally form. Units raised later did not respect those rules and performed poorly. The soviet army tried the same approach, but casualties rates were so high that primary groups never had time to form.

Correct, but didn't want to address this as it complicates the original question. Since you have an understanding, let me pose a different question then. Should the squad, based on a LMG, have different combat values if they are armed with semi-automatic rifles instead of bolt-action rifles? Please ignore the national differences. We want an apple to apple comparison.



Could not the same be said for the British regimental system?

As I understand it, the British stopped doing this after several WWI units from a single community were wiped out, which effectively destroyed their home communities. The idea works a bit better when you don't have massive casualties.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

As I understand it, the British stopped doing this after several WWI units from a single community were wiped out, which effectively destroyed their home communities.

Interesting. I thought it was something still in place after WWII. In the 80's, the US Army tried the COHORT (cohesion, operational readiness, training) program. Intended to keep troops together in company blocks from basic. While combat experience should the value of this, the program was killed by paper bullets.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

I might be conflating something more specific to the general idea, since a "military district" for recruitment is a vague term that could be a fairly large region (i.e. Bavaria) rather than smaller communities (the British system I referred to was the "Pals Battalions", which was cancelled after the Somme offensive both killed whole communities and left them incapable of supplying replacements to the battalions in the first place). The above system is a more-conventional idea for keeping troops together, but that focuses on troops after recruitment rather than before.

 

[Ffire]

Correct, but didn't want to address this as it complicates the original question. Since you have an understanding, let me pose a different question then. Should the squad, based on a LMG, have different combat values if they are armed with semi-automatic rifles instead of bolt-action rifles? Please ignore the national differences. We want an apple to apple comparison.

Ofc having an auto weapon (or semi-auto) is an improvment over a bolt action rifle. There's a reason why every nations tried to give their soldiers more auto weapons. But mostly those where SMGs.
Atm in game you have two distinct research to improve infantry weapons. First line is about collective weapons like squad LMG, mortars (and should include field guns). Second ligne is about individual weapons (rifles, SMG, and even assault rifles for germany).
Only the second line requires a production change. That second line also improve infantry performance much more than the first one.

Atm going from one infantry tech to another does not resume to switching from bolt action rifle to semi-auto.

Now, if you want to be more specific, and add a modifier for switching from bolt action to semi-auto (and maybe later going to assault rifle / shorter cartridge), you should add another tech line and modifier (and a bigger one) for going to a new generation of machineguns, and another one for your sub-machine guns. Imho that's useless complexity.
If you want to keep one tech for all of that, the use of semi-auto rifles isn't what should justify a step up to a new tech by itself (soviet as an example choose to evolve their smg rather than other individual weapons, germans where more about LMG, and the war was over before assault rifles were used in great numbers).
Imho the design choice of Paradox to talk about a generic "infantry weapons" 1918/36/40 etc... is clever. They choose some examples of weapons to illustrate those tech (which aren't very relevant, garand isn't a 1936 tech, neither is PPD or MP38) and that confused many players about what's a new infantry tech in game is