Possible to make weapons or arty variants like tanks, planes and ships?

[McBeast]

Hi

I was just thinking about the possibility to make variants to artillery and infantry weapons? Or are you limited to ships, planes and tanks?

If not, would it be possible to mod it?

Kind regards McB

 

[LordOfWar16]

It was discuss several times already.

I personaly dont think that i makes much sense to put that in realisticly speaking. I dont see how those subtle changes would be enough for the scope of HoI IV. Overall, the major changes came from new weapon models, not adjustments. The main difference may be weight or length of the barrel in most cases. Other than that people seem to think of Weapons I, Weapons II and Weapons III as one weapon, when they are whole packs for the divisions, with everything included what the soilders may need, including different weapons (mgs, rifles sniper rifles, submachine guns etc) grenades, mortars, anti-tank equipment, clothing, etc.

Artillery gets upgrade via the research tree aswell, with researches for the barrel and ammunition after the main artillery research, i think.

For Vehicles it makes alot of sense actually. It takes very long to build them and it is very expensive. Other than that there is actualy room for alot of improvements. You could weld on an additional 50mm of armor for example. Swap the engine, upgrade the gun or change the internal layout to make the ammo rack less vurnable to fire for example. Or, of course, go different routes with your tank designs. The british for example had the concept of cruiser tanks (lightly armored fast tanks) and infantry tanks (slow tanks to keep up with the infantry and support them). That stuff simply doesnt apply to small arms on such an scale.

With that said i am sure that it will be modable if you really wanted it in.

 

[paulatreides0]

Changing regular artillery or individual small arms makes no real sense. The reason that the vehicle variant systems is that vehicles are inherently compromises of a bunch of different things that need to fit together to make a functioning vehicle - you need an engine (to move), a gun (to shoot), and armor (to keep you from getting dead). Vehicle design is thus the art of finding the balance between these three factors that best suits your doctrine and strategic/operational/tactical needs. You can make a vehicle lighter and thus use the saved weight to give it a bigger gun or just let it go faster - or you can take away the gun and give it tons of armor so it serves better as some kind of hardy support or transport vehicle.

This is not really so much true for guns or artillery. While compromises do still need to be made, they are not nearly the same kind of compromises. For example, what can you change about an artillery piece? Well, pretty much every change you can make to it is going to make a radically different artillery piece - even something as simple as making the barrel bigger introduces a lot of complexities into the machining and transportation of the gun. This is why field gun variations are very rare, if at all a thing. Small arms variations are far more common (e.g. carbines, sniper rifle conversions [M-14 EBR], fire mode conversions, etc.), but they are also relatively specialized and only really relevant within a specific tactical context and not a strategic or operational one, and are thus best left abstracted.

Thus things like small arms and artillery are best left abstracted to basic models that upgrade with tech, while vehicles can be customized to have specialized variants.

 

[fabius]

It was discuss several times already.

I personaly dont think that i makes much sense to put that in realisticly speaking. I dont see how those subtle changes would be enough for the scope of HoI IV. Overall, the major changes came from new weapon models, not adjustments. The main difference may be weight or length of the barrel in most cases. Other than that people seem to think of Weapons I, Weapons II and Weapons III as one weapon, when they are whole packs for the divisions, with everything included what the soilders may need, including different weapons (mgs, rifles sniper rifles, submachine guns etc) grenades, mortars, anti-tank equipment, clothing, etc.

Artillery gets upgrade via the research tree aswell, with researches for the barrel and ammunition after the main artillery research, i think.

For Vehicles it makes alot of sense actually. It takes very long to build them and it is very expensive. Other than that there is actualy room for alot of improvements. You could weld on an additional 50mm of armor for example. Swap the engine, upgrade the gun or change the internal layout to make the ammo rack less vurnable to fire for example. Or, of course, go different routes with your tank designs. The british for example had the concept of cruiser tanks (lightly armored fast tanks) and infantry tanks (slow tanks to keep up with the infantry and support them). That stuff simply doesnt apply to small arms on such an scale.

With that said i am sure that it will be modable if you really wanted it in.

I hear this, and completely agree.

However, 'Weapon' variant actually makes more sense when view it as a squad/platoon/company/battalion TOE.

So a layout similar to Weapons to keep things congruent for example could have:

1. Support weapons HMG's and mortars + (soft attack and defence increased)

2. Assault weapons (Light MGs smgs, grenades, flame throwers etc) soft attack and toughness increased + Urban/ Woods/ Forrest and Jungle attack

3. Anti tank + hard attack

4. Medic/equipement + casualty trickle back and morale.

 

[LordOfWar16]

I hear this, and completely agree.

However, 'Weapon' variant actually makes more sense when view it as a squad/platoon/company/battalion TOE.

So a layout similar to Weapons to keep things congruent for example could have:

1. Support weapons HMG's and mortars + (soft attack and defence increased)

2. Assault weapons (Light MGs smgs, grenades, flame throwers etc) soft attack and toughness increased + Urban/ Woods/ Forrest and Jungle attack

3. Anti tank + hard attack

4. Medic/equipement + casualty trickle back and morale.

but that is actually already covered by seperate technologies in the infantry tree.

Support Weapons are covered at the top row same with night fighting equipment on the right of them. After Weapons II you can branch off into the more advanced anti-tank weapons compared to the basic ones you have initially. That actually makes the variant feature for weapons even more misplaced in my oppinion, because the only reason for it is already covered with seperate technology.

As for Medical Equipment that is actually also covered by the field hospital support company.

 

[3ishop]

There's also the issue of how it reflects ingame. Most changes in infantry weapons were to easier to produce designs. It's hard to say how it would improve the units direct combat ability.

Reliability isn't as important with them due to their easier production, repair and on average higher reliability. There's a lot less parts that can go wrong on a rifle than a tank or ship.

AT weapons tended to be new designs than modifications of existing kit, and then it's improvements/refinements of them. Issue then still becomes how it would work as a varriant in game.

 

[jamesd]

I don't think that having variants of infantry weapons is worth it when each packet of weapons will already include a mix of rifles, SMGs, LMGs, mortars, grenades, mines and hand held AT weapons.

On the other hand, variants for artillery weapons makes a lot of sense as there was a tremendous variety of different types of guns in use by nations at the same time, all of them with their own purpose. Some are light field guns that provide mobile support to your troops and are useful for suppressing enemy positions, but lack a lot of destructive power against entrenchments. Others are the medium and heavy artillery, with less mobility than field guns but more range and more hitting power against entrenched defenders. Then there's the siege artillery, of very limited usefulness in defensive situations, but with the power to crack open concrete bunkers, a must for any large scale assault on the Maginot line or large cities. Seeing that we can build countless variants of multiple types of different light, medium and heavy tanks, I think its a must for different types of guns to be included, although it may be better to have them as separate techs/battalions rather than using the variant system.

 

[fabius]

but that is actually already covered by seperate technologies in the infantry tree.

Support Weapons are covered at the top row same with night fighting equipment on the right of them. After Weapons II you can branch off into the more advanced anti-tank weapons compared to the basic ones you have initially. That actually makes the variant feature for weapons even more misplaced in my oppinion, because the only reason for it is already covered with seperate technology.

As for Medical Equipment that is actually also covered by the field hospital support company.

Yeah I think that captures most of it.

But largely it captures new equipement- eg mg 34 to 42, faust to shrek say.

But Infantry is the by far the most numerous unit in game and so most important in it's own right.

Now there were changes that I think are not fully captured by equipment and doctrine tech. For example, German early to mid use of 2 MGs in squads. US larger squad sizes. Russian changes to much more numerous smgs, such as whole smg platoons.

Infantry variant could capture some of the history flavour and give some good gaming choices.

Eg Squad size. + increase manpower use, but more combat effective. Meanwhile, country short on manpower or infantry weapons could be reduce squad size for manpower benefit (but loose combat power)

As Russia we've up graded weapons via tech, fine but now factories and lend lease is kicking in we want are infantry more fully armed than as sparsely as some units thrown when we were desperate and made a reduced weapon template just to save Stalingrad.

As the US player- everything is set up fine- but we could get more oomp to infantry increase variant of infantry with more 30 Cal MGs rather than earlier doctrine of BAR being support. (Memory vague on US changes- I think something like this happened)

Late war loosing Germany. We have the teched to Faust 60, 100 and Shreks but as we have not much tanks we spam them in our quads ++

Make sense? Just think Infantry are the central unit to the game so the variant system could really add much to them.

 

[LordOfWar16]

@fabius in theory if you can edit the equipment for each nation seperately to vary the stats between nations one could probably make an more or less historical mod with unbalanced equipment etc for different nations. Overall, the war was anything but balanced. For the vanilla game i really like the somewhat balanced approach and i wouldnt really like if they changed that.

That said, there will be expansions for the game of course, so we will see what they will bring in. Capturing equipment or an sabotage system are some examples i would like to see for example.

 

[jamesd]

Yeah I think that captures most of it.

But largely it captures new equipement- eg mg 34 to 42, faust to shrek say.

But Infantry is the by far the most numerous unit in game and so most important in it's own right.

Now there were changes that I think are not fully captured by equipment and doctrine tech. For example, German early to mid use of 2 MGs in squads. US larger squad sizes. Russian changes to much more numerous smgs, such as whole smg platoons.

Infantry variant could capture some of the history flavour and give some good gaming choices.

Eg Squad size. + increase manpower use, but more combat effective. Meanwhile, country short on manpower or infantry weapons could be reduce squad size for manpower benefit (but loose combat power)

As Russia we've up graded weapons via tech, fine but now factories and lend lease is kicking in we want are infantry more fully armed than as sparsely as some units thrown when we were desperate and made a reduced weapon template just to save Stalingrad.

As the US player- everything is set up fine- but we could get more oomp to infantry increase variant of infantry with more 30 Cal MGs rather than earlier doctrine of BAR being support. (Memory vague on US changes- I think something like this happened)

Late war loosing Germany. We have the teched to Faust 60, 100 and Shreks but as we have not much tanks we spam them in our quads ++

Make sense? Just think Infantry are the central unit to the game so the variant system could really add much to them.

How about modding in heavy infantry battalions and changing the support equipment to be an actual production item rather than a modifier? The support weapons equip heavy infantry battalions and primarily represent HMG's and mortars. In general the heavy weapons battalions would be more expensive and more powerful, but also more defensive focused, meaning a country still needs riflemen to effectively use infantry divisions as offensive weapons.

In 1939 fully equipped German infantry regiments might be composed of 3 battalions of infantry (riflemen & 27 LMG's each) plus a battalion equivalent of heavy weapons (42 x HMG's, 27 lt mortars & 18 md mortars). In contrast the smaller British division of 1939 could have 9 battalions of infantry & up to 2 of heavy weapons (up to 48 HMG's, up to 108 lt mortars & up to 18 md mortars). By late war the German infantry regiment could be represented by one each infantry and heavy weapons battalions, reflecting the reduction from 3 battalions to 2, the reduction in strength of the infantry platoons and the increased allocation of belt-fed LMG's to rifle companies.

 

[fabius]

@fabius in theory if you can edit the equipment for each nation seperately to vary the stats between nations one could probably make an more or less historical mod with unbalanced equipment etc for different nations. Overall, the war was anything but balanced. For the vanilla game i really like the somewhat balanced approach and i wouldnt really like if they changed that.

That said, there will be expansions for the game of course, so we will see what they will bring in. Capturing equipment or an sabotage system are some examples i would like to see for example.

Adding variant infantry does not need to unbalance the game. Good lord, please say that variant tanks don't unbalance everything... Small stat changes with variants would suffice.

How about modding in heavy infantry battalions and changing the support equipment to be an actual production item rather than a modifier? The support weapons equip heavy infantry battalions and primarily represent HMG's and mortars. In general the heavy weapons battalions would be more expensive and more powerful, but also more defensive focused, meaning a country still needs riflemen to effectively use infantry divisions as offensive weapons.

In 1939 fully equipped German infantry regiments might be composed of 3 battalions of infantry (riflemen & 27 LMG's each) plus a battalion equivalent of heavy weapons (42 x HMG's, 27 lt mortars & 18 md mortars). In contrast the smaller British division of 1939 could have 9 battalions of infantry & up to 2 of heavy weapons (up to 48 HMG's, up to 108 lt mortars & up to 18 md mortars). By late war the German infantry regiment could be represented by one each infantry and heavy weapons battalions, reflecting the reduction from 3 battalions to 2, the reduction in strength of the infantry platoons and the increased allocation of belt-fed LMG's to rifle companies.

Heavy Infantry vs Light; Mechanised; motorised; early war vs mid and late war; expeditionary forces. There were many Toe in WW2. But ...

I will rephrase with my premises:

1. HoI 4 has a variant system for equipment that will affect units like Tank battalion stats
2. Infantry is the most numerous and central unit to the game, and war.
3. Infantry squads; platoons and battalions had variant Toe OOBs in real life that.
4. The variants in squad size, and amount of weapons are not optimally covered by equipment Tech in Hoi.
5. The variant system could cover it.
6. Adding an Infantry battalion variant system would add flavour, immersion, realism.
7. It need not unbalance the game.

examples.

A. Squad size. Low on manpower squad infantry understrength should get a combat minus. Reduce squad size to still get a minus but less so to org morale for having an 8-10 man squad only have 5 or 6.

B. Late war, low on tanks. Give infantry +1 or +2 quantity of hand held AT.

C. Manpower not an issue- have large squads like the USA did.

 

[Mannstien]

I wonder about Transport capability of the Para's, looks like you could put an Arty support in them at least but how can you or perhaps you don't have to tell what your transports are capable of carrying. I guess the same could be said for Marines but sounds like we'll get a DD on Amphib invasions.

 

[jamesd]

Adding variant infantry does not need to unbalance the game. Good lord, please say that variant tanks don't unbalance everything... Small stat changes with variants would suffice.



Heavy Infantry vs Light; Mechanised; motorised; early war vs mid and late war; expeditionary forces. There were many Toe in WW2. But ...

I will rephrase with my premises:

1. HoI 4 has a variant system for equipment that will affect units like Tank battalion stats
2. Infantry is the most numerous and central unit to the game, and war.
3. Infantry squads; platoons and battalions had variant Toe OOBs in real life that.
4. The variants in squad size, and amount of weapons are not optimally covered by equipment Tech in Hoi.
5. The variant system could cover it.
6. Adding an Infantry battalion variant system would add flavour, immersion, realism.
7. It need not unbalance the game.

examples.

A. Squad size. Low on manpower squad infantry understrength should get a combat minus. Reduce squad size to still get a minus but less so to org morale for having an 8-10 man squad only have 5 or 6.

B. Late war, low on tanks. Give infantry +1 or +2 quantity of hand held AT.

C. Manpower not an issue- have large squads like the USA did.

Just a historical point on C, the US did not have particularly big rifle units. The basic structure of their battalions was 3 rifle companies of 3 platoons of 3 squads of 12 men. The Germans in 40-43 normally had 3 companies of 3 platoons of 4 squads of 10 men (so more riflemen than the US). The British used 4 companies of 3 platoons of 3 sections of 8/11/10 men and for most of the war had more riflemen than US battalions. The Romanians up to 1941 had 3 companies of 3 platoons of 3 sections of 3 squads of 5-6 men for almost 50% more riflemen than the US. The Japanese had 4 companies of 3 platoons of 3 sections of 13 riflemen for more than 50% as many riflemen as the US. With men manning battalion support weapons and the US having additional personnel in the company HQ's the US, British & German battalions were similar in size for large parts of the war, but none of them were ever especially big in terms of manpower.

 

[fabius]

Just a historical point on C, the US did not have particularly big rifle units. The basic structure of their battalions was 3 rifle companies of 3 platoons of 3 squads of 12 men. The Germans in 40-43 normally had 3 companies of 3 platoons of 4 squads of 10 men (so more riflemen than the US). The British used 4 companies of 3 platoons of 3 sections of 8/11/10 men and for most of the war had more riflemen than US battalions. The Romanians up to 1941 had 3 companies of 3 platoons of 3 sections of 3 squads of 5-6 men for almost 50% more riflemen than the US. The Japanese had 4 companies of 3 platoons of 3 sections of 13 riflemen for more than 50% as many riflemen as the US. With men manning battalion support weapons and the US having additional personnel in the company HQ's the US, British & German battalions were similar in size for large parts of the war, but none of them were ever especially big in terms of manpower.

Early War German Infantry yes, '41- 42 had 4 squads of 10 men on their ToE.
But late look what they do with their Volks Grenadier structure. For sure less men, 3 squads of 9 per platoon. And Grenadier battalions

Three Rifle Companies (2 Officers, 143 men), each comprised of;
Company HQ (1 Officer, 11 men)
Company Train (13 men)
8-cm Mortar Section (21 men)
Three Rifle Platoons, each comprised of;
Platoon HQ (1 Officer or NCO, 5 men)
Three Rifle Squads, each comprised of 9 men
Total Strength of 720 all ranks (13 Officers and 707 men)

US Infantry '43 to 45

Three Rifle Companies (6 Officers, 187 men), each comprised of;
Company HQ (2 Officers, 33 men)
Weapons Platoon comprised of;
Platoon HQ (1 Officer, 5 men)
Mortar Section (17 men)
Machine Gun Section (12 men)
Three Rifle Platoons, each comprised of;
Platoon HQ (1 Officer, 4 men)
Three Rifle Squads, each comprised of 12 men
Total Strength of 871 all ranks (35 Officers and 836 men) * reduced by 11 men, June 1944

And their armoured infantry rocks in at 1001 compared to German's 850 up to '44 and 488 men in 1945.

But yes thanks you prompted me to recheck deeper and noticed the Germans changed to their 4 squads per platoon after their Poland experience. Then is seams they downsized late war, for the obvious reason...

 

[jamesd]

And their armoured infantry rocks in at 1001 compared to German's 850 up to '44 and 488 men in 1945.

But yes thanks you prompted me to recheck deeper and noticed the Germans changed to their 4 squads per platoon after their Poland experience. Then is seams they downsized late war, for the obvious reason...

Remember that the Germans had different establishments for motorised and mechanised infantry battalions, the mechanised being larger from memory. Also, keep in mind that the US Armored Infantry battalions are operating as independent battalions while the Germans are operating as part of a regiment, so the US battalions have some organic support that is at the regimental level for the Germans.

 

[fabius]

Remember that the Germans had different establishments for motorised and mechanised infantry battalions, the mechanised being larger from memory. Also, keep in mind that the US Armored Infantry battalions are operating as independent battalions while the Germans are operating as part of a regiment, so the US battalions have some organic support that is at the regimental level for the Germans.

Ah, yes that makes sense with their company ToE. But, I thought German on the ground squad size reduced for Mech as driver and gunner stayed with the track?

Also- replacements, the gaps in units from casualties etc give the larger US formations a little more slack with immediate/emergency refills.

Anyway, what do you reckon to having an infantry variant at some point?

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

So what exactly should be the stat choices for non-vehicle variants?

For artillery I was thinking:

Reliability, this seems to be a standard. In this particular case it would represent spare parts, carts, heavier rounds and propellant charges being taken account by supply system, beyond just sturdy equipment. Logistic investment per artillery piece essentially.

Bore*, increase should increase soft attack, breakthrough, some hard attack and defense, and maybe a bit of penetration. The offensive firepower increase.

Power**, representing increase of muzzle velocity. Increase should increase soft attack, penetration, defense, some breakthrough and hard attack. Defensive firepower increase.

Lightening, represents adoption of lighter carriages made possible due to more powerful recoil systems, alloy metals, and simply accepting higher stresses. Both the firepower increases should affect terrain modifiers since they result in heavier gun, this stat would allow you to counter those and also represent pack artillery if you focus on this.

With those it should be possible to represent average artillery park of majors and we wouldn't need to wonder what kind of artillery exactly is included under ingame "artillery". Japanese would focus on cheap and portable, Americans and Germans on bore, Russians would field lots of guns (as opposed to howitzers), while British would go for balance.

*/** A tentative suggestion, feel free to argue how to better represent these.

 

[jamesd]

Ah, yes that makes sense with their company ToE. But, I thought German on the ground squad size reduced for Mech as driver and gunner stayed with the track?

Also- replacements, the gaps in units from casualties etc give the larger US formations a little more slack with immediate/emergency refills.

Courtesy of the Bayonet Strength website, German armoured panzer grenadier battalions:
1942: 963 all ranks 1943: 1018 late 1943: 920 1944: 853 or 874 1945: 488

German motorised schutzen/panzer grenadier battalions:
1939: 958 or 1008 1941: 971 1943: 871 1944: 868 late 1944: 802 or 860

The regiment had an infantry gun company and from late 1943 a pioneer company to provide support to it's 2 battalions. Factoring in their manpower means that even in 1943 the German PzG Rgt has slightly more men than a pair of US Mechanised infantry battalions. Its only when the Germans reduce the size of their armoured PzG battalion in 1945 (probably due to shortage of half tracks as the motorised battalions stayed relatively strong) that the US mechanised infantry has a significant manpower advantage over them.

The German motorised infantry battalion of 1942 had 952 men.

Anyway, what do you reckon to having an infantry variant at some point?

The more I see of the variant system, not that's its been very much, the more I'm thinking that the game would be better off with a simple, single researchable upgrade to each tech that unlocks a new equipment item (and more distinct techs in the tank, plane & ship trees). The ability to research it could be unlocked by spending experience points. With research companies assigned, nations could end up with different stats for their equipment. This could apply to infantry weapons in the same way.

As I mentioned somewhere above, I I'd like to see heavy weapons as separate production items to the base infantry weapons. If they are produced separately, and the current variant system is applied to infantry equipment, that could allow players to assign more or less heavy weapons to different types of battalions. Say a standard battalion is 80 infantry weapons and 20 heavy weapons. Once the Germans start running out of manpower and switch their infantry to defensive tasks, they might produce a variant battalion of 60 infantry and 40 heavy weapons. This could also model different sized battalions, with say battalions of only 80 units of equipment. Thinking about this I think infantry weapons is the best place to use a variant system, but I wouldn't have 4 different stats that can be increased by 0-5 points, I'd just have infantry and heavy weapons with a total of between 50 & 100 and where heavy weapons can't be more than 50% of the total. Players could use experience to vary the size/composition of their standard battalions or create variants. Variant battalions would need to be separate from infantry battalions in the divisional template, so that a player can choose which type of battalion to assign rather than just having a one size fits all mentality. In such a fashion we could have small lightly equipped battalions for occupation duties, medium sized battalions packed with heavy weapons for static defence and larger more balanced battalions for normal campaigning.

 

[Axe99]

On the whole infantry (or arty, or anything else while we're here) variants, I think it would be fine in terms of representing a beefier set of infantry weapons, as long as the variant involves an increase in production cost where appropriate. So for things like technological advances (like semi-automatic weapons, or Antediluvian's suggestion of lighter arty carriages) there wouldn't necessarily be a cost, but for something like "more LMGs" or "larger bore" there would be.

That said, I do like JamesD's idea of heavy infantry battalions as well. If not in the base game, I have no doubt someone'll mod 'em in before too long .

 

[jamesd]

So what exactly should be the stat choices for non-vehicle variants?

For artillery I was thinking:

Reliability, this seems to be a standard. In this particular case it would represent spare parts, carts, heavier rounds and propellant charges being taken account by supply system, beyond just sturdy equipment. Logistic investment per artillery piece essentially.

Bore*, increase should increase soft attack, breakthrough, some hard attack and defense, and maybe a bit of penetration. The offensive firepower increase.

Power**, representing increase of muzzle velocity. Increase should increase soft attack, penetration, defense, some breakthrough and hard attack. Defensive firepower increase.

Lightening, represents adoption of lighter carriages made possible due to more powerful recoil systems, alloy metals, and simply accepting higher stresses. Both the firepower increases should affect terrain modifiers since they result in heavier gun, this stat would allow you to counter those and also represent pack artillery if you focus on this.

With those it should be possible to represent average artillery park of majors and we wouldn't need to wonder what kind of artillery exactly is included under ingame "artillery". Japanese would focus on cheap and portable, Americans and Germans on bore, Russians would field lots of guns (as opposed to howitzers), while British would go for balance.

*/** A tentative suggestion, feel free to argue how to better represent these.

I think artillery is definitely an area that needs a lot of work in the game. I think we need separate techs and battalion types for at least light, medium and heavy artillery. Field artillery could be an additional category, leaving light guns to only represent pack and infantry pieces. Medium guns are the 140-210mm guns that are terribly effective in more static combat and the heavies are the big siege guns that are needed for assaults against strong fortifications but otherwise of limited value.

The defining characteristics of artillery are:
range (meaning the gun can fire longer before it has to relocate)
destructive power (mostly about HE in the shell)
weight (lighter guns are easier to move but have less mass to absorb recoil)
rate of fire (more shells but more supply consumption)

Improving any of these areas reduces reliability in game terms. The challenge is to determine whether differences should be handled through technology advances (like improved ammunition and different types of gun techs) or through the variant system.

A variant akin to a SP Artillery variant of a tank could be an AT variant for field guns, meaning they could be assigned to AT battalions, having more soft attack than equivalent era AT guns, but lacking in penetration. This could model the Russians using their 76.2mm field guns as AT weapons and the Germans doing the same with captured French field guns. Neither was as effective in an AT role as 57mm AT or 5cm PAK, but they were better than the 45mm AT and 3.7cm PAK, and something is better than nothing.