the problem with 2x bren and 2 x bar

[IronHat]

the game simulate the 2x lmg34 by doubling the cooldown rate and belt size of a 1x mg34. In essence it's two mg34 firing in ripple. this double the physical damage and suppression.

in contrast, the game simulate 2x bar and 2x bren by doubling the physical damage per shot, ie two guns firing in unison. The problem is the suppression value of the 2x bar/bren is the same as the suppression value of a 1x bar/bren. (20, compare to 53 on the mg34)

If the 2 x bar/bren is meant to represent two gun firing at the same time, it should also deal 2x the suppression since there's twice the amount of bullets in the air.

 

[dmdelor]

Huh. That's odd. Wonder if that was intentionally a benefit to the Germans as either a doctrinal benefit or a gameplay thing to help specialize them as a faction that fights with fewer, more expensive, and more MG-centric infantry units, or if that's just an oversight?

They're not rubbish because they come at elite, but the 25-point AB Bren Group in particular seems like it would benefit from getting the "proper" suppression value. They're only five points less than a Panzergrenadier but have only a third (-6 HE) the 400m firepower. They do have more SMGs for +3 HE at 100m, but that's not a trade I'd make if I had the option.

IMHO, that's kind of the pattern of Allied dual MG units in general. The elite ones are useful despite a high price tag for their weaponry, because they're elite. The others are kind of mediocre because they cost 20-25 points but don't gain HE proportional to the price hike over the 15-point, one-MG units. The obvious exception is the 10-point Bren group, which is nicely cost effective even with awful guns because 10 points is really cheap.

 

[lI.]

Huh.
Yeah no wonder I couldn't figure out how come airborne bren group couldn't even beat the usual gerenadiers.
Interesting to see how would Eugen say about this.

 

[IronHat]

Huh. That's odd. Wonder if that was intentionally a benefit to the Germans as either a doctrinal benefit or a gameplay thing to help specialize them as a faction that fights with fewer, more expensive, and more MG-centric infantry units, or if that's just an oversight?

They're not rubbish because they come at elite, but the 25-point AB Bren Group in particular seems like it would benefit from getting the "proper" suppression value. They're only five points less than a Panzergrenadier but have only a third (-6 HE) the 400m firepower. They do have more SMGs for +3 HE at 100m, but that's not a trade I'd make if I had the option.

IMHO, that's kind of the pattern of Allied dual MG units in general. The elite ones are useful despite a high price tag for their weaponry, because they're elite. The others are kind of mediocre because they cost 20-25 points but don't gain HE proportional to the price hike over the 15-point, one-MG units. The obvious exception is the 10-point Bren group, which is nicely cost effective even with awful guns because 10 points is really cheap.

There's no need to overblown the strength of the lmg34 and 42 over the bren and bar if the objective was to make the germans better at mid-long range. It's not like the lee enfield, sten, thompson, and garand are better then their axis counter part either.

and the listed HE isn't quite accurate for small arms in general. Where's a short summary of most/all infantry small arms in the game. note that it's per weapon. 11x garand deal .55 damage.

lmg34/42: 1.0 phys damage
bar/bren: 0.15
lanchester and ppsh: 0.40
sten, thompson, mp40: 0.30
garand, g43 : 0.05
m1 carbine: 0.08
bolt action: 0.03
fg-42: 0.15

 

[dmdelor]

Sure, not saying that'd be a good idea, just wondering at the reasoning or lack thereof.