Heavy armaments infantry

[Mopsidae]

Absolutely agree, there should be heavy weapons squads, but this brings up another problem - too much types of infantry.

How is this an issue? As it stands infantry selection is an absolutely braindead process. You get an ATGM card and a MANPADs card, then you look through aaaaaaaaaallll the other infantry for a total of two things - fifteen man squads and CQC MGs. Adding crew served weapons would really mix things up in terms of defensive infantry selection.

[Elukka]

But it is split between 2-3 men.
In Singapore IIRC 2 men can operate
1st guy- stand/ commander
2nd guy- sight
3rd guy- missiles
then less than 30 seconds the whole thing can be assembled, stand-sight-missile go.

Well, yeah, all existing weapons teams (ATGMs and MANPADS) already have more than one person. Same idea would work for other sorts of weapon teams.

[Mot]

Let's make something clear, the term STATIC in wargame applies to weapons that require the squad to be stopped, you can't fire a RPG or an ATGM on the move.

The weapons people are describing are DEPLOYABLE, meaning that you have several components that require assembly, for example, an automatic grenade launcher is hauled by up to 3 soldiers, one carries ammo, another the tripod and another the weapon itself, the weapon must be deployed, and therefore is static.

This are two different things.

Still I'm all in favor of deployable weapons.

[Coffee_Zombie]

I would like to see this added to to RD a bit of shuffle in the inf section would be good. Some better assault options would be a welcome addition.

[Raymond Saint]

Let's make something clear, the term STATIC in wargame applies to weapons that require the squad to be stopped, you can't fire a RPG or an ATGM on the move.

The weapons people are describing are DEPLOYABLE, meaning that you have several components that require assembly, for example, an automatic grenade launcher is hauled by up to 3 soldiers, one carries ammo, another the tripod and another the weapon itself, the weapon must be deployed, and therefore is static.

This are two different things.

Still I'm all in favor of deployable weapons.

Isn't ATGMs deployable weapons? Konkurs for example?

Therefore, your point is invalid.

[Mot]

Isn't ATGMs deployable weapons? Konkurs for example?
Therefore, your point is invalid.

First, you could have bothered to read my entire post, I'm all in favor of this types of weapons being introduced.

Second, just because EUGEN decides that deployable ATGM are within the scope of the game while deciding that the deployable status of other weapons are not, is their decision, not mine.

Third, there's clearly balancing reasons for the fact that Deployable ATGM are treated as simple static weapons, that reason being that without this work around there wouldn't be hard hitting infantry. Almost all, if not all, strong ATGM are deployable weapons, both in NATO and PACT.

So no, my point is not invalid, there's exceptions with good reasons for being so.

[Sevatar]

Dont Forget the MG 3 on tripod = 17 kg but still practical.
Increases your range from 600 meters to 1200 meters and god help you if you walk in that field of fire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Qu98v6FGM
While in the Video he is shooting short Bursts you normaly use 20 - 30 bullet Bursts.

[theBLUBinYou]

It's not just a tripod....it's the mighty Feldlafette

[Looksharp]

I would be for it, if the WP side got the NSV, or DShK instead of the KPV. The 1 AP power of the KPV, I think, could possibly cause balance issues. Other then that, it could be very interesting to introduce support weapons teams.

[derrickkolba]

what about rifle grenades?