Infantry weapons rebalance.

User avatar
Rabidpalidinski
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon 17 Jun 2013 21:20
Location: MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Infantry weapons rebalance.

Postby Rabidpalidinski » Tue 7 Feb 2017 23:31

MARDER wrote:
GARGEAN wrote:
MARDER wrote:The same that happens when you get hit by 7.62.

Loool.
Image
Can 7,62mm do this?



is that a Soilder or a pice of tin? maybe get back to the topic as you missed like a motostelki under suppression.
No body questions the AP ability of HMG´s. If you want to go that way then a 10 M/rof tank cannon should have more suppresion then you Dyska, NKDV.


And again Rof+ACC+(if moving(stab))=Suppression

Its the amount of bullets coming towards you not the sice.


Not exactly an expert here but I'm pretty sure if something that can do that to a "pice of tin" would much more heavenly compel me to keep the fuck down then something with just a higher rate of fire. Suppression in a lot of ways is a psychological thing, the loud scary noise and many projectiles of a high ROF MMG is fairly worrying to an infantryman, however, watching the forest and town around them get ripped apart by an HMG that can cripple and destroy AFVs would really REALLY freak me out and demoralize me.
<3 MIGHTY SOVIET SPACE BMP
"I solve tactical problems, not practical problems" 8-)
Image
Please fix the PGZ-63's fixed wing cannon range :(

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: Infantry weapons rebalance.

Postby Killertomato » Wed 8 Feb 2017 00:36

QUAD wrote:
If you make MGs and primary clone only differentiating factor is AT weapon and IFV. (Also 15 men theoretically but most are trash.)


Even if that was the case, that's still enough- and there are still lots of different MGs. Motostrelki could have RPK-74s. Riflemen should have M249s. Fusiliers have L86. Diggers have M249. And so on and so forth.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
FoxZz
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu 27 Mar 2014 19:16
Contact:

Re: Infantry weapons rebalance.

Postby FoxZz » Wed 8 Feb 2017 00:47

QUAD wrote:
Killertomato wrote:
QUAD wrote:You can't have infantry squads be clones though. Just pretend the characteristics abstract represent NCO, doctrine, troop quality, etc.


They aren't clones because they have different AT weapons or really different machine guns. Like M249. Or RPK. Or Bren.

Trying to model troop quality beyond shock/SF/normal/militia is a very bad idea.


I see where your coming from-like USA for instance-but figure infantry in game is balanced also by transport combination and has to reflect general real life doctrine.

France has bullpups, good AT, and ergonomic fast transport; USSR has God like AT and the best IFV; FRG has fire superiority and well rounded RPGs/IFV.

If you make MGs and primary clone only differentiating factor is AT weapon and IFV. (Also 15 men theoretically but most are trash.)


As explained, there would be 3 types of MG and 3 types of Primary as well as 3 types of training and plenty of AT launcher, so it's 27 possible combinaisons firerms only.

As for differant doctrines and so on, when it comes to infantry combat everybody share the same doctrine : gain fire superiority, fix the ennemy, flank/assault, destroy. It doesn't really matter if the said fire superiority is gained by using two identical fire teams covering each other or by an MG element covering a rifle element. Ultimately the result is the same. And at wargame scale it doesn't make sense to simulate something like that.

Nobody can asses a unit training level outside VDV/Marines/Legion > Conscript Rifleman. There is so many factor that must be taken into account : quality of NCOs, war experience, morale, realism of training, day spend training, etc. Furthermore, quality varies greatly within armies themselves. You can have in the same regiment very good platoons and very bad platoons. In the end at the scale of Waragme, everything just blends out in an average quality. As suchit doesn't make sense to model some units superior to others.

Latsly, balancing the units, may actually make upvetting units worth it, as it would give your inf a distinct advantage, while currently it doesn't matter at all considering the discrepancies between the differant units.

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: Infantry weapons rebalance.

Postby HrcAk47 » Wed 8 Feb 2017 01:27

Veterancy could do quite a bit of interesting things. Well, it is potential for a future game.

For example, ROF on a handloaded tank can be a function of veterancy.

Rookie Leo 2A4 for example starts at 7, at elite it can load 10.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: Infantry weapons rebalance.

Postby QUAD » Wed 8 Feb 2017 01:36

Standardization makes balance a nightmare because Eugen controls less. Look at ALB where guns were more or less standardized. Infantry was a min max fest where you went for the best transports and AT weapon. (Exception given to SF.)

I have no issue with there being classes of infantry weapons to make the game more intuitive but rote standardization is a negative. There's has to be slight stat variance among classes.

For instance Minimi has 15% better DPS/suppression than RPK but RPK units should have marginally better AT, and so on. Distinct flavor that's easy to understand, representative of reality, and not absurd. (Like pre MG3 nerf absurd or 15 point Shock absurd.)
Mobile Units Operational :!:

User avatar
FoxZz
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 614
Joined: Thu 27 Mar 2014 19:16
Contact:

Re: Infantry weapons rebalance.

Postby FoxZz » Wed 8 Feb 2017 01:52

Well once again, a RPK and a Minimi are differant in what I propose, RPK is more accurate, faster reload speed and better on the move but it has shorter bursts and smaller RoF. The MG3 would be less accurate than the Minimi, wouldn't fire on the move (for line) but would have a longer burst length, more range and more supression.

When I say standardisation it means you will have 9 kind of infantry available : BR/GMPG ; BR/LMG/ BR/sMG ; AR/GMPG ; AR/LMG ; AR/sMG ; SMG/GMPG ; SMG/LMG ; SMG/sMG.
So not every infantry would be the same, there would be differant classes, but no more unique stats for no reason. Unit stats would be a lot more transparent.

You guys should really read the OP sometimes ...

If you want more flavour, why not, for example, give 15 men to NK line infantry with no price nerf to illustrate their massive conscript army and "human wave" doctrine. Furthermore, many units like Jager would see their price reducced because their MG wouldn't compensate anymore their soso RPG. Balance would be actually a lot easier.

PS : I'd love Veterancy affecting reload speed on handloaded tanks and for infantry.

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: Infantry weapons rebalance.

Postby QUAD » Fri 10 Feb 2017 23:34

FoxZz wrote:Well once again, a RPK and a Minimi are differant in what I propose, RPK is more accurate, faster reload speed and better on the move but it has shorter bursts and smaller RoF. The MG3 would be less accurate than the Minimi, wouldn't fire on the move (for line) but would have a longer burst length, more range and more supression.

When I say standardisation it means you will have 9 kind of infantry available : BR/GMPG ; BR/LMG/ BR/sMG ; AR/GMPG ; AR/LMG ; AR/sMG ; SMG/GMPG ; SMG/LMG ; SMG/sMG.
So not every infantry would be the same, there would be differant classes, but no more unique stats for no reason. Unit stats would be a lot more transparent.

You guys should really read the OP sometimes ...

If you want more flavour, why not, for example, give 15 men to NK line infantry with no price nerf to illustrate their massive conscript army and "human wave" doctrine. Furthermore, many units like Jager would see their price reducced because their MG wouldn't compensate anymore their soso RPG. Balance would be actually a lot easier.

PS : I'd love Veterancy affecting reload speed on handloaded tanks and for infantry.


I understand your point more fully and support the notion.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

Spunky
Private First-Class
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed 19 Oct 2016 23:03
Contact:

Re: Infantry weapons rebalance.

Postby Spunky » Tue 14 Feb 2017 00:58

KillaJules wrote:
GARGEAN wrote:
KillaJules wrote:It is not shell. It is bullet. And topic was especially about 14,5mm.


You are inadvertently proving his point. What matters in infantry suppression is the concept of the ''beaten zone', not penetration or bullet size. Explosives enhance the beaten zone effect of the 14,5 mm which is an outlier weapon; being closer to an autocannon in a way. The fact remains that rate of fire and dispersion (beaten zone effect) are what determines a machine gun's suppression effect. Explosives can serve a similar role but are generally absent from machine guns. By convention, weapons that fire unpowered explosive ordnance are called cannons or grenade launchers.


From what I've heard, this is complete B.S.; cartridge size makes a huge difference in effective suppression. Based on interviews of combatants across nations and in different periods of conflict, the intensity of sonic boom and shell impact from larger, higher velocity cartridges has a much higher psychological impact than smaller ordinance.

Obviously volume + cartridge size would likely make a difference, but sparse .50BMG near misses are going to have a much more severe effect than sub-sonic 9mm plunking into the ground. Suppression is due to perceived threat.

User avatar
Zero_Ecm
Sergeant
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue 15 Nov 2016 06:39
Contact:

Re: Infantry weapons rebalance.

Postby Zero_Ecm » Tue 14 Feb 2017 01:11

AS-VAL should be AR or Carabine, but not 9*19mm SMG from 70s.

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: Infantry weapons rebalance.

Postby HrcAk47 » Tue 14 Feb 2017 01:52

Zero_Ecm wrote:AS-VAL should be AR or Carabine, but not 9*19mm SMG from 70s.


AS Val should be a carbine with huge (for a primary weapon) suppression.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 12 guests