Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?

[chuckfourth]

Hi Andy
Well it would seem from Tarrifs post that FG42 is just fine as a SAW and certainly better than the BAR in this role. I can see your point that it was used as a SLR but it would certainly also have been used as a SAW, especially as there a 7 or so in the section. And of course we just need one of them to be used in the SAW role to justify changing the rifle weapon slot from acc 1 hit 3 to acc 20 hit 5. But if you believe this never happened then I guess thats your choice.
It is also interesting that the second BAR when added to an american rifle squad certainly gets its own acc 20 hit 5 weapon slot no pooling for the BAR!
Regards Chuck.

[cbo]

chuckfourth said:
Hello Narwan
Yes one and the same.
As I only play PBEM the OOB route doesnt really appeal. There are so many odd things in the game like this that need fixing it would be a hassle to explain it all to the PBEM opponent.
Does the BAR have its ammo loadout cut by one third?
Best Chuck.

You know where WinSPWW2 originally started out? With people who thought the original SP-games were inadequate and took it upon themselves to create programs that allowed them to make the changes they felt were necessary. Others used the same tools to make their own modifictions of the game. At that time - mid to late 1990ies, there were several modified OOBs around and players could agree to use whatever mod they saw fit to use.

Now the tools necessary to make your own mods come with the game, so making you own OOBs is simple and straight forward.

Since you have - and have always had - numerous problems with the way the game works and rarely have been able to convince the powers that be of the validity of your point of view, I suggest that you post less and work more. Flogging the same dead old horses is not very productive. Creating your own OOBs and post them here in the relevant forum would be much more creative and usefull. With the OOB manager in the game, it would be a piece of cake to switch between the official OOBs and "Chucks Mod OOB Set". Then you can just agree with your PBEM opponent on which OOB set to use and let the market decide which one is better.

Claus B

[chuckfourth]

Hi Clause
Long time no chat.
My work is to make the game more realistic thankless but neccessary.
Actualy Im not interested in editing OOBs I think I already said that.
Perhaps you could address the topic in hand and tell me just why FG42 shouldnt have acc 20 hit 5?
Regards Chuck.

[cbo]

chuckfourth said:
Hi Clause
Long time no chat.
My work is to make the game more realistic thankless but neccessary.
Actualy Im not interested in editing OOBs I think I already said that.

Seems to me the conclusion has to be that you are willing to *****, but not to work.

Andy has clearly closed this argument with respects to the official OOBs, so it seems to me that you have either to do something about the issue yourself or move on.

chuckfourth said:Perhaps you could address the topic in hand and tell me just why FG42 shouldnt have acc 20 hit 5?

Why repeat what has already been said? In the game, the FG42 is represented as a rifle-type weapon (weapon class 1) and the stats is fine for that use. If you want the FG42 as a light machinegun type weapon (weapon class 2), you have to create it yourself.

Most people should be able to understand how it works....

Claus B

[Tarrif]

My involvement in this discussion is purely academic - I don't play this game (although it looks interesting). That being said, for a game that *seems* to pride itself on historical accuracy and reality, I'm surprised that it would classify the FG-42 as a rifle since that wasn't it's intended role.

Because of the nature of airborne troops they needed to pack a lot of features into a light-weight weapon. It *could* be used as a rifle, but its primary role was to provide LMG support to the squad. The FG-42 is a specialist type of weapon. It could shoot like a rifle if it had to, but could function as a LMG as well. I wouldn't call it a SAW as we define them today - but as many authors have said - the FG-42 was the basis for which many pre-modern and modern SAW's are designed.

To classify it as a rifle, and to limit its game functions to that of a rifle, is historicaly and technically inaccurate. If that's the case, you might as well classify the B.A.R., Bren, etc., as rifles as well - because they technically *could* be used that way, even if its not what they were primarily designed for.

[narwan]

chuckfourth said:
Does the BAR have its ammo loadout cut by one third?
Best Chuck.

No because plenty of men in the squad were usually carrying additional ammo for their units LMG. Wouldn't well work if they were all carrying an 'LMG' now would it?

Your 'WORK' to make the game more realistic? LOL

Give it a rest.

[cbo]

Tarrif said:
My involvement in this discussion is purely academic - I don't play this game (although it looks interesting). That being said, for a game that *seems* to pride itself on historical accuracy and reality, I'm surprised that it would classify the FG-42 as a rifle since that wasn't it's intended role.

The correct term in the game is "primary infantry weapon", which includes rifles, submachineguns, assault rifles etc. As the FG42 was issued (AFAIK) as the primary infantry weapon, that classification seems warranted. In the game, a typical platoon with the FG42 would have it as the main weapon (firepower multiplied by the number of men in the squad) with an MG42 as weapon number two and some handgrenades or Panzerfaust as weapon number three and four, filling all available slots.

Because of the nature of airborne troops they needed to pack a lot of features into a light-weight weapon. It *could* be used as a rifle, but its primary role was to provide LMG support to the squad. The FG-42 is a specialist type of weapon. It could shoot like a rifle if it had to, but could function as a LMG as well. I wouldn't call it a SAW as we define them today - but as many authors have said - the FG-42 was the basis for which many pre-modern and modern SAW's are designed.

If - and that is the assumption in the game - the FG42 was issued to most of the squad and that squad also had a proper machinegun (MG34/42), it seems hard to justify it as
a "specialist" weapon. I doubt you would have 6 or 7 man firing their belt-fed FG42s from the tripod, another 2 men manning the MG34/42, all supporting the squad leader as he charged the enemy.

Seems to me that with the high number of FG42s in the squad, it would primarily have been used as an automatic rifle, not as a light machinegun. And that is the issue here: The use of the weapon, not its statistics.

If Chuck wants that changed, he should not look at weapons statistics, but at fieldmanuals and unit histories dealing with the organisation and tactics of the units that used the weapon.

Incidentally, we are wasting all this bandwhith on a weapon that is used in four (4) units out of 800-900 German units in the game....

Claus B

[Tarrif]

Well this brings up another important issue: Why are there so many FG-42's available per squad in this game? The often quoted total production number of FG-42's is about 7000 - even by the most reputable of authors. Split between the tens of thousands of men in the Fallschrimjaeger units between 1942 and 1945, that would leave a hanful per platoon and perhaps one or two in a squad. That's a liberal estimate.

If you are really looking for historically accurate weapon distribution among the squads/platoons then the FG-42 would *NOT* be a primary weapon. It should be considered a special weapon like the Panzerscheck, PzB39, etc. The only instance I can think of where many FG-42's were used at the squad level is during Skorzney's rescue of Mussolini - and that was more of a commando operation and not a real representation of a regular Fallschrimjaeger operation.

The real crux of the problem seems to be that - in this game - the FG-42 is being issued to the majority of men in a squad and so the game creators nerfed it for the sake of keeping the game balanced. This simply was not, nor could it be, the situation historically.

[cbo]

Tarrif said:
Well this brings up another important issue: Why are there so many FG-42's available per squad in this game? The often quoted total production number of FG-42's is about 7000 - even by the most reputable of authors. Split between the tens of thousands of men in the Fallschrimjaeger units between 1942 and 1945, that would leave a hanful per platoon and perhaps one or two in a squad. That's a liberal estimate.

If you are really looking for historically accurate weapon distribution among the squads/platoons then the FG-42 would *NOT* be a primary weapon. It should be considered a special weapon like the Panzerscheck, PzB39, etc. The only instance I can think of where many FG-42's were used at the squad level is during Skorzney's rescue of Mussolini - and that was more of a commando operation and not a real representation of a regular Fallschrimjaeger operation.

The real crux of the problem seems to be that - in this game - the FG-42 is being issued to the majority of men in a squad and so the game creators nerfed it for the sake of keeping the game balanced. This simply was not, nor could it be, the situation historically.

It isn't in the game either. The FJ squad with the FG42 as the primary weapon is only one of many options. In, say, September 1944 you have 8 different squads to choose from of which 2 has the FG42, 2 has the StG44 and 4 has the Kar 98 rifle as their primary weapon. The player can choose what he wants here, but the computer will (in principle) choose equally among them, so you shouldn't end up with only FG42 armed units - in fact you are likely to end up with units mostly armed with rifles.

You could of course argue that there should also be units with a single FG42 as a secondary weapon with stats like an LMG, but considering the scope of the game and the fact that there is already numerous arms combinations for the FJ squads and the fact that there is 800-900 units in the German OOB, that is a very, very, very minor point. It just goes to show the fallacy of simply comparing stats without thinking about the game as a whole - as I think Narwan pointed out earlier.

But it is one of those things Chuck likes to persue.... endlessly....

Claus B

[Tarrif]

Well as I said before, I don't play this game or know very much about it. For me, this debate is purely academic. If the FG-42 needs to be the way it is now for the sake of game balance, then so be it. Not everything can be historically accurate and still keep things fair.