Share
Go down
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 196
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:41 pm
I've had some changes suggested to me through topics here and discussions on my blog. Before making them I wanted to post the up here and see what people thought.

Suggestion 1
Change the Assault Rifle entry in the rules to read "NATO Assault Rifle"
Add "WARPAC Assault Rifle" to the list. Max Range 20" and RoF 2 out to 20"

The question came through my blog on how to differentiate between the shorter range "spray and pray" AK family against the longer ranged, slightly more accurate NATO assault rifles. The option above is my proposed way to deal with it. It gives the WARPAC assault rifles more fire power up to 20", but give NATO an advantage at longer ranges.

I'm not sold 100% on the necessity of this change, but I think it's quite simple and should be easy to remember.

Suggestion 2
Reduce the RoF for the LMG from 3 down to 2 as per standard BG rules
Reduce the RoF for the SAW down from 5 to 4 or even 3.

I'm in complete agreement with reducing the LMG RoF but would appreciate commentary on the SAW - and whether it should be reduced to 3 or 4.

If we get any other small arms suggestions we can but them in this thread.

Thanks

Richard
avatar
Piers
Admin
Posts : 266
Join date : 2018-02-12
http://battlegroupwargame.forumotion.com

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:08 pm
I think you need to consider the two together.

LmGs become a Soviet assault rifle.

I think differentiating assault rifles is perhaps not needed. The law of equivalence should apply. Plus it should perhaps be more to do with troop quality than anything?
Strombones
Posts : 32
Join date : 2018-02-27

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:41 pm
If I had a vote I would say keep assault rifles the same. A 7.62 may not be quite as accurate as the NATO 5.56 but can make the range nevertheless. Having your Soviet fire teams helpless against NATO troops at 20-30 doesn't sound like a lot of fun either.
nickdives
Posts : 79
Join date : 2018-02-12

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:00 am
I think Piers is correct troop quality and trg should play a big part in the effective application of fire, otherwise you go down another rule set system where a conscript section with no trg can fire as effectively as a fully trained section.
CAG 19
Posts : 33
Join date : 2018-02-12
http://www.cag19.blogspot.co.uk

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:18 pm
IMHO no major driver to change from the entry in the BG original rules. Smaller caliber means more rounds carried without need for constant resupply. So more shots can be made over time not just delivering Full Automatic with every shot.

1 = Rifles - includes the non automatic FN
2/1 = Assault rifles - M16/AK etc
2 = LMG with a magazine - LSW/RPK/L4A1/C2 etc
3 = Belt fed SAW
5 = Belt fed MG with a crew requirement - GPMG/M60/PKM.
6 = MG3/HMG (only because the MG3 is the only one with a ROF significantly higher than the others listed) the HMG ROF is due to the impact effect of the heavier round
7 = Any MG on a Tripod unless you want to keep the MG3 advantage


nickdives
Posts : 79
Join date : 2018-02-12

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:32 pm
We would train with a section shoot up to 400 - 600 metres.
Smee106
Posts : 14
Join date : 2018-02-17

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:40 am
If you want reduce the rof of the SLR then increase its range and accuracy as nickdives said section fire was longer than both the AK and 5.56mm. Battle sights on the SLR were 300m
CAG 19
Posts : 33
Join date : 2018-02-12
http://www.cag19.blogspot.co.uk

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:36 pm
The SLR isn't any more accurate than a .303 No4 rifle. It was brought in as a result of the Korean experience.  The 300m often quoted is the individual riflemen capability. Above individual shooting All armies including the Soviets practice engaging above battle shooting ranges with grouips of shooters.  Soviets getting out of BMPs at 50m and firing from the hip is in a nuclear scenario. Dismount outside of direct fire range and use fire and manouver was practised.  IMHO BG should be about the rule of equivalences. With too many factors/special characteristics you risk going down the Challenger 2000 route
nickdives
Posts : 79
Join date : 2018-02-12

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:48 pm
"Soviets getting out of BMPs at 50m and firing from the hip is in a nuclear scenario." and for suitably heroic "I serve the Soviet Union" propaganda films!
Smee106
Posts : 14
Join date : 2018-02-17

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:40 pm
The 300yds was the range that most combat took place at hence it being classed ‘battle’ and we were told that we should expect that to continue.

As for being as accurate as a No 4 that had an effective range of 550yds and a version was still being used as a sniper rifle, it also didn’t hold 20 rounds in its mags and couldn’t be fired as fast or as accurately in rapid fire.
Hated
Posts : 10
Join date : 2018-04-04

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:55 pm
bit of a thread necro but I have some thoughts

Point 1: maybe it could be as simple as giving battle rifles a slightly longer range they would be able to shoot 30-40 on a 6+, but only "assault" rifles would get the 2 shots within 10" rapid fire

Point 2: I'm going to say something that some people will probably disagree with and that is that I think RoF 3 for lmgs like the rpk and l86 is fine.

For a start in game terms I feel like dropping it to 2 shots is unnecessary would throw certain things out of balance.
With the British specifically the l85/86 sections would just become vastly inferior to L1A1/GPMG sections (cue popular opinion about the superiority of those systems lol) as the l1a1/gpmg sections would put out 13 shots per section compared to the l85/l86 sections 10.

In a real life perspective there's no denying that a belt fed machine gun will be able to throw more lead down range for a sustained period of time than a box fed lsw but part of that would be countered by several advantages rpk/lsw's have which I would argue should be taken into account.

So for example an LMGs RoF 3 could be justified by several things such as
quicker reloads
lighter and more manoeuvrable meaning easier and quicker to get set up and be firing before a comparable belt fed gun would have been, as well as able to effectively fire from positions a belt fed would not be.
easier to clear jams and stoppages
just because a belt fed can throw more lead for a sustained period of time doesn't necessarily translate to effective fire down range, especially at longer ranges, noise at the user end doesn't = effectiveness at the target end.

I understand that may be more detail than the game depicts but unless RoF in this ruleset literally only represents how long a soldier can hold the trigger down uninterrupted in the ideal situation for that particular firearm and takes nothing else into account I think its perfectly reasonable to have the rate of fire for rpks and lsws how they are at 3 shots with minimi's having 5, GPMGs having 6 and tripod mounted GPMGs having 8, fairly representing each firearms ability to provide aimed fire and suppressive fire.

not trying to start an LSW vs minimi/box fed vs belt fed argument, just posing a point of view that may not have been considered yet and is probably worth discussing

cheers

Nath
alicks
Posts : 21
Join date : 2018-04-03
Location : UK

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Fri May 25, 2018 10:40 am
I do feel there should be some distinction between the L1A1 and the L85, because at the moment its just a cosmetic change. And the L1A1 is not an assault rifle.

cheers
naash
Posts : 5
Join date : 2018-06-26

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:10 am
Strombones wrote:If I had a vote I would say keep assault rifles the same. A 7.62 may not be quite as accurate as the NATO 5.56 but can make the range nevertheless. Having your Soviet fire teams helpless against NATO troops at 20-30 doesn't sound like a lot of fun either.

I totally agree with you.
I think that it would be better for playability to keep it simple.

If you really want to make differences, it could be interesting to simply consider units with assault rifles and units with semi automatic rifles.
avatar
Kirill_GV001
Posts : 25
Join date : 2018-05-07
Age : 24
https://redbannerforces.wordpress.com/

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:55 am
Moreover, all Soviet lists use the 5.45x39mm AK-74, which has more or less the same range and accuracy as NATO 5.56x45mm assault rifles of the same era. Soviet troops were still trained to fire in short bursts up to 300 meters, but an AK-74, in the right hands, can be accurate up to 600 meters while 7.62x39 AKs have to deal with significant bullet drop past 300-400m. A downgrade in range and accuracy could be justified if some day Romania and Yugoslavia were to be included, due to the lower quality of the weapons.
avatar
RichardC
Posts : 196
Join date : 2018-02-12
Location : Sydney, Australia
https://coldwarhot.blogspot.com.au/

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

on Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:36 am
Thanks for all the comments gents. Things are going to stay just the way they are in this playtest ruleset.

Richard
Sponsored content

Re: Small Arms - some suggested changes

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum