Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?

[cbo]

Tarrif said:
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.

I think the game is historically accurate in the sense that the values for the FG42 is consistent with its use as an automatic rifle and that it was used as such during WW2.

The FG42 may have had other uses or issed to units in ways that are not portrayed in the game, but that only means that you may add a clone of the weapon as an LMG and create yet another FJ formation, differently equipped. When it comes to small arms, you could make endless variations and easily fill the 999 unit slots on the OOB - and probably another 999 without any problems. At some point, the OOB designers have to stop fiddling, even if it means neglecting some players pet units/weapons/formations. Those players can then fiddle on themselves - unless of course they are too lazy to do so

Claus B

[Tarrif]

cbo said:
I think the game is historically accurate in the sense that the values for the FG42 is consistent with its use as an automatic rifle and that it was used as such during WW2.

Based on the numbers I've seen, it's values for use as an automatic rifle are far below what they should be - using other automatic rifles (namely the B.A.R.) to set the standard.

[narwan]

Tarrif said:
[Based on the numbers I've seen, it's values for use as an automatic rifle are far below what they should be - using other automatic rifles (namely the B.A.R.) to set the standard.

Not other automatic rifles, plural, but singular, only the BAR. Which is also a different category weapon (which difference has its own in game effects). If you want a valid comparison line the FG42 up with bolt action rifles, the M1 Garand (weapon 112 in the US OB), STG44's (weapon 153 in the GE OB), Gewehr 41 (weapon 162), Gewehr 43 (weapon 163) and see how they come off. These are all primairy weapons as is the FG42. You may also want to check some numbers in WinSPMBT as there are plenty of automatic primairy infantry weapons there.
I'm not saying these are all the same sort off weapon, but the do show the scaling of modeling primairy infantry weapons from bolt action to semi auto to full auto in the game.


Narwan

[Tarrif]

Then I guess the problem is that the game interprets the FG-42 as a general issue rifle in the first place. The FG-42 was not designed to be anything like the M1 Garand, STG44, or Gewehr 43. It was designed from the outset to be a light-weight automatic rifle / light machinegun that could add some punch to the firepower of airborne forces. Its a specialized weapons designed for parachutists.

If you want a comparison, the only ones I can think of are the various carbines specifically designed for those purposes. Perhaps the American M1A1 Paratrooper Carbine. I understand the game might interpret things differently, and I guess that the problem, because the game is wrong in that respect. The FG-42 should not be in the same class as the M1 Garand or Gewehr 43. It should be in the same class as whatever the B.A.R. is in, and have stats similar or slightly better than it.

[Marek_Tucan]

IMHO the best comparison to FG-42 would be Soviet AVS-36 7.62mm full-power automatic rifle - also manufactured in rather small qantities, given to elite units, hard to control in autofire... Later replaced by similar, but just self-loading SVT-38/40 rifle. All sources I've seen claim FG to be intended as primary automatic weapon (ie rifle), manufactured in low quantities and used by crack units as rifle. Yup, there were just 7000 pieces but how many German paratroopers was there? And if you give those 7000 pieces to 7000 men in one unit it would act as a primary weapon (which it did AFAIK, those 7k pieces weren't spread thin in the entire FJ corps as would the SAW role suggest, rather they were concentrated in chosen units.)

Just my 2 cents

[cbo]

Tarrif said:
Based on the numbers I've seen, it's values for use as an automatic rifle are far below what they should be - using other automatic rifles (namely the B.A.R.) to set the standard.

You dont understand how the game works.

The actual stats of the weapon is not the issue here. Its use is.

1. If it is used as an automatic rifle, that is, issued to most men in a squad like the StG 44 etc. then it is labelled as primary infantry weapon and its stats adjusted for how the game treats this type of weapon.
2. If it is used as a light machinegun, that is, only one, perhaps two issued, then it is labelled as a secondary infantry weapon and the stats are changed to reflect its use as a light machinegun.

In the game, the BAR is treated as #2 under the assumption that it was issued and used as the LMG of the infantry squadron.
In the game, the FG42 is treated as #1 under the assumption that it was issued and used as a rifle.

It is assumption in the game that the FJ squad at the time would have a rifle (or FG42) for most of the men in a squad with an MG34/42 as the LMG of the squadron. It is also the assumption of the game that a US infantry squad would have rifles (like the Garand) for most of the men and use the BAR as the LMG of the squadron.

If you or anyone else want that changed, you need to forget about the actual statistics of the weapon and find documentation about their actual issue and use. That would be references to the official TO&E (KStN) of the units in question and unit histories etc. which describes its use and issue as being different from that in the game.

There is no inherent problem in the game that prevents you from having the FG42 as both a primary and secondary weapon (as a rifle and LMG) with the appropriate statistics for each use.

The only problem here is a blind comparison of statistics without taking into account that this is a game and that weapon statistics in the game reflects a lot more than simply physical performance (as was pointed out a long time ago in this thread )

Claus B

[chuckfourth]

Hi Claus
Gee this thread seems to have developed legs overnight, I should say quite everyone please, were wasting Clauses precious bandwidth!

I might point out that Claus and Narwan are attempting to make an example of me to rest of the posters in this forum.
Lesson: Dont disagree with them or youll be in for the same sort of unpleasant invective and snide asides they are directing towards me.
Reason the game curently contains some bias towards the American forces which they intend to keep in place.

Assumption number 1 is wrong because the premise that the weapon was only ever used as a rifle never as a SAW is patently ridiculous. How often this happens is arguable, but if just one of 7 FG42 in the squad is used as a BAR this is enough to justify the change to 20 and 5. And there would certainly be circumstaces when the weapon was used in the same role as the BAR.
The argument that because its in slot one it cant have its value increases is a complete furphy, It can easily have its acc and hit changed to 20 and 5 like the BAR. Play balance wouldnt suffer in the least. What the change to 20 and 5 values represents is an acknowledgemant of the inherent flexibity of the weapon.
As you say Clause it is the use of the weapon that is the issue here and you cannot tell me with a straight face that it was never used as SAW.
Marek is very likely correct. Logistics are greatly simplified if the weapon is concentrated in particular units rather than spread out evenly.
Regards Chuck.

[cbo]

chuckfourth said:
Assumption number 1 is wrong because the premise that the weapon was only ever used as a rifle never as a SAW is patently ridiculous. How often this happens is arguable, but if just one of 7 FG42 in the squad is used as a BAR this is enough to justify the change to 20 and 5. And there would certainly be circumstaces when the weapon was used in the same role as the BAR.

Dig up the documentation and you may have a case. If not, I doubt you will get anywhere, regardless of how many posts you make.

The argument that because its in slot one it cant have its value increases is a complete furphy, It can easily have its acc and hit changed to 20 and 5 like the BAR. Play balance wouldnt suffer in the least. What the change to 20 and 5 values represents is an acknowledgemant of the inherent flexibity of the weapon.

You should use MOBHACK to change the values, test it an post the results to support your argument.

As you say Clause it is the use of the weapon that is the issue here and you cannot tell me with a straight face that it was never used as SAW.

Nor can you say that it was always being used as a light machinegun by every man in the squadron. I have already stated what I think you need to do to convince anyone of the need of a change: Find documentation for the use and issue of the FG42. In other words: Do some work to make the game better instead of just whining about it.

As for bias, it is typical that your solution to a percieved problem always results in a massive gain for the German side in the game. Whether that is by intent or just due to a lack of knowledge about the game, I can't say

In this case, you suggest changing the FG42 values so everybody in an FJ squad will be carrying a light machine gun and use it as such - always.

Clearly not on.

IF the FG42 was used, as a rule, as an LMG as well as a rifle, then the right solution, in my view, is to create a new weapon as a weapon class 2 and issue that as a supporting weapon like the BAR while retaining the FG42 as a rifle in slot 1 with the current stats. How such a solution would be employed would depend on the documentation (issue, use).

Marek is very likely correct. Logistics are greatly simplified if the weapon is concentrated in particular units rather than spread out evenly.

That is the assumption for the way the game currently treats the weapon.

Claus B

[TheDesertFox]

Tarrif said:
The FG-42 was not designed to be anything like the M1 Garand, STG44, or Gewehr 43.

Beg your pardon but where do you get this wrong information from ?

The FG42 was designed to replace the 98K and the MP40 in the paratroops, basing on the negative experiences in the west and Crete. It never was designed to act as a SAW. The germans had better weapons for that purpose.

cheers

[Tarrif]

TheDesertFox said:
Beg your pardon but where do you get this wrong information from?

Almost every single book I have with the FG-42 in it says it was a weapon, designed from the very beginning, for paratrooper use. The emphasis was on being light-weight and compact, while trying to cram as much firepower as possible into those restrictions. The Garand and other rifles were designed to specifications of a much different priority. A better comparison for the FG-42 would be other weapons designed or modified for paratrooper use, such as the M1A1 Paratrooper Carbine I mentioned earlier (although those two weapons are in a different sub-class).