Suggested improvements to Small arms weapons.

This are some suggestion for improving small arm fire.
I will categorize small arms to sub machine guns (smg like PPsh, Thompson,Sten, M40), assault rifles (AR like STG44,4 BAR full auto), semi automatic (G43, SVT, M1, BAR, STg44) bolt action and light machine guns.

(In game BAR and STG44 are using only full auto mode but implementing full auto and semiautomatic modes is any easy way to add 2 new weapons or make units more versatile or create abilities for units. But I will go on to this later).

Suggestions:
1) Standardize distance near mid far for all weapons
2) Normalize weapon profiles according to weapon type.
3)Avoid mixing weapon with completely different optimum ranges.
4)Avoid weapons with good DPS at all ranges
5)Simplify weapon upgrades

With these changes squads will have more a normalized behavior, estimating optimum range will be easier and taking advantage of relative positioning easier and more rewarding.

1) Standardize distance near mid far for all weapons or bring them very close per weapon type.

Suggested values (open for discussion):

Smg 5---10---15
Ar 7---17---20
Semi 14--22---26
Bolt 0--20---28 (using reverse profile bellow 20)
Lmg--0---20---28 (using reverse profile bellow 20)

Reason having different mid near far ranges makes choosing distance to fight very difficult since one has to estimate distance and have a rough idea of the close mid far ranges for all weapons. It also has some even more confusing affects.

Currently most SMG use as close range as 10 so they do not benefit from moving closer to 10 units. On the other hand many other weapon use as close the range 5 which mean that moving closer to 10 with an smg unit not only does not provide any benefit to the Smg but can actually hurt them since the opponent will benefit from closer range.

With change player will have an easier time estimating their optimum range and the DPS ratio will not change unfavorably.

This are some suggestion for improving small arm fire.
I will categorize small arms to sub machine guns (smg like PPsh, Thompson,Sten, M40), assault rifles (AR like STG44,4 BAR full auto), semi automatic (G43, SVT, M1, BAR, STg44) bolt action and light machine guns.

(In game BAR and STG44 are using only full auto mode but implementing full auto and semiautomatic modes is any easy way to add 2 new weapons or make units more versatile or create abilities for units. But I will go on to this later).

Suggestion:
1) Standardize distance near mid far for all weapons or bring them very close per weapon type.

Suggested values (open for discussion):

Smg 5---10---15
Ar 7---17---20
Semi 13--20---25
Bolt 16--23---30
Lmg--0---20---28

Reason having different mid near far ranges makes choosing distance to fight very difficult since one has to estimate distance and have a rough idea of the close mid far ranges for all weapons. It also has some even more confusing affects.

Currently most SMG use as close range as 10 so they do not benefit from moving closer to 10 units. On the other hand many other weapon use as close the range 5 which mean that moving closer to 10 with an smg unit not only does not provide any benefit to the Smg but can actually hurt them since the opponent will benefit from closer range.

With change player will have an easier time estimating their optimum range and the DPS ratio will not change unfavorably.

Ranges under 10 are the deadly ones, there is not really much importance in small changes to DPS of bolt-rifle units since becouse of cover denial at this range they die before they can shoot twice vs any full auto gun in game...

I don't think the BAR has a semi-automatic mode, but it had 2 automatic modes. One for ~450RPM and one for ~650RPM. Most experienced users preferred the slower version for reduced ammo consumption and better control.

It'd be funny if RET's used the faster one while Riflemen and other troops used the slower one.

I don't think the BAR has a semi-automatic mode, but it had 2 automatic modes. One for ~450RPM and one for ~650RPM. Most experienced users preferred the slower version for reduced ammo consumption and better control.

It'd be funny if RET's used the faster one while Riflemen and other troops used the slower one.

Pretty sure I read somewhere it was developed to have selective fire, which I interpret as semi/full auto. Do you have a source that states otherwise? I love to read about stuff like this.

I don't think the BAR has a semi-automatic mode,...

although drifting out off topic here, the M1918A1 BAR has trigger mechanism with a selector lever with 3 positions: S safe F semiautomatic A Auto fire. The M1918A2 had no semi automatic mode but 2 Full auto modes, Slow and fast. Many M1918A2 where converted to have semi automatic mode (mostly used by USMC).

Ranges under 10 are the deadly ones, there is not really much importance in small changes to DPS of bolt-rifle...

Most weapon have different DPS fro ranges 10 to 0, mostly SMG have them same DPS from 0 to 10.

The same discrepancies apply to other ranges also. Having different close mid far range for the same type of weapons servers little or no purpose. If a unit need more DPS at a specific range they should be equipped with different type of weapon.

Pretty sure I read somewhere it was developed to have selective fire, which I interpret as semi/full auto. Do you have a source that states otherwise? I love to read about stuff like this.

You're thinking of the World War I and interwar variants. The M1918A2 is what we used in World War II, and it had Safe / Slow / Fast.

You're thinking of the World War I and interwar variants. The M1918A2 is what we used in World War II, and it had Safe / Slow / Fast.

Thanks for the link

You're thinking of the World War I and interwar variants.

M1918A1 was adopted in 1937 just one year before the M1918A2 both variants saw action in WWII. A large number of M1918A2 (mostly used from USMC) was converted to have semi auto fire selection.

For all purposes in game even with not semi auto mode the BAR in slow selection can represent an semi automatic and BAR in full can represent a assault rifle. Or even some other roles. But we are drifting out of topic currently.

2) Normalize weapon profiles according to weapon type.

For instance:

A) The Paratroopers Thompson compared to Sock PPsh is 133% more effective up to range 10 than suddenly jump to 559% more effective at range 15 and scaling up to 899% range 20%. If Paratroopers need a weapon that is good at mid range they should not be using an SMG but assault rifle (maybe BAR).

B) The Sock PPsh compared to conscripts PPsh is 133% more effective up to range 10 than suddenly it drop down in range 15 becoming less effective by 0.80 down to 0.6. If conscript need a mid range weapon their upgrade should give them SVTs and not PPsh.

3)Avoid mixing weapon with completely different optimum ranges.
A prime example of this is mixing long range weapons like the LMG or bolt action rifles with smg.
The result is that both the unit is can not take advantage of all it weapon and enemy units with specific weapon type can not be used against them. Close range unit trying to move to close distance will be fired upon by the Lmg and have to face smg when they reach close range. A mid range unit again will be fired by the Lmg during approach and once near the mid range the opponet can chose to move in also and moving the fight to close range retaining the advantage.

For instance:
A)conscripts PPsh upgrade is bad upgrade because weapon are designed to have different optimum ranges. In order to "fix" this Relic chose to increase the mid DPS of the PPsh. The end result is that Con PPsh becomes better than shock PPsh above range 10. Simpler solution and better solution would to make the upgrade provide SVT.

B)"Heavy sapper" upgrade is a bad upgrade for the same reason the solution by Relic was to the movement penalty which goes against the Smg the unit is equipped with. A simpler and easier solution would be to to have the heavy "Sapper upgrade" to either provide the vickers K and bolt action rifles or turn the Vickers K into an "assault gun" type Lmg to have better synergy with the Smgs.

C)The patch upgrade for the V.G. of mixing Bolt action rifles and "assault rifles" again fall in the same category. The option here could be to have the St44 fire in semi automatic mode and have a weapon profile closer to semi automatic rifle, or (and I go into this more extensively later) have the weapon upgrade replace all the weapon of the squad.

3)Avoid mixing weapon with completely different optimum ranges.

That's a good insight. I'll refine it as follows:
".. or if you choose to mix weapons with different optimum ranges, make sure that the squad prioritizes holding onto the long-range weapon, than the short-range one"

That way the attacker has the option of "tenderizing" the squad from afar with snipers/artillery etc, before it is safe/cost-efficient to make a close-quarters push (which should resolve the confrontation faster).

Yes, that gives mixed-weapons squads behind cover an advantage, however it is a bit more multi-dimensional than "sit at max range and try to bleed the enemy as much as possible). When would you ever choose to move in to close range, if the squad holds onto 3 PPSh?

A good example of how NOT to mix weapon upgrades is the new Penal (after they removed the PPSh). Long range DPS, and a flamer that sits on the squad until the very end.

A)conscripts PPsh upgrade is bad upgrade because weapon are designed to have different optimum ranges. In order to "fix" this Relic chose to increase the mid DPS of the PPsh. The end result is that Con PPsh becomes better than shock PPsh above range 10. Simpler solution and better solution would to make the upgrade provide SVT.

C)The patch upgrade for the V.G. of mixing Bolt action rifles and "assault rifles" again fall in the same category. The option here could be to have the St44 fire in semi automatic mode and have a weapon profile closer to semi automatic rifle, or (and I go into this more extensively later) have the weapon upgrade replace all the weapon of the squad.

Those are/will be two examples of squads you should sit and max range and try to bleed with snipers/whatever. We'll have to see how interesting Volks will look like gameplay-wise after the meta-strategy resettles.

B)"Heavy sapper" upgrade is a bad upgrade for the same reason the solution by Relic was to the movement penalty which goes against the Smg the unit is equipped with. A simpler and easier solution would be to to have the heavy "Sapper upgrade" to either provide the vickers K and bolt action rifles or turn the Vickers K into an "assault gun" type Lmg to have better synergy with the Smgs.

This one is the lulziest upgrade of all lulzy upgrades ever.
- It's not about optimum ranges here; it's about the fact that LMGs can't be fired on the move, whereas SMGs require you to move close to be useful.
- The real reason the movement penalty is absolutely necessary is not the LMG. It's the armour bonus (effectively increases Sapper HP by x2 vs small arms fire).

I would argue that Heavy Sappers would be one of the healthiest mixed-weapon squads in the game if we removed the movement penalty AND the armour bonus (also adjusting sapper price and their reinforcement costs at Vet3, and made Vickers_k take up 1 weapon slot):
- Just bleed them a bit from afar with *something*
- Once their SMG squadmates are down, it's safe/better to move in close.

Currently, the whole bundle of:
- 1 LMG
- Armour bonus
- Movement penalty
- EXTREME Repair speed

.. is extremely awkward. Combat-wise, Sappers are sitting ducks against anything with explosives, and the movement penalty gets in the way of their utility. On the other hand, if you don't have explosives, good luck bleeding those Sappers.

4)Avoid weapons with good DPS at all ranges or weapon combination that create squad with good DPS at all ranges.

The new SVT, the G43, the FG43 even the M1 are weapon that are very good at all ranges. That reduces the advantage or relative positioning and the "paper, scissors, rock" game play in small arm firefights. If neither side gets a significant advantage from changing range, small arms fire become static and less interesting.

FG43 might be less of issue due to other limitation to the squad (size cost), G43 might also be less of an issue due to upgrade cost and limited to half the squad (something that should also change), but imo if the patch goes ahead as is there will prove problematic with some of the other weapons.

Penal are going to be too good at all ranges being able to fight both Gren (at all ranges) and Pg (at mid far).
VG will be able to fight at all ranges. Riflemen will be able to fight, at all ranges, both Gren and Pg especially if supported by the new stronger USF support weapon.

The design that had range rebalancing small arm fire fight was great and should continue to be followed as much as possible. Unit with good DPS at all range should be avoided or have other limitation.

5)Simplify weapon upgrades. There is little real reason for weapon upgrades to be given to half squad members. Having squad members with different weapons that transfer makes squad's losing different DPS per model lost while the optimum range moves when model are lost. DPS and weapon profiles can then be redesigned.

For instance when the PPsh conscripts lose entities their optimum range move closer to 10-15. Further more the weapons profiles will be easier to implement since for instance the G43 will not have be better than K98 at long range. When infantries equip G43 will change role from long range infantry to mid range infantry.

This is the current DPS profiles



Notice that Mp44 continues become better with range and eventually become better than PPsh, making it extremely difficult to properly position the shock troops.

This could be the suggested DPS profiles

Note that Mp44 stop improving bellow the range 7 while the PPsh continues to improve thus Shock gain an advantage as the close in up to range 5.

DPS is per weapon not squad and thus the DPS of the shocks at range 10 should about equal with SP squad.

Also not the steep drop of the Mp44 DPS beyond 17 giving some ranges for semi automatic to be relatively more effective.

2) Normalize weapon profiles according to weapon type.



It would be allot easier for player if weapon of the same type followed similar profiles and have such great differences...

This weapon do not work well together. The squad has rather flat DPS curve above range 15 and the DPS stay the same when model drops. In addition any attempt to close in with AR or Carbine or SMG and the unis will be facing the DPS of smg and the armor of the squad.

stuff like this will never happen, i wouldnt waste my time with that

lelic is too incompetent to do such thing, it would only break the game again

Note that the Penal squad out DPS both Volks and grens at all ranges, (while both units are designed for long range) the weapon is simply too good at all ranges.

Note that the Penal squad out DPS both Volks and grens at all ranges, (while both units are designed for long range) the weapon is simply too good at all ranges.

My takeaways from this graph are:
1. If I have Grenadiers fighting against Penals, I would try to force a long-range engagement. That's where the DPS gap is the narrowest. Sure. My grenadier squad would lose the fight, but that would cost more to the enemy than me:
- Penals cost a lot more to call-in/reinforce
- Soviet went T1, which means no AT. Grenadiers have faust by default. Utility wise I am way better off.

This is a bit like Osttruppen. The Osttruppen win very few engagements. However, they win battles by bleeding the enemy/forcing them to overcommit. You can count on them!

2. If I had Penals fighting vs Grenadiers, I would do my best to close the distance as much as possible. That's where the DPS gap is the largest. I don't know if I would bother relocating during the enagement though, as this would bleed my Penals.

3. We are lucky that we don't have Grenadier vs Volksgrenadier engagements in the game. That would be ultra-boring, as distance (or relative positioning) doesn't seem to matter at all (whoever moves first, loses the fight).

4. What does the DPS comparison look like when all squads are at Vet3 (or Vet5), and Grens/Volks have upgraded their guns? (you might have to normalise this by the relative squad hit points. Penals will lose their DPS slower than Grens).

- Penals cost a lot more to call-in/reinforce

Penal are not allot more to reinforce due to 4 vs 6. Gren reinforce with 30 penal with 25...if you factor in merge Penal are even more cost efficient.

4. What does the DPS comparison look like when all squads are at Vet3 (or Vet5), and Grens/Volks have upgraded their guns?

Unfortunately don't have the actual number for the new Penal SVT, I am using the DPs provided by firespark.
So I can't factor in those parameters in graphs...

From testing thou, things become even worse for axis...When I tested vet3 LMG gren vs Vet3 Penal the Penal would lose win losing 1-2 entities (range about 35 heavy cover)...The vet bonuses for Penal all wrong. They get probably the best total accuracy bonus while the weapon fire way to often...

Main point here is that they have too much FAR DPS and most axis infantry do not even gain enough of an advantage by closing in. It way better for small arms firefight if unit perform good only in one range.