Bar vs FG42 is it a draw?

[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.

[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.

[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.