Combat Engrs are semi?

[delems]

How come some combat engineers are semi and some are not?

Seems like a pretty big discrepancy.

What about builder engineers?  HC officer, etc?

Are some semi and some not?

[N8]

What do you mean?

[Powpapow]

deleted.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Powpapow

[delems]

How come most combat engineers have bolt rifle, but some have semi?
 

Are other units that way?

[N8]

2 minutes ago, delems said:

How come most combat engineers have bolt rifle, but some have semi?

American have M1 Garand as their Combat Engineer, German have KAR98, British have Enfield, and French have the MAS36

[Powpapow]

6 minutes ago, N8 said:

American have M1 Garand as their Combat Engineer, German have KAR98, British have Enfield, and French have the MAS36

That does seem a tad unfair.

[N8]

26 minutes ago, Powpapow said:

That does seem a tad unfair.

Not really.

[tater]

1 hour ago, delems said:

How come some combat engineers are semi and some are not?

All US troops should be semi except those that are full auto, and maybe some snipers (before they switched to M1s as well).

[Powpapow]

21 minutes ago, N8 said:

Not really.

The US rifle is a 8 round semi-auto weapon and the rest are bolt action....so?!

Rushed my fair share of EFMS/FBs. I'd say that's a distinct advantage.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Powpapow

[tater]

3 minutes ago, Powpapow said:

Rushed my fair share of EFMS. I'd say that's a distinct advantage.

Go back in time and have every other ww2 army standardize on semi automatic rifles?

Also, the US standard issue rifleman—has no HE at all. 4 std issue rifles in every other army can bust an EFMS.

Edited December 1, 2020 by tater

[tater]

Give the US combat engie a Springfield, and give every M1 an HE charge like every other std issue rifle has. I'll take that trade.

[Powpapow]

8 minutes ago, tater said:

Go back in time and have every other ww2 army standardize on semi automatic rifles?

Not asking for a nerf, but the advantage of having a semi-auto rifle, to attack FMS/FBs is a large advantage to a huge part of this game.

Edited December 1, 2020 by Powpapow

[drkmouse]

30 minutes ago, Powpapow said:

Not asking for a nerf, but the advantage of having a semi-auto rifle, to attack FMS/FBs is a large advantage to a huge part of this game.

tis is

[N8]

2 hours ago, Powpapow said:

Not asking for a nerf, but the advantage of having a semi-auto rifle, to attack FMS/FBs is a large advantage to a huge part of this game.

Have to remember, USA comes in Tier 3, barely use them.

[drkmouse]

17 minutes ago, N8 said:

Have to remember, USA comes in Tier 3, barely use them.

puma...

[N8]

8 hours ago, drkmouse said:

puma...

Where's the Puma is basically asking where's your cheese, Drk.

 

Edited December 1, 2020 by N8

[tater]

12 hours ago, Powpapow said:

Not asking for a nerf, but the advantage of having a semi-auto rifle, to attack FMS/FBs is a large advantage to a huge part of this game.

Except US riflemen cannot help bust EFMS or FBs at all. A huge disadvantage.

Like I said, give the standard issue US rifleman an HE charge like every other std issue rifle has in game and we're good, the combat engie can get a Springfield (of course in RL, US troops that carried some other weapon that in ww2ol would give them a pistol were in fact armed with carbines—it was used to replace pistols).

Look at the spawn lists, and add up the HE charges, the US would need many more combat engies to have anything like parity, and even then that parity would require that we spawn Springfields, a weapon that was almost nonexistent in the ETO. US troops that were not armed with BARs, Thompsons, or 1919A4s, overwhelmingly had either M1 Garands, or M1 carbines, the % of Springfields in theater was tiny. Look at pictures of US troops in Europe, and try to find one without a scope on it. It's not impossible, but it's exceedingly rare.

Edited December 1, 2020 by tater

[drkmouse]

ok time to wt in

YES  amerincans  need that he charge added. as a eng better and a charge on a riffle also  ( if we go historical equaliity argumant)

Yes the Panz H needs to be moved to tier 1  ( or 1/2 if we  ever get it ) ( if we go historical equaliity argumant)

Yes th  hurri needs to be moved to tier  1 ( or  tier 1/2 if we get it  ( if we go historical equaliity argumant)

Yes the allies get  the  shrek bazoka one tier before  axis  ( if we go historical equaliity argumant)

Yes the alies  LOSE the heat satchel totlaly   ( if we go historical equaliity argumant)

Yes the  allies cannot have   englind mainland air unit till a later tier  ( if we go historical equaliity argumant)

NEED i go on????

To those hwo   are aguring   both  the  truth both ways JUdos 

to those who remain silent when it effects your side , WHY???
to those who change ther tuen  for when  "your"  side  gets an adv or siadv.  an advantage  SHAME ON YOU. 

The game need to keep a chance for allplayer to feel they have a chance.   So aplying a  even handed  apraoch for all is best for game and  in long run both sides.

[blakeh]

17 hours ago, delems said:

How come some combat engineers are semi and some are not?

Seems like a pretty big discrepancy.

What about builder engineers?  HC officer, etc?

Are some semi and some not?

Not at all.   I would wager that not one German engineer was equipped with a semi-auto rifle.  

 

[tater]

1 hour ago, drkmouse said:

Yes the  allies cannot have   englind mainland air unit till a later tier  ( if we go historical equaliity argumant)

Wrong. RAF deployment is just that, deployment.

Are you arguing that the RAF was incapable of flying to different airfields (a proper, equipment-based argument), or you arguing that all combatants in WW2OL must deploy as they were deployed in RL? That would solve the HC issue, as every German unit would have to attack and dploy to the exact same towns in the same order every campaign.

The solution to this bogus claim is trivial: RAF starts at time=0 in the campagin in the UK, then if they want to be at forward AFs, the HC has to move them, just like every other BDE. Done.

Globally, if "strat" was to matter more, the solution would be a much more finite number of vehicles, pegged to the manufacturing and purchasing power (or ability to get loaned gear) of each combatant, so that every plane/truck/tank lost matters more (unless your side has effectively infinite industrial power (which 1 country actually had)). So early in the war (pre 1942), the RAF would have finite planes, and if they wished to marshal their forces to defend against invasion in the first couple tiers, they might CHOOSE to leave some air assets in the UK. Of course every lost LW plane would also matter in such a system, so that regardless, given lack of fear of death, all the continental AFs would likely be bereft of aircraft by the time the US appears (or at least of locally produced aircraft). So the sides that get US supply would have planes, all other planes would simply not exist in large numbers (unless pilots changed and were more realistically risk-averse).

[tater]

1 hour ago, drkmouse said:

to those who remain silent when it effects your side , WHY???
to those who change ther tuen  for when  "your"  side  gets an adv or siadv.  an advantage  SHAME ON YOU. 

The game need to keep a chance for allplayer to feel they have a chance.   So aplying a  even handed  apraoch for all is best for game and  in long run both sides.

The US standard rifleman has no HE. Every other standard rifleman has HE.

It only takes 4 to sap down an EFMS, once the US is in play, there are often 4+ rifles near an EFMS, stuck waiting form someone to despawn and get an engie. That single engie must arrive intact, or another has to get spawned. The regular inf are helpless, where any other group of rifles in the gme would simply sap it down.

[delems]

*** Are you arguing that the RAF was incapable of flying to different airfields 

Yes, it isn't just 'flying to a new AF'; there are lots of other components to flying aircraft.

No parts, no ammo, no ground crew, no maintenance facilities/tools, etc.

[delems]

*** The regular inf are helpless, where any other group of rifles in the gme would simply sap it down.

There are bolts in US spawn list, can use them.  In fact, 28% of the rifles are bolt.

[tater]

5 minutes ago, delems said:

*** Are you arguing that the RAF was incapable of flying to different airfields 

Yes, it isn't just 'flying to a new AF'; there are lots of other components to flying aircraft.

No parts, no ammo, no ground crew, no maintenance facilities/tools, etc.

So you are saying no unit in ww2ol should be able to move anyplace it did not move at the time it moved in the real war.

Things like having trucks vs, dunno, horses, for example? You wanna go logistics? Sounds good to me.

3 minutes ago, delems said:

There are bolts in US spawn list, can use them.  In fact, 28% of the rifles are bolt.

Yeah, and the number should be closer to 0%. It would be like giving the LW 28% ww1 biplanes.

This also means that the US HE is then closer to 28% of the other armies, since they all have similar numbers of rifles, right?

[drkmouse]

1 hour ago, tater said:

The US standard rifleman has no HE. Every other standard rifleman has HE.

It only takes 4 to sap down an EFMS, once the US is in play, there are often 4+ rifles near an EFMS, stuck waiting form someone to despawn and get an engie. That single engie must arrive intact, or another has to get spawned. The regular inf are helpless, where any other group of rifles in the gme would simply sap it down.

AS I SAID read  {YES  amerincans  need that he charge added. as a eng better and a charge on a riffle also  ( if we go historical equaliity argumant)}

46 minutes ago, tater said:

So you are saying no unit in ww2ol should be able to move anyplace it did not move at the time it moved in the real war.

Things like having trucks vs, dunno, horses, for example? You wanna go logistics? Sounds good to me.

Yeah, and the number should be closer to 0%. It would be like giving the LW 28% ww1 biplanes.

This also means that the US HE is then closer to 28% of the other armies, since they all have similar numbers of rifles, right?

WHY?  over 66% of  axis  riffels are  bolt action ( not  auto) as are  english and  french

1 hour ago, tater said:

Wrong. RAF deployment is just that, deployment.

Are you arguing that the RAF was incapable of flying to different airfields (a proper, equipment-based argument), or you arguing that all combatants in WW2OL must deploy as they were deployed in RL? That would solve the HC issue, as every German unit would have to attack and dploy to the exact same towns in the same order every campaign.

The solution to this bogus claim is trivial: RAF starts at time=0 in the campagin in the UK, then if they want to be at forward AFs, the HC has to move them, just like every other BDE. Done.

Globally, if "strat" was to matter more, the solution would be a much more finite number of vehicles, pegged to the manufacturing and purchasing power (or ability to get loaned gear) of each combatant, so that every plane/truck/tank lost matters more (unless your side has effectively infinite industrial power (which 1 country actually had)). So early in the war (pre 1942), the RAF would have finite planes, and if they wished to marshal their forces to defend against invasion in the first couple tiers, they might CHOOSE to leave some air assets in the UK. Of course every lost LW plane would also matter in such a system, so that regardless, given lack of fear of death, all the continental AFs would likely be bereft of aircraft by the time the US appears (or at least of locally produced aircraft). So the sides that get US supply would have planes, all other planes would simply not exist in large numbers (unless pilots changed and were more realistically risk-averse).

SORRY that was  shot donw for axis  para units ;  you cannot have it both ways