Germans now have the same number of Assaults as Soviets :(

Agree 100%. For the sake of realism the Soviets shold have a large amount of Avtomatichs as they had very large squads of just assault troopers.

Agree. I was suggesting the same - Russians should have more SMG troopers than Germans. Not only because of the balance, but because they had!

For historic accuracy, should be a lot more Papashas than MP40s, but for the game playiability they should be the same... what a dilemma...

Asymmetrical teams ftw

Schnitzel15 said:

Russians shouldn't get more PPSH, because this is still a game and there has to be a limit for everything. And I'm sure most of you guys who want this, play as Russians. So of course, who wouldn't want to have more SMGs? -.-

Players use the PPSH so snipe other players in a huge distance, which isn't realistic. In RO1 that was very hard. I'd say keep the same number on both teams, so that it could be a fair game.

Click to expand...

Sniping with a PPSH? Wut? By sniping you mean fire several bursts at the distant target and hope one of the bullets hit?

Schnitzel15 said:

Players use the PPSH so snipe other players in a huge distance, which isn't realistic.

Click to expand...

I see there are people who still believe that the PPSH is accurate. It ain't. It just spews tons of bullets.

Again, the Soviets and Germans had roughly the same amount of SMG's pr. soldier, and as such giving both teams the same number of assault spots is realistic.

Keep in mind that the Soviet army employed 5-6 times the amount of men that the German army did during the war, and as such would need 5-6 times as many SMG's to keep the same percentage of men equipped with an SMG.

In short, this is a non-issue.

DesiQ said:

I see there are people who still believe that the PPSH is accurate. It ain't. It just spews tons of bullets.

Click to expand...

Seriously. The level 50 unlock of fire select is about useless. The odds of a single shot hitting anything more than about 70m away is next to nothing. You want to hit a distant target, you point the PPSh in the general direction, brace it on something, and hold the trigger down. A 150m headshot isn't "sniping" when it takes an entire drum mag to get it.

Mekhazzio said:

Seriously. The level 50 unlock of fire select is about useless. The odds of a single shot hitting anything more than about 70m away is next to nothing. You want to hit a distant target, you point the PPSh in the general direction, brace it on something, and hold the trigger down. A 150m headshot isn't "sniping" when it takes an entire drum mag to get it.

Click to expand...

True, ppsh is fine, in fact it is lovely. Compare it to the POS we had in RO:Ost.

Three things:
1.)

Unus Offa said:

Again, the Soviets and Germans had roughly the same amount of SMG's pr. soldier, and as such giving both teams the same number of assault spots is realistic.

Keep in mind that the Soviet army employed 5-6 times the amount of men that the German army did during the war, and as such would need 5-6 times as many SMG's to keep the same percentage of men equipped with an SMG.

Click to expand...

While this is true of the war effort in general and the relative size of the armies, it does not hold true for the battle of stalingrad in particular. At the start of the offensive, the german attack numbered roughly 275000 men, where as the russian forces numbered slightly below 200000. A ratio which actually favors the germans. The only time this skewed the opposite way was was during the soviet counteroffensive and operation uranus the following spring which employed 600000-700000 german forces vs around 1100000-1200000 soviet, which while going on 2:1 is nowhere near 5-6x.

2.)Not that i believe that the soviets need more assault slots, they do not. I think limiting these roles as it is now is a step in the right direction and habing them equal, while not necessarily historically accurate, will keep the game more balanced and more fun to play, especially as a boltie regardless of which side you play. As it stands there are still plenty more SMG roles in play, especially on maps involving sappers or engineers.

3.) Regarding PPSh accuracy. While it is understandable that many people take the PPSh to be some kind of bullet hosing automatic shotgun for idiots manufactured out of spare parts, the reality is far from the truth. At its core the PPSh is actually a very elegant and effective weapon that has more in common with the modern FN P-90 SMG rather than the uzi.

It has a fairly long barrel for a weapon of its size/caliber and fires a necked 7.62 cartridge at significantly higher muzzle velocity than the comparative 9mm parabellum of the MP-40. This actually results in higher accuracy at long range purely from a ballistics perspective as the lighter, faster bullet will have a shallower trajectory.

Are there other factors? Yes, we must of course consider tolerances and limitations of wartime production. A gun with loose tolerances and a poorly manufactured barrel will shoot worse than one that snaps together tighter than a nun's legs and was made in a laboratory. However, just because a number of PPSh's were put together by 6 year olds out of recycled Mosin-Nagants does not mean they all were, and it was fairly far from the norm. Incidentally i do not see how using a Mosin-Nagant barrel designed for a more powerful round and a much more accurate weapon could possibly hurt the SMGs accuracy.

Now while yes, the average quality of manufacture of all PPSh SMGs is probably lower than the average qualiy of all MP-40s, it is just that, an average. Very well made examples of PPShs exist, and existed during the war, especially ones of pre- and early war manufacture. Thus it should not be impossible to find an accurate PPSh just like it is not impossible to find an inaccurate MP-40. And we do technically have this represented ingame as the 'weapon qualiy' stat.

I just do not see why people keep insisting on treating any 150+ meter kill with a PPSh as some stroke of god.

Unus Offa said:

Again, the Soviets and Germans had roughly the same amount of SMG's pr. soldier, and as such giving both teams the same number of assault spots is realistic.

Click to expand...

Total number vs per soldier does not exactly give accurate results when it comes to some other things or possible supply, issue, TO&E and changes in such things which would otherwise arguably give very weird implications combined with actual frontline strenght or ratio of units vs other units.

Now of course practical realities could be considered but since there is little to nonexistant information about specific details of units shall we go with TO&E as basis or pull things out of random and presume based on information that can (and will) imply different things for both sides? If we go with TO&E your average russian rifle squad has more SMGs than average german rifle squad, and since the game classes seems to be odd hybrid between squad and platoon averages it would make sense to have greater number of SMG classes avaible for eastern friends over the germans, while if we go with anecdotal points or certain specific units that were lucky we there should be nothing else than SMGs and MGs on the german team while russian team is throwing sticks and stones at them, and in another map possibly the random opposite. Even more so considering in later war average russian rifle squad had less SMGs than earlier in the war despite far greater production numbers since they started to concentrate (something which the germans did as well if you really avergize it even further) and prioritise them to other units and instead increase LMG presence in squad, which also ****s up the relative proportional values as an average.

Of course WSS, Fallschirms, Panzergrenadiers, Volksgrenadier SMG units and yadayada have crapload of more automatic firepower for fairly obvious reasons, so I'll draw a line between regular Heer rifle squad in 1941 to 1943 and same for the Red Army one. Otherwise we could start comparing approxomite TO&E of different divisions and smaller units themselves and start taking some other things into account which would make things even more complicated, taking concentration of force and even bigger concentration of firepower into account.

Well, we're talking about the availability of SMG's in percentages here, and as such the difference in size between two forces at one particular time doesn't matter much.

When we look at the number of SMG's accepted into service by the German & Soviet army from 1939-1945 (war in the east started in 1941) as compared to the number of men in frontline service, what can be clearly seen is that the Germans & Soviets had a very similar percentage of men armed with SMG's.

What many people seem to forget is that the MP40 was far from the only SMG that the Germans deployed, weapons such as the MP28, MP34, MP35, EMP35, MP41, M38(it) etc etc. were very numerous as-well.

At the start of the offensive, the german attack numbered roughly 275000 men, where as the russian forces numbered slightly below 200000. A ratio which actually favors the germans.

Click to expand...

How many of these were Hungarian & Italian though IIRC some 200,000+ Hungarians took part in the battle for Stalingrad, along with some 100,000+ Italians. The German had some 400,000 men fight there IIRC.

The only time this skewed the opposite way was was during the soviet counteroffensive and operation uranus the following spring which employed 600000-700000 german forces vs around 1100000-1200000 soviet, which while going on 2:1 is nowhere near 5-6x.

Click to expand...

The 5-6x ratio is counting the whole war and including reserves as-well partisans, whilst not counting civilian combatants, of which there were many inside of Stalingrad btw.

taking silencers, dual mags, saddle drums, etc, into consideration i think it's safe to assume that TWI does not give a flying f*** about what was historically accurate.

Unus Offa said:

What many people seem to forget is that the MP40 was far from the only SMG that the Germans deployed, weapons such as the MP28, MP34, MP35, EMP35, MP41, M38(it) etc etc. were very numerous as-well.

Click to expand...

Definitely, now the question goes how many of those were used by Waffen-SS, rear-guard units not directly invovled (anytime soon) in fighting (let alone in Stalingrad), supply guys and such? Of course the same question can be pointed back at the soviets, but then again their weapon shortages when it came to non-frontline crews was quite extreme until later years. Initial german units involved in Stalingrad were quite well armed with concentrated firepower, ones that followed had different story and with russians? Somewhat the opposite. Some german anecdotes of diary entires and such can also point out how russian SMG'ers started to appear in larger numbers in Stalingrad after the initial engagements, not prior that.

That is actually perfect justification to sway general assault balance (hypothetically, depending if TWI ever does something about it but purely on what we know) so that in some maps germans have far more favourable amounts of SMGs while the opposite in some other maps, it is perfectly authentic and accurate. Even if we stick with basic TO&E it still would mean slightly more SMGs per russians than per germans, considering effective strenght instead of averagizing it between effective and potential frontline strenght and\or reserves.

I disagree OP, I think it's just fine having the same number of SMGs per team.

It's nice for realism, but quite frankly I don't see the big difference. Just cause the MP40 wasn't passed out as much as PPSHs doesn't mean it there needs to be a noticable lack of them ingame.

No point for balance either.

Proud_God said:

Asymmetrical teams ftw

Click to expand...

RO:OST managed asymmetric balance and was better for it.

Panzerfaust vs PTRD
G41 vs SVT
MP40 (mid range winner) vs PPSH (short range winner)
DP-28 vs MG42

If they could manage it then they can manage it now. However mainstreamers won't like it.

I'm in full agreement with OP


But.


I want 2 things in return to favour asymmetrical warfare which was the case in reality.

1. Less Soviet MG's, more German MG's. And for the love of god give me the MG42, it's proven to have been there, now where are we waiting for?

2. A luger, the Wehrmacht is nothing without the Luger. I want it, seriously. We'll sacrifice the C96 if needed.

Oldih said:

Definitely, now the question goes how many of those were used by Waffen-SS, rear-guard units not directly invovled (anytime soon) in fighting (let alone in Stalingrad), supply guys and such? Of course the same question can be pointed back at the soviets, but then again their weapon shortages when it came to non-frontline crews was quite extreme until later years. Initial german units involved in Stalingrad were quite well armed with concentrated firepower, ones that followed had different story and with russians? Somewhat the opposite. Some german anecdotes of diary entires and such can also point out how russian SMG'ers started to appear in larger numbers in Stalingrad after the initial engagements, not prior that.

That is actually perfect justification to sway general assault balance (hypothetically, depending if TWI ever does something about it but purely on what we know) so that in some maps germans have far more favourable amounts of SMGs while the opposite in some other maps, it is perfectly authentic and accurate. Even if we stick with basic TO&E it still would mean slightly more SMGs per russians than per germans, considering effective strenght instead of averagizing it between effective and potential frontline strenght and\or reserves.

Click to expand...

Problem is that these TO&E varied a lot during the war, and from unit to unit. Also a lot of them merely list what a unit of a certain size was "meant" to look like at a certain period from, based on what it took off with. These things often changed however as units got requipped at the frontlines, a regular riflemen suddenly ending up with an SMG or semi auto rifle instead, or vice versa.