To SMG or not to SMG?

[ceyan]

I'm curious as to how to use SMGs properly. I've been experimenting with them more and more (in the past I usually used a half and half mix of SMGs and Rifles in my Infantry groups, and that was it) just to see if they're even worth that effort or if I should make specialized forces. Obviously there will be some maps, dependent upon the layout, that will dictate how useful SMGs are no matter what generalized opinion is out there. However, the more and more I play with them the more and more I feel its just not worth the effort to maintain mixed infantry with SMGs. I've switched to using them like I do Engineers, just a couple dedicated units which I zip around the map and use them as needed.

I can't shake the feeling that I'm doing something wrong by going that route though. Hence I figured I'd come on the forums here and ask how other people used managed them.


P.S.
Just for reference, I'm an AI player currently, although I hope to enjoy more PBEM action as I get more time free by finishing other games I'm playing.

[seille]

Ok, SMG has a terrain related attack bonus/penalty.
 
Normal rifle attack in all terrains with the same effect.
 
SMG attack with 150% effectivity against:
 
1. Heavy Forest
2. Urban Terrain
3. Fortress
4. Fortification
 
Now the bad news.
 
At the following terrain they attack with 50% effectivity only:
 
1. Plain
2. Swamp
3. Low Mountains
4. High Mountains
 
I would never use SMG only except in mainly wooden terrain (heavy forest).
Otherwise max mix some SMG to normal rifle.
 
For example i used 80% SMG during the fights east of Leningrad in the scenario russia 1941.
This terrain is made for that unit type and for retaking Leningrad (urban terrain).
 
Hope this helps.

[Joshuatree]

"For example i used 80% SMG during the fights east of Leningrad in the scenario russia 1941.
This terrain is made for that unit type and for retaking Leningrad (urban terrain). "
 
I think you're spot on here. For urban and wooded terrain there is not substitute for Smg units. (That is an unit consisting of say 60% to 90% Smg's, with some mortars added, sometimes machineguns or AT's)
 
Personally I tend to make Rifleunits mostly, but add some Smg's too. If I have 30-40 Inf units/points in an unit that would be 20 or 30 Riflemen and 10 Smg's. I usually always add some because you just never know what the terrain will be like, even if you are familiar with the terrain because you played the scenario before. If I know that an HQ of mine is going into a wooded terrain, or suburban terrain, then I will make some, as Seille describes, Smg units only. If in a forest/city they attack first, if on plains then I try to keep them reserves.
So yes I think they are worth their money, and I try to keep them in the same HQ all the time. I certainly don't zip'em around the map because of readiness drop and extra supply use.

[ceyan]

I understand how to use them, on an individual basis.  My problem is incorporating them into an army.  The Leningrad is a perfect example of where you'd have units setup specifically for that kind of job, either that or you'd change your unit layouts to play to the strengths of that terrain, because you can expect to be getting enough advantage out of the improved firepower to make it worth the effort to do so.

However, look at (as an example) the entire World at War scenario.  There are some obvious areas where you might specifically design units, in relation to Rifle versus SMG components, such as the initial Russian offensive for AG Mitte, Japanese units in China, invasion of one-hex town/fort islands, and so on...  I can understand that part.  What I'm having problem with, is how to deploy them in general throughout my forces over the course of the scenario. 

In the past I've always tried to go with a 50/50 split of Rifles/SMGs in all my Infantry groups as a general rule under the assumption that the occasional attack in a plain/swamp/mountain hex is offset by the occasional attack into a forest/urban/fort hex.  That is what I was trying to get across, that I've found that to be inefficient overall in my personal experience against the AI, and have started using a unit or two of SMGs only (well, typically with Mortars and the ocasional infantry gun/machine gunners) per front-line HQ that I use when I can play to their strengths and leave my other infantry/armor of just Riflemen (and supporting elements).  However, the reason I asked the question here, is because doing it that way feels wrong to me and I was wondering if others had an opinion on the subject.

[Joshuatree]

Well all I can say is that I've gone through the same development as you, from 50/50 rifle/Smg units, to mostly rifle units, and some specialized Smg units for forests/hills/urban terrain. Does it feel wrong gamewise? I don't  know, see it this way, with the Smg's one has an Inf. unit with an added bonus for difficult terrain, and can be very hard to defeat when wel dug in. Heck, you could even add some more specialized units such as flamethrowers and assault squads, they would get the most benefit in suburban terrain. So yeah, it does not represent real units in real life, but in this game it works fine... I think.

[seille]

a 50/50 mix is imho a good solution, more SMG when you have real SMG-terrain.

[Mehring]

Micro-manage units is my general solution. 
 
Use Rifle as your basic infantry SF, you don't want to be paying a premium for a SF that only works half as well as the cheap one. Use specialised units with loads of SMG, Inf Gun and Mtr for urban and fortified terrain.
 
For games in which a turn represents a week or less and you have the luxury of reserves, attach units from HQ pool for specific operations.
 
In a game like WaW, the drawback of attaching and removing SFs is the unrealistic and ahistorical loss of readiness which lasts months instead of days on current settings, as the new SFs join a unit/change HQ. Readiness loss can be modded though.