From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Thank you for the very detailed explanation Comrade :)
I see, so it's a problem about calibrating ground element attributes and also a problem about combat not having more phases (say more phases at mid ranges, between 1,000 and 50 meters). I still don't see why fixing any of the two issues would entail a major rework of the supply system, if ROF is capped proportionally to the lengthening of combat resolution ??
The supply system would have to be reworked because artillery, which now often fires only a limited numbers of rounds, would consume far more ammunition, and for artillery elements the ammunition costs are tougher on the supply system than that of another round of, say, rifle fire. Machineguns could also theoretically consume far more ammo.
ROF being proportionally capped to the lengthening of the firing resolution would not fix the problem because, like I said before, it would not remove the problem of the relative amount of times that elements are likely to fire. If a certain element now fires 2 times, and another 4 times, if you'd cut that in half, one element would still fire twice as often/half as many times as the other. The ROFs themselves are not too problematic, although the SMG ROF is probably too generous in general as there should probably be some penalty for the inaccuracy of the weapon at full auto. I've decreased the SMG ranges in a customized variant of the game, and that results in fewer losses.
Indeed, but also the expected number of actual shots the element least likely to shoot does should be higher. And the chances of the most likely element to shoot to not get an actual shot would increase. So if the ROF Ground element parameter isn't the main problem, then assuming that both ground elements have the same experience level and same leader, why would a ground element be more likely to shoot than another one? Sorry, Comrade, perhaps I'm a bit thick this morning, but something escapes me.
The entire combat system would also need to be changed to take into account different weapon ranges. For example: riflemen should not normally be within 50 meters of SMG squads in clear terrain. The often heard rebutal of the distances being odd is that "the defender isn't supposed to be static", but that still doesn't make some parts of it historical. Several element types, such as SPAA, would not normally be directly at the frontline, yet they're at the frontline in the game. The only elements that seem to keep some distance between them and the enemy are artillery and (some) AT guns.
Agreed. It looks to me that the tactical combat resolution needs to take into account formation and also, stuff like committing reserves to the front from tactical reserves (say a SPAA is committed to the frontline because the frontline ground elements falter), etc. Indeed, that's quite a complex and time consuming change.