Are national army weapon stats at player's opinion?

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

Nephron
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:44 am

Are national army weapon stats at player's opinion?

Post by Nephron »

I look at the national armies for the Soviet Union. It says the rifle squads have one Degtyaryov LMG.

There are rules for magazine fed LMGs and belt fed LMGs.

I can't find anywhere in the book where it clarifies which one of those two types of LMG the Degtyaryov LMG is assumed to be.

I look up the Degtyaryov LMG on wikipedia. It says it can be magazine fed OR belt fed.

The soviets are armed with "rifles".

There are rules for bolt-action rifles and semi-automatic rifles.

When you google WW2 Soviet rifles, some of them are semi-automatic and some of them are bolt-action.

So is it purely based on opinion if soviet infantry get 8 dice or 6 dice machine guns and if they re-roll 1s to hit with their rifles?

Wikipedia claims Bren guns have a 100 round magazine option, and MG 42s have a 50 round drum. So do Bren guns roll 8 dice along with MG 42s? Like, I'm assuming that isn't the case, but it looks like someone else had a set of assumptions when they made the national army lists but I'm not seeing where those assumptions are laid out with a mapping of real weapon names to the abstract weapon stat lines.

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7662
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Are national army weapon stats at player's opinion?

Post by Truscott Trotter »

No they are not written down anywhere.
It would have been a handy addition to the arsenal IMHO
However, the only guidance I can offer is to take them as the most common option .
E.g. 99% of Bren guns had 30 round mags.

poiter50
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Are national army weapon stats at player's opinion?

Post by poiter50 »

I think the 100 round Bren mag was only issued to vehicles when the Bren was used as an AA weapon, usually pintle or Lakeman mounted.

sackatatties
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:50 am
Location: Dunfermline, Scotland

Re: Are national army weapon stats at player's opinion?

Post by sackatatties »

The soviet SVTs are actually covered in the lists. There's an option to arm a number of figures with semiauto weapons costing a few support points and are called out in the notes. The SVT was considered too complex for the peasant conscript rather than the reasonably professional soviet army prewar. Combined with the disruption to Soviet production the Nagant was the better, simpler option for much of the war. Unless the lists says specifically SVT then its normal bolt-action rifles.

The other belt fed options such as the belt feed for the Dektyarev and the Bren were situational and quite rare (and mostly fixed or AA).

Some of the drums held 100+ rounds as well but were too heavy to be practical on anything except a fixed AA or vehicle mounts. Those may reduce crew size requirements but wouldnt really increase firepower numbers. Those variations would likely be covered by campaign options in the relevant PSC lists rather than generic ones.

Also bear in mind that Force Ratings are mainly dependent on firepower dice, so any custom list changes would increase the cost of the platoon and would need to be calculated using the CoCulator.

Nephron
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Are national army weapon stats at player's opinion?

Post by Nephron »

What a recipe for a dog's dinner. Issue a set of instructions for other people to follow that rely on numerous unspoken assumptions made by the issuer who assumes that others will assume all the same assumptions as they did.

User avatar
Captain Reid
Posts: 719
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:49 am
Location: Shrewsbury and Peebles
Contact:

Re: Are national army weapon stats at player's opinion?

Post by Captain Reid »

Nephron wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:16 am
What a recipe for a dog's dinner. Issue a set of instructions for other people to follow that rely on numerous unspoken assumptions made by the issuer who assumes that others will assume all the same assumptions as they did.
Alternatively, the writer has allowed the reader to make their own judgements about such things, presuming (perhaps rashly), that they would be reasonably familiar with the period in question and might in specific circumstances wish to model MG34s with drum magazines rather than belt-fed, or Soviet units with semi-automatics rather than bolt-action rifles.

It's true that it does require the humble player to do a bit of work (unless said player is using one of the numerous pint-sized campaigns or other lists that provide the relevant information on a plate). But on the other hand the rules do say 'belt fed MGs throw this many dice and magazine fed that many'. The detail's not that hard to work out.
The climate crisis has already been solved. We already have all the facts and solutions. All we have to do is to wake up and change. - Greta Thunberg

The Saindoux Campaign, French & Indian War blog

Cerro Manteca, Peninsular War blog.

Contrarius
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:35 pm

Re: Are national army weapon stats at player's opinion?

Post by Contrarius »

Nephron wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:16 am
What a recipe for a dog's dinner. Issue a set of instructions for other people to follow that rely on numerous unspoken assumptions made by the issuer who assumes that others will assume all the same assumptions as they did.
Actually, I’d disagree with that entirely: there are numerous computer games, some of them exceptionally popular, that come with almost no instructions at all. I believe Minecraft is one of those, but there are many others. These games really on punters joining on-line guilds, accessing the community through messaging or via the internet or real human friends and then figuring the game out through trail and error and advice. The take up and addictiveness of these games relies very heavily on the community aspect.

It may be confusing at times, or rather it *IS* confusing at times, but CoC was never intended to be a fully packaged system. It’s not like Bolt Action or Flames of War, where everything is handed to you on a plate, along with the (non-optional) plate, along with a very large bill. CoC is merely a framework for you to build on. The Lardies do sell various handbooks and campaign guides to flesh out the bare bones, but it’s still up to you to select your own figures from a manufacturer of your choice.

I would add that for many people the research part of forming and painting an army is more engrossing and fascinating than actually fighting out battles on the tabletop. And since CoC is based on real history (not some imagined fantasy world like 40k or Warhammer) you can base your armies and battles on real history and tactics, on information that you have discovered yourself. All in, that is a far more engrossing experience than picking up a book, or rather series of very expensive books, which act as “the bible” for all your tabletop encounters.

It’s really up to you — there are plenty of other rules systems out there. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Truscott Trotter
Posts: 7662
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:11 pm
Location: Tasmania the Southernmost CoC in the world

Re: Are national army weapon stats at player's opinion?

Post by Truscott Trotter »

As I said they lists are costed with the standard historical weapon load outs.

If as someone else mentioned you want to use different weapons then the force level needs recalculating.

You seem to be well versed in weapon stats.

User avatar
Ivan Zaitzev
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Are national army weapon stats at player's opinion?

Post by Ivan Zaitzev »

The belt fed version of the Degtyaryov is the RP-46, introduced in 1946 so if playing before that, it's magazine fed.

sackatatties
Posts: 456
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:50 am
Location: Dunfermline, Scotland

Re: Are national army weapon stats at player's opinion?

Post by sackatatties »

Nephron wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:16 am
What a recipe for a dog's dinner. Issue a set of instructions for other people to follow that rely on numerous unspoken assumptions made by the issuer who assumes that others will assume all the same assumptions as they did.
I strongly disagree.

What you get in the basic lists is clear enough.
Understanding classic arms is easy for anyone that knows anything about WW2 and the forces they put on the table. The figures you use will tell you that if nothing else. In any case, the Pint Sized Campaigns and the new Handbooks cover everything you'd ever need for that particular action or theatre, in detail.

What CoC allows you to do is setup your game exactly the way you want to. They're not designed to be tournament rules that run on rails, quite the opposite.

Post Reply