Are national army weapon stats at player's opinion?

Moderators: Laffe, Vis Bellica

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 »

If Folks said that they must have a different rulebook then mine

My US list specifies Garrand M1's and is costed accordingly.

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 »

Every man may have a grenade launcher but the restrictions on the number used in a game are on p3 of the errata.

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4118
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

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

Post by Seret »

In practice the requirement to spend a CI to fire one limits the ability to fire rifle grenades pretty severely anyway.

jdg
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2013 6:08 am
Location: Near Phoenix, Arizona

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

Post by jdg »

"M1 Garand has rifle grenade attachment, so must have it in squad already included."

Not every M1 had a Grenade Launcher.

Once the M7 Grenade Launcher was introduced in ate '43 three were issued t each squad. Two went to riflemen and one to the assistant squad leader. Before the M7 was introduced one rifleman was issued a m1903 Springfield for use with the old Grenade Launcher.

jdg

andyskinner
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:45 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

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

Post by andyskinner »

I relate to the original point to some degree, without expressing it in the same way.

When I read military history, I may be reading pretty high level things (currently reading Atkinson), or stories of men at company or below. But I'm not that interested in the hardware details. I'm not sure it makes sense to assume people wanting to play CoC are interested in the same facets of the hobby.

it is kinda like the "play the period" mantra. Sometimes I find that annoying, because it doesn't always clear things up in game terms. But if two different people have different understandings of what is reasonable, and they each play it their way, true to their vision of how it "should" be, everyone is happy. :) (Until they play each other ...)

I figure it isn't much of a problem because most things "just work", and if you aren't that interested in the details, you don't care where there was an exercise left to the reader. I wouldn't notice the problem! And the idea that campaigns spell out specifics sounds good, too.

andy
I cheer for Nick.

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4118
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

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

Post by Seret »

andyskinner wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:15 pm
I'm not sure it makes sense to assume people wanting to play CoC are interested in the same facets of the hobby.
I think if you're interested in playing a platoon-level wargame, it's reasonable to assume you've either already got a fair knowledge of what a WW2 infantry platoon looked like, or are keen to find out.

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 »

Sorry whats not clear about the rifle grenades?
The errata was designed to remove any ambiguity

Anyway to you original point I think it would be easier to define the weapons at the start of the list for people unfamiliar with such details.

So for example tje German list would have notes saying all troops have bolt action rifles unless otherwise mentioned (those with pistols or SMG are already noted) and then mention that MG 34/42 are belt fed MG's.

Would that type of note be sufficient do you think?

andyskinner
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:45 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

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

Post by andyskinner »

Seret wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:54 pm
I think if you're interested in playing a platoon-level wargame, it's reasonable to assume you've either already got a fair knowledge of what a WW2 infantry platoon looked like, or are keen to find out.
Sure I want to know enough to play the game. And I feel CoC gives me enough. But every now and then I get the impression from some quote that I'm supposed to have done research. I think I can be interested in the game, and interested in history, without studying weapon details.

I don't want to miscommunicate. I don't have a problem with the game. And I don't have a problem with people with different interests. Just an observation. And I'm interested in a lot of the discussions here about specifics, especially in how they relate to playing the game. But I won't remember the details about rifle grenades. ;)

andy
I cheer for Nick.

andyskinner
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 9:45 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

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

Post by andyskinner »

I should add:
My favorite parts of CoC are game mechanics that add suspense and excitement, and some of my games are non-historical, just for the fun of the game. (The Quar are whimsical figures with a WW1 feel.)

But I've played several WW2 games (and one SCW) with a group that are quite knowledgeable, and pleasant to be around.

andy
I cheer for Nick.

User avatar
Seret
Posts: 4118
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:45 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

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

Post by Seret »

andyskinner wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:13 am
I think I can be interested in the game, and interested in history, without studying weapon details.
And TBH a quick scan of the relevant page on Wikipedia should suffice in almost every case.

This thread has come about because the OP seems to have read the wiki page for the DP-28 where it describes it quite clearly as a mag-fed gun, but then scrolled down aaaaaall the way to the bottom where there's one obscure reference to a belt-feed kit for the gun that came out post-war, and then claimed that it's confusing. I'm not convinced the problem here is with Rich's approach to writing rules.

Post Reply