Sharpe
|
British SMLE Mk III* Riflemen [APPROVED & LOCKED](0-1) 9/ (2-4) 6/ (5) 5
(0-1) 1
Cover 5
Speed 1
Defense 4/7
CA4
FIRE CONTROL--This unit ignores the restriction on Defensive Fire from a "Hit the Dirt!" counter.
Cost 4
Note: This represents the pre-WW2 regular army.
|
NeuralDream
|
Month of availability?
|
Sharpe
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | | Month of availability? |
That's your job, history-boy. 
Seriously, how will dates work? What is the earliest possible date?
|
NeuralDream
|
No idea. When were they first used in the British army? Jan. 1907? If in your opinion the unit represented by this card would have close assault 6 and the same stats in 1907, then Jan. 1907. In my opinion, it depends on close assault. What weapons did they use and how is such a high value justified? If it was satchel charges that were invented much later, then their date is what determines the date of availability.
In other words, when is the earlier date that this unit would have these stats and S.A.s.
|
Sharpe
|
What is your view on Close Assault? Should it start off low across the board and go up?
I'm lost in this area. Give me a history lesson.
|
NeuralDream
|
Close assault is something I never really figured out. So, let's continue this discussion in the FA General subforum or maybe AAM General.
Some examples: A British antitank rifle grenade can kill a pz3h very easily from 10-20 yards (close assault), but isn't this a separate unit (antitank rifle grenadier)? I don't really know. A satchel charge can kill any tank too. Molotov cocktails were also extremely powerful and again they represent close assault. Someone more knowledgeable could tell us maybe what close assault is in the case of a group of 5 regular riflemen. LotharLutjens maybe? If nobody knows here, we can ask in Gleemax. They have 1-2 who could know.
|
RAEVSKI
|
Aussie infantry will be similar, but alway had tough reputation
|
Sharpe
|
Australian Cavalry
EXTRA BOUNCY--This unit ignores all Movement Rolls for walls and streams.
|
RAEVSKI
|
hahahahaha
|
RAEVSKI
|
It was Light horse and not Cavalry a distinct difference
|
Sharpe
|
Australian Light Kangaroo Corps?
|
RAEVSKI
|
Yeah thats the one
|
Sharpe
|
Date 7/36
|
Buzzkill
|
Dates, gentlemen, dates.
See post above. 7/36
|
NeuralDream
|
Shouldn't this be 9/6/4? It was supposed to be fantastic at low range (fastest bolt-action rifle at the time and particularly lethal), but very difficult to aim at longer ranges for prolonged periods of time due to weight. In that sense, the Lee Enfield Mk.III was the Thompson of rifles.
Will this rifle's card have different name in different nations? It was used by dozens of nations during, before and after WW2.
I'm still a bit worried with the ranges of riflemen. I think that the range-4 values are generally high and that range 5 is sniper range. Wouldn't it be more accurate to use 0-1, 2-3, and 4?
|
Sharpe
|
My thinking was that the professional British infantry practiced quite a bit of musketry between the wars. It was kind of a fetish. They should have an advantage over the conscript French and Germans. I don't really know anything specific about the L-E.
I"ll change the name and stats.
Mr. Buzzkill, clean up in aisle 3, please.
|
NeuralDream
|
One last question. All these units that have specific names instead of a generic weapon, will they be unique like heroes (one per army)?
|
Sharpe
|
No. I'm just using them so we differentiate between all the units that will be carrying that weapon. We either need several units named "M1 Garand 19XX" or something else. Everybody seems to have a different view of consistency.
I think it would be odd to use the "2nd Sherwood Foresters" in the same warband as the "Black Watch" and the "3rd Coldstream Guards" and I wouldn't like to see that happen. I don't see why you'd only use one unit, though.
I remember when my son and I played a Hong Kong scenario, we had a platoon from the Winnipeg Rifles, one from the Brit regt (whatever it was) and one platoon from the HK Defence Batt. That would be OK, like they used to do in ASL.
|
NeuralDream
|
I guess that's ok then.
|
Sharpe
|
Let me know what you want. Problems:
1. Name of weapon: In some cases, lots of countries used that rifle.
2. Generic "German Infantry": We're going to have different versions as fireteams and their stats evolve.
3. Named units as representative of the army at that point: Nobody likes this.
|
Buzzkill
|
I think we need to stick with SMLE Mk. III for the name.
|
Sharpe
|
Don't forget the asterisk "*" after the III.
|
Buzzkill
|
| Sharpe wrote: | | Don't forget the asterisk "*" after the III. |
What does the "*" denote?
|
Amandil
|
| Buzzkill wrote: | | Sharpe wrote: | | Don't forget the asterisk "*" after the III. |
What does the "*" denote? |
I think it was a simplified version of the Mk. III they put out in 1915 which simplified manufacture; it's on wikipedia, the ever-authoritative source of our day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfield_rifle#Short_Magazine_Lee-Enfield_Mk_III
To my knowledge, the high rate of fire from British troops firing Lee Enfields had to do with drill rather than the rifle itself being 'the fastest.' (Although it did have a 10 round magazine.) I dunno if that would be able to be factored into the stats, because I suppose it would still have to be worse (at close range) than a Garand, wouldn't it? It was a cheaper gun to manufacture, having only one locking lug on the bolt as opposed to the Mauser's three. Hmmm.
Maybe just an SA having to do with rapid-fire training or some such.
|
Sharpe
|
The later UK infantry will get worse once the TA and conscripts come in.
Cost will be 3.
|
Amandil
|
That's a cool idea (but what's a "TA"?)
|
Sharpe
|
Territorial Army. Reservists, National Guard.
|
Angel of Death
|
CA and name edit
|
Sharpe
|
change "of" to "on" in FIRE CONTROL
|
NeuralDream
|
I think that it's the Mauser that deserves range 5 much more than the Lee Enfield. The theoretical max range may be 550 in training, but that wasn't the battle reality, where due to its weight it was impossible to aim. I would even consider giving it a 9 at 0 (the Garand should also get a 9, but at range 0-1 IMO), 7 at 1-2, 5 at 3-4. It was excellent at 200m, but not so at 400.
|
Sharpe
|
Can't do ranges 0/1-2/3-4 because of AV values on cards. Has to be 0-1/ or 0/1/2-
I can see SMLE getting shorter range when conscripts enter UK Army. I just don't see where Heer infantry is better than UK regular infantry at riflery, no matter the gun.
|
NeuralDream
|
Yes, I find it difficult to compare at the same time gun and gun's user.
|
Sharpe
|
I think a lot more about the user, their tactics, whether they emphasized self-motivation, how the army performed and how does that become a simple card rather than a master's thesis.
US troops broke under fire, but rallied quickly when led well. French soldiers didn't show much initiative. The UK had a pre-war musketry fetish. Poles were fierce and fought well but couldn't adapt to modern tactics.
There are many exceptions, but everyone wants mainstream pieces rather than going through WW2 unit by unit.
|
Angel of Death
|
(photoshop edit)
|
NeuralDream
|
| Angel of Death wrote: | (photoshop edit)
|
Are you sure this is a 100 pixels/inch .jpg (100% quality option) rescale of an original 300 pixels/inch .png image? Compared with this one:
it looks bigger and of lower quality (especially around the date and type for some reason).
|
Angel of Death
|
I havent made -any- 100 pixel pics yet. Previous week was a long week.
Starting on them now.
|
NeuralDream
|
Oops sorry, didn't check dates...
|
Angel of Death
|
|
