 |
|
Soviet tanker/SMG integration - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: Soviet tanker/SMG integration (/showthread.php?tid=39697) |
Soviet tanker/SMG integration - Liebchen - 03-19-2007 In the site linked to on the Hist MB, an interview with a Russian tanker, he refers to the SMG-armed infantrymen in a Tank Brigade ('43 on) being in constant contact with the tanks. It's not the first time I've seen this. Quote:- How did you co-operate with the infantry during combat?In the PC system, however, the infantry always seem to be kept apart as a distinct battalion, rather than integrated with the tanks. Anyone have any thoughts on that? I realize that the game engine counts humans or vehicles, but not combos or hybrids. What if the infantry battalions were to be broken down, and the companies allowed to hitch a ride with the tank battalions, so long as their soldier/vehicle ratio matched appropriately? Would this be terribly difficult to implement? RE: Soviet tanker/SMG integration - HirooOnoda - 03-19-2007 Well, you can always stack and then assault a hex with both tanks and infantry. Consider the scale of this game, that is about as close as you're going to get. RE: Soviet tanker/SMG integration - Liebchen - 03-19-2007 Yeah, but considering the scale of the game, they should almost be treated as integral units.... RE: Soviet tanker/SMG integration - CptCav - 03-19-2007 Liebchen, A simple solution would be to have the tank battalions have a higher Soft Attack and Assault values than normal to represent the integration of the SMG infantry support. Considering that a SMG company, which would be supporting the tank battalion has only approximately 80 men, not counting the SMG battalion assets (mortar battery, ATG battery, ATR platoon and MG platoon), one could easy increase the Soft Attack and Assault values by 2-5 points and have the desired effect. And, taking into effect how closely the SMG infantry work with the tanks, there is no reason to have the unit have any special abilities that a tank unit would not normally have with the exception of the unsupported armor rule/penalty, which the higher Assualt value should be able to offset. Actually, I think that I will incorporate it into the scenario that I am currently working on. Thanks for the idea. :chin: Regards, CptCav RE: Soviet tanker/SMG integration - Volcano Man - 03-19-2007 The only problem with the approach to integrate them into "uber tanks" is that artillery and infantry would not be as effective as it should be to counter the SMG element, and instead you would only be able to counter such a unit with armor. RE: Soviet tanker/SMG integration - Liebchen - 03-19-2007 ...and again, the infantry losses wouldn't be incurred, only vehicle losses. RE: Soviet tanker/SMG integration - CptCav - 03-19-2007 VM, Uber Tanks? I am talking about an increase of 2-5 points on the Soft Attack and Assault values. That is a 14% increase in the Soft Attack value and 12.5% increase in the Assault value for a T-34/85 on the low end and a 36/31% increase on the high end. Personally, I was looking at 3 point increase. You are right, anti-infantry weapons would not have impact on the unit though they should be able to do some damage. Liebchen, considering that previous discussions of trucks, etc. have been met with the argument that the whole game system would have to be changed and based on how far they are into the series it is not likely, I see your suggestion going no where unless you try to figure out a way to make it work in the current framework, which is exactly what I was attempting to suggest. Otherwise, you got what there is. Regards, CptCav RE: Soviet tanker/SMG integration - Volcano Man - 03-20-2007 RE: Soviet tanker/SMG integration - Dog Soldier - 03-20-2007 I tend to agree with VM's last post. The Soviet SMG units when riding tanks were not much use in a long range fight. Their job was to close with the enemy and assault. I would only adjust the assault values in this case. There is the problem of the basic defensive tactic, which was to use infantry weapons to separate the infantry supporting the tanks from the tanks. As the interviewee said, the tankers did not try to coordinate with the SMG unit. The tankers maneuvered and hoped the SMG troops kept up. I would go so far as to interpret this to mean if the infantry got pinned, even temporarily, the tanks would still press the attack without them. Dog Soldier |
){kind=link}