Infantry Survivability

[Cross]

Take an average meeting engagement, taking 20 turns. Two forces rush into each other without scouting and once they notice (or not) that they are facing an equal force they still keep going at it at full speed for the remaining 15 minutes. Does that sound historical?

I wouldn't have described a meeting engagement quite like this :) But it's true that this is a game, not a simulation, so has to be balanced in ways that make it fun and challenging while at least appearing to be realistic.

I think SPCamo have bravely avoided the 'Quake' turkey shoot, arcade game. Instead making infantry a serious challenge.

I somewhat see Narwan's point that infantry could/should be made even tougher, but personally I think armour is too easy to kill. Making armour harder to kill would probably make infantry seem less tough, and therefore may achieve a balance that some would prefer.

Realism is tough to model. Weapons may be accurate in test range conditions; but what about in an environment where:

Someone is shooting at you, trying to kill you
There's dust and smoke obscuring vision, and in your eyes
The cry of wounded friends
Organizing the evacuation of wounded
The radio is crackling with counter-orders
Trying to obey orders, while trying to stay alive
Confusion reigns
You are deaf from the noise
Mud, heat, cold
Hands shaking with fear/cold
Haven't slept in days, except a few winks in a ditch
No hot food since...
The battlefield is complete and utter chaos, testing human endurance to its limit

As for accuracy/effectiveness of direct fire HE over MGs, in WWI it is the MG that is generally credited with bringing troops to a standstill, not direct fire HE.

[mosborne]

Well, I don't feel so bad now, knowing that I am not the only person firing almost point blant at an infantry unit with several howitzer units(155mm) in MBT and not even suppression the unit. Waste of a lot of ammo, that was really needed elsewhere. Had to send in special forces to get them instead.

Sounds like a problem worth investigating further, as it also exist in all series of SP both CAMO and WaW. Perhaps it is a random bug or faulty installation (not sure) since I haven't tested it yet.

[Narwan]

As I have already said, there were almost no fights to death of equal forces in real life. Commander would prefer to fall back or request support in case of increasing losses.
And then, take a Kursk strategic operation for example. Were the sides equal? Almost. Was the fighting fierce? Surely yes, fanaticaly fierce in some cases. And the losses were great - with at least 200.000 only on German side, with some units almost annihilated in process. Almost every soldier out of 4 was taken out of action.

Infantry losses which took weeks to achieve. In SP you can do it in minutes. The game is far, far deadlier to infantry than the Kursk battles were.

In the recent test a platoon of 4 "Cherniy Orel" tanks advanced towards taliban infantry lying in the open ground. Fire was conducted from full stop with ranges from 300 to 400 metres.

That's quite a long range to fire at individual soldiers. Don't expect too many casualties at that range.

All settings were on 100%. 16 152mm HE-FRAG shells took a total toll of 5 casualties, and MG fire from NSV and PKT MG's inflicted 6 casualties. Second round of firing produced almost the same results with MG and HE fire incapaciating equal number of soldiers. Interesting to note that displayed accuracy for each (both MG and main gun) shot ranged from 78% to 85%... As the enemy retreated further (one squad was shot while running, with HE round taken out 1 and MG taken out 3(!) enemies) fire was conducted from 500-550 range and in two successive round of firing only 4(!) enemies were killed. Displayed accuracy ranged from 45% to 56%.

The game system use a hit determination first and then checks to see if the hit actually does any damage. That means a 80% hit chance does not have a 80% chance to inflict casualties. It may appear odd but it's just the way the game works. The listed hit chances are balanced by the damage routines to produce realistic outcomes. Don't focus on the game proces, but on results.

As for me, it completly ruins the tank role as a fire support vehicle.
Suppression is the other thing: both MG and HE fire cause nearly the same supression. But, from my experience, MG tend to actually wound 1 or 2 soldiers a round even when firing from extreme distances thus producing much more supression than the main gun does. Heh, I wonder why it was called "main" :)
Is it all right that 152-mm FCS-assisted gun is as effective as a HMG against soft targets? Same question applies to AGLs and autocannons.

No, the 152mm gun should be considerably less effective against infantry in direct fire at those ranges compared to the mg's. AGL's and autocannon should be in the same order of effectiveness as mg's, maybe just a little less effective but not much.

You seriously believe that the 'main' gun was/is the primairy weapon for direct fire use against leg infantry???
Well, with flechette rounds perhaps but not with HE r[/b]ounds.

It isn't even gameplay-wise: these tanks costs 2400 point which could be used to buy 3 rifle companies on trucks - a whole battalion with RPG-29s, capable of taking out a wide range of armored targets. Or 2 companies with TA-ATMGs with TI in each platoon...
Something should be done to vehicle-to-infanty accuracy.

No it shouldn't. And these point comparisons are useless Units need to be balanced in points against all other units in the game in all possible tactical situations. Picking just two (types of) units in a single setup doesn't work.
Example: infantry with TA-ATMG's and TI are far too expensive. You can buy a dozen or more mg armed AFV's for one of them (BTR-40's for example). The infantry can take out maybe 4 with it's missiles after which they get slaughtered by the remaining AFV's. Someone needs to do something about the cost of AFV's, they need to go up! See what I mean?

[Narwan]

Well, I don't feel so bad now, knowing that I am not the only person firing almost point blant at an infantry unit with several howitzer units(155mm) in MBT and not even suppression the unit. Waste of a lot of ammo, that was really needed elsewhere. Had to send in special forces to get them instead.

Sounds like a problem worth investigating further, as it also exist in all series of SP both CAMO and WaW. Perhaps it is a random bug or faulty installation (not sure) since I haven't tested it yet.

There's nothing wrong with the games in this regard. This issue is a dead horse that gets flogged around at least once year. This probably one of the most looked into issues of the game and very, very extensively tested. And it is a game. Freak occurrences with an unrealistic result will always happen. If you can reproduce such a result consistently again and again you may have found something that needs looking into. And maybe not.

[/b]

[Imp]

Firstly arty, seems about right to me there are some very nasty pieces to choose from. Dont expext instant results but even against dug in units 5 turns worth kills stuff. Thats 15 minutes of bombardment which is nothing look at what proceeded a major attack in WW2 several hours is common. Arty is not an instant kill nor is that its main goal in most cases & most people play with 10% restriction. How about a Russian attack in WW2 with 1 gun per hex front (80 high = 80 guns) all you do for the first 20 turns is bombard & send scouts observers. Now the arty has done something you cant get anybody to do anything which is why we tend to go for 10% or so.
Vehicle based weapons vs troops
Chainguns/ autocannons are leathal more so I would say than main guns.
Main guns often kill the odd unit at 300m or less but more importantly can often suppress the unit. Vs crewed weapons they are leathal even something like a WW2 low calibre weapon can kill a gun or MG crew with one hit. The reason for this I think is the crew is a grouped target so one shell if it lands near hits everyone. The squad on the other hand sees the tank & spreads out in its 50m hex for protection, even a well placed shell would then only inflict 2-3 casulties. He may be a grunt but hes not stupid spreading out cuts losses & increases the chance of someone sneaking up.
Think about it how often even on a long shot have you killed an ATGM outright. I do it all the time infantry engage him drawing shots or arty pins & post 80s tank moves 1 hex & kills at 1-2km. 3 tanks stand a good chance of at least taking him out of the action if not killing outright.
Vehicle MGs in MBT are to effective, I think this is because FC giro etc apply to ALL weapons not just the maingun but this is how the game is programed.
As a note not sure here but you tend to use Main Guns as prep fire before your infantry opens up. If fire instead at routing units I am pretty sure they are no longer considered dispersed & killing 4 men a hit is not uncommon. This is also when MGs work well get a group clumped running in the open & MGs will massacre them. 2 tanks spreading the love to keep them running can easily wipe out an entire routed Inf Co in a few turns if the ammo lasts, though a couple of squads in tow as eyes is advisable

[Imp]

Cross wrote
I somewhat see Narwan's point that infantry could/should be made even tougher, but personally I think armour is too easy to kill. Making armour harder to kill would probably make infantry seem less tough, and therefore may achieve a balance that some would prefer.

In what way? I assume you mean by infantry, I agree that low experience tanks are nearly blind even if move just a couple of hexes but infantry should be escorting. One of the reasons they die is people tend to buy unrealisticly always choosing the best AT weapon rather than middle of the road or poor AT weapons. In fact one AT squad per platoon is normaly fine so long as it is NOT the platoon leader, a fault with the game is he often is. Even armed with just a grenade 3 squads will get a tank if allowed so long as your exp is not low causing running. Thats 24-30+ men you have allowed close enough ones going to get through. The likes of an RPG if you let them get off 3 consecutive shots prepare to pay the price.
I must however admit the damn Brits & their PIAT seem to perform well, stats show its not as acurate as most but they seem unervingly accurate somehow, strangely I fear them more than a Baz or PF.

[Muhail2]

Infantry losses which took weeks to achieve. In SP you can do it in minutes. The game is far, far deadlier to infantry than the Kursk battles were.

I've written at least twice, why the combat in SP is deadlier than combat in real life and why it IS realistic. Consider re-reading.

That's quite a long range to fire at individual soldiers. Don't expect too many casualties at that range.

At individuals, in woods - maybe. But surely not when firing agains a 10 men squad or a heavy weapon team.

The game system use a hit determination first and then checks to see if the hit actually does any damage

Yes, and somewhere in that system a coefficent is put wrong or a glitch happens to be.

No, the 152mm gun should be considerably less effective against infantry in direct fire at those ranges compared to the mg's. You seriously believe that the 'main' gun was/is the primairy weapon for direct fire use against leg infantry???

You seem to completly miss the point of HE weaponry. While a time-to-corpses ration of MG firing at advancing infantry in open maybe better than of HE weaponry, it can't do one important thing - destroy or negate cover. In reality infantry always tries to hide behind some cover, both in advance and defence. MG can do nothing to a trooper behind a rock or in a little hole, even a fallen tree can save soldier's life. And HE blast will destroy both cover and hiding soldier, and chances are that one of the many high-speed fragments (you do remember than most of aforementioned weapons are HE-FRAG?) will find it's way to some other soldiers. Or a shockwave will do the job.
This raises another question: why does HE effect suffer so much when firing at infantry in houses or woods?

AGL's and autocannon should be in the same order of effectiveness as mg's, maybe just a little less effective but not much.

Stupid soviets, why they were so happy about their AGLs and tried to install one on every BTR in Afghanistan when it's not effective? :)
AGL can over-shoot obstacles - the thing which standard MG almost never will do - or place flanking shots at the cover to get the soldier with fragments.

Units need to be balanced in points against all other units in the game in all possible tactical situations

Yes, they must be balanced - but the game is far from balanced now. A mentioned platoon of tanks can only effectively destroy enemy armor. A tank barely has ammo to rout an infantry platoon, especially if he can't move too close risking getting an RPG round in side.
And mentioned battalion of infanty can fight with almost any targets at most ranges. ATGM will wipe out tanks easily, personal RPGs will make short work of light armor, MGs will take out supporting infantry and personal SAM launchers will make pilots' lives more exciting. With a little increase in cost to buy APCs instead of trucks they will be even more mobile then tanks. A battalion of infantry is a unit fit for any task, while a tank platoon is no more than armor-sweeper. It does it's real-life job of supporting infantry with fire exceptionaly bad.
And both have the same cost.
I don't sense balance in here.

[Cross]

In what way? I assume you mean by infantry, I agree that low experience tanks are nearly blind even if move just a couple of hexes but infantry should be escorting.
...
I must however admit the damn Brits & their PIAT seem to perform well, stats show its not as acurate as most but they seem unervingly accurate somehow, strangely I fear them more than a Baz or PF.

I would tweak armour, not change them; in a few small ways:

Have damage more likely (and low damage more common than serious damage) and brew-ups less likely.
I would upgrade crew survivability just a little more (this was done a year ot two ago, and was a great improvement).
Make shooting on the move even harder (WW2) to encourage players to use the short halt or stationary more often.

As for the PIAT, I think it's well under-modelled compared to the Bazooka, Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck and many AT grenade launchers.

Everyone acknowledges the PIAT had a range of 350M, yet in the game it is only 100M. I understand the accuracy was rubbish beyond 100M but the rocket weapons were even worse (WW2 rockets were horribly inaccurate and unstable during flight). So I'm fine with a 100M PIAT but the other weapons should also be reduced to their short 'can't miss' ranges, or put all at max, or mid range, and lower accuracy even more.

I suspect we will see these weapons tweaked in the next release. We will see...

[Imp]

Muhail2 you failed to make any mention of my point about the infantry spreading out as oppossed to crewed weapons which they are good vs & answered your own question.

A battalion of infantry is a unit fit for any task, while a tank platoon is no more than armor-sweeper. It does it's real-life job of supporting infantry with fire

Quite right note the last sentence, the armour is designed to SUPPORT infantry not go off killing it on its own. Its main role is to take out heavy defences as in buildings fortifications & MGs which is what it does. The main guns are far more effective vs units in cover than rifles LMGs plus the latest patch due out in a couple of days will add casulties due to falling rubble in buildings if its destroyed. This is modelled in the game by warhead size effecting the kill in cover terrain. a modern tank gun warhead 7 vs a rifle LMG warhead 1.

Armour was & always has been designed to support infantry then the Brits tried the Matilda but really the Germans saw the need for Mr Tiger & the hunter killer was born. Prior to this time most tanks were designed as support vehicles first & to take on other tanks as a poor second. The Russian KV for instance despite its armour was a support tank not a tank killer but they saw the need to & along came the T-34.
Now the roles are reversed modern tanks are designed on the whole to kill other tanks first then support infantry. Depending on expected threat you then carry a loadout for infantry support or armour engaghement unless you are a US Marine who keep tanks mainly for infantry support. The modern APC/IFV has evolved so it is capable of taking over the tanks support role letting these very expensive pieces of kit concentrate on killing their kind. Of course as a Marine IFVs tend to be a bit thin on the ground so tanks still fill the role.

As you so rightly stated infantry are the Jack of All Trades & rule the battlefield armour most certainly is not. To see how effective vehicles are in game terms do the following.
An assault vs dug in units with infantry only
Then infantry & a few supporting APCs with MGs only.
Now do it with combined arms so a modern Mech Co & say a platoon of supporting tanks.
In the last case unless doing something wrong you will notice its over far quicker & you took far fewer casulties because of the fire laid down by the vehicles. It is still however as always the infantry that take the ground & finnish the job.

Tanks are rubbish vs men its a fact let them close & you are dead simples. Stick one in an urban situation vs an angry mob armed with nothing but what they pick up & guess which would win eventualy, at huge cost mind the tanks only choice is speed & run.

[Narwan]

I've written at least twice, why the combat in SP is deadlier than combat in real life and why it IS realistic. Consider re-reading.

At individuals, in woods - maybe. But surely not when firing agains a 10 men squad or a heavy weapon team.

Yes, and somewhere in that system a coefficent is put wrong or a glitch happens to be.

You seem to completly miss the point of HE weaponry. While a time-to-corpses ration of MG firing at advancing infantry in open maybe better than of HE weaponry, it can't do one important thing - destroy or negate cover. In reality infantry always tries to hide behind some cover, both in advance and defence. MG can do nothing to a trooper behind a rock or in a little hole, even a fallen tree can save soldier's life. And HE blast will destroy both cover and hiding soldier, and chances are that one of the many high-speed fragments (you do remember than most of aforementioned weapons are HE-FRAG?) will find it's way to some other soldiers. Or a shockwave will do the job.
This raises another question: why does HE effect suffer so much when firing at infantry in houses or woods?

Stupid soviets, why they were so happy about their AGLs and tried to install one on every BTR in Afghanistan when it's not effective? :)
AGL can over-shoot obstacles - the thing which standard MG almost never will do - or place flanking shots at the cover to get the soldier with fragments.


Yes, they must be balanced - but the game is far from balanced now. A mentioned platoon of tanks can only effectively destroy enemy armor. A tank barely has ammo to rout an infantry platoon, especially if he can't move too close risking getting an RPG round in side.
And mentioned battalion of infanty can fight with almost any targets at most ranges. ATGM will wipe out tanks easily, personal RPGs will make short work of light armor, MGs will take out supporting infantry and personal SAM launchers will make pilots' lives more exciting. With a little increase in cost to buy APCs instead of trucks they will be even more mobile then tanks. A battalion of infantry is a unit fit for any task, while a tank platoon is no more than armor-sweeper. It does it's real-life job of supporting infantry with fire exceptionaly bad.
And both have the same cost.
I don't sense balance in here.

I'm not going to continue to debate this issue with you. You twist the topic and my words to suit your own preconceptions. Fine. Go ahead if it makes you happy.

There's nothing new in your remarks. And I'm not going to go into this again. Don't like the game the way it is? Play another game then.

Narwan