Vesku Wrote:If you forget historic and overall casualties and focus on the poor effect of direct heavy weapons fire on infantry, are you saying that it's well simulated? Because I totally agree with Muhail2, it looks like bad comedy sometimes.
To be fair, Muhail2 is talking about MBT and my comments were more aimed at a WWII situation. I'm not as well read/informed on modern warfare.
It is important to consider if the infantry have 'gone to ground'. Infantry should be very hard to kill if they are dug-in or in some sort of cover. But Muhail2 does give an example of infantry moving across open ground. If he's finding them difficult to wound/kill - then without knowing the details - I would find that disapointing and surprising.
I'm not sure why we should forget historic casualty rates, because if we make infantry easier to kill, we are going to get far higher (even less realistic) rates in our battles, which will have an even greater effect on campaigns. So you'd "fix" or make one thing more realistic but something else less realistic.
Muhail2, If you want to make infantry more vulnerable, I believe you need to lower infantry toughness to 50% not raise it to 200%?
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
