Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Open field combat

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Open field combat Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Open field combat - 5/12/2015 7:29:29 AM   
Alex1812


Posts: 274
Joined: 7/19/2013
From: Russia
Status: offline 		As for my there is one main problem in game engine. The problem is that any vehicles (not depend on side) very vulnerable in open terrain and overprotected in cities and forest. In this case it is impossible to fight in open terrain because you lost all your troops very quick. It is contrary to the real situation in which the open terrain is the main battlefield area
Post #: 1
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 8:16:44 AM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 779
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline 		Hi Alex is that not what its like in real life? Urban terrain gives a lot of cover as do forest etc, moving across open terrain on the modern battlefield with its thermal imaging and modern sensors not masked by hills or using good cover is extremely deadly and risky... its not just redstorm that shows this CM black sea shows that this is the case as well...

When I am playing I try to use the terrain or smoke to mask the movement of my forces when having to move across open ground, also the different type of movement orders help, deliberate is safer while hasty prioritizes speed over cover....





< Message edited by highlandcharge -- 5/12/2015 9:32:57 AM >

(in reply to Alex1812)
Post #: 2
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 10:25:29 AM   
Pawsy

 

Posts: 339
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline 		<vehicles (not depend on side) very vulnerable in open terrain and overprotected in cities and forest>

thats the reality, I keep my forces there and mask them from direct fire so that I get the flank shot. Another common mistake is putting units on top of or moving over hills. I use terrain to mask my moves. This may not be the shortest route.

You use terrain, defence, or obstacles to block, delay or turn the enemy in to a killing area of your choice.

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 3
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 11:35:38 AM   
Alex1812


Posts: 274
Joined: 7/19/2013
From: Russia
Status: offline 		In reality (ww2 and modern wars) tanks almost never fight in forest. Also in many situations they suffered heavy losses in urban terrain. But in the game we have contrary results - great protection in urban, normal fight in forest and impossible combat in open ground

< Message edited by Alex1812 -- 5/12/2015 12:37:58 PM >

(in reply to Pawsy)
Post #: 4
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 12:09:02 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline 		I would agree with this overall. The situation you describe is a bit oversimplified but the end deduction is correct I think.

I would say that the game engine reverses the situation we are used to seeing for two reasons.

1) If you can see it you can kill it. So, open ground now becomes the place to die and not to fight.

2) LOS is both cities and forest isn't functional IMO. You should in most cases in either of those terrains be able to see only in the location you are in. Infantry in the same location in the game gives a good account of itself. It doesn't give a good account of itself when the tanks see them at distance and pound them to pieces.

This is something that will be looked at in 2.1.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Alex1812)
Post #: 5
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 12:11:02 PM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 779
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline 		Alex have not seen this in the game are you talking about tanks in close combat in urban terrain (in the same or the adjacent hex) or tanks on the edge of a town firing at tanks approaching through open terrain?

I remember a pbem game where I was playing the Soviets against a WG force, I got desperate and attacked with tanks into a city that had German infantry in it, they massacred my tanks with Fausts and milans... I had no tanks left in the town when the WG infantry had finished with them..

Surely tanks dug in right on the edge of a town should be able to see the open ground beyond?

To me its bad tactics to advance across open ground that that you suspect may be observable to the enemy with no cover or smoke to mask the movement...

From what I have seen in my games units including tanks and infantry deep in city's/towns can only see there own hex and the adjecent hex, is that not how it should be?

So MR are you saying that even after all these patches the game has elements that do not function correctly?

I would really appreciate a screen shot and description as I am not understanding the problem here... thanks

< Message edited by highlandcharge -- 5/12/2015 1:39:48 PM >

(in reply to Alex1812)
Post #: 6
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 1:27:01 PM   
Zipuli

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 11/18/2008
Status: offline 		Let me disagree.

Armoured vehicles in open are targets in modern combat, where modern ATGMs and FCSs deny the advantage of movement and speed that was very much still there during WW2. I think the game simulates this rather well. Armoured vehicles fighting out from cover against armoured vehicles in open make the open a killing zone. This is realistic. Vehicles use the cover (buildings, woods, small hills) to expose themselves only to fire, and then move back to cover and relocate. The other party in the open does not have this advantage, but is exposed all the time.

In all post-WW2 armoured battles in the open, result has been one of the 2:
1) Both sides suffer huge losses, because the forces are somewhat equally matched
2) One side suffers huge losses, because the other side has technological AND air superiority
- until the other party is routed...

In my experience (from evently matched 2-sided live-simulation excercises in the field) Red Storm simulates it quite well actually. In case the sides are even somewhat evently matched, using terrain for cover instead of "daring dash" in the open will give a huge advantage.

But I do agree that unsupported tanks are too effective inside urban areas vs. infantry. But if the infantry is unprepared (no time to plan and set up ambushes, dig-in etc. like the case is 99% of time in Red Storm), they should not be able to slaughter even unsupported modern tanks, if they move in numbers. Maybe in Groznyi it worked, because the tanks were not equipped with thermal sights, and the tank crews were rather low quality. In Baghdad it didn't, even though all but tankers said entering Baghdad with armour only would be suicide.

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 7
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 1:55:45 PM   
Alex1812


Posts: 274
Joined: 7/19/2013
From: Russia
Status: offline
quote:


ORIGINAL: Zipuli

Vehicles use the cover (buildings, woods, small hills) to expose themselves only to fire, and then move back to cover and relocate


it means that rate of fire in urban or forest must be less than in open terrain. You need additional time for moving back and for new aiming after that

(in reply to Zipuli)
Post #: 8
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 2:26:45 PM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 779
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline 		OK I can see your point Alex, thanks for explaining that... so its not a LOS issue, its a potential ROF issue as tanks absractly move from firing position to firing position?

I wonder how hard that would be model in the game as it is an abstract...it looks like it will only be looked into for version 2.1

Do you want to put the pbem on hold?

I am very happy to carry, as it doesn't seem like a big issue to me, all I will do is doubly make sure I mask any movement behind terrain or smoke...


< Message edited by highlandcharge -- 5/12/2015 3:32:09 PM >

(in reply to Alex1812)
Post #: 9
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 2:32:46 PM   
Alex1812


Posts: 274
Joined: 7/19/2013
From: Russia
Status: offline 		so, I request the new feature

vehicle rate of fire = 100 * basic vehicle rate of fire / hex cover

in this case infantry may have some additional advantage in close terrain

(in reply to Alex1812)
Post #: 10
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 2:34:38 PM   
Alex1812


Posts: 274
Joined: 7/19/2013
From: Russia
Status: offline 		highlandcharge, I want to continue all my PBEM in any case

(in reply to Alex1812)
Post #: 11
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 3:00:29 PM   
Pawsy

 

Posts: 339
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline 		Yup I'd agree Alex1812, excpet where your dug in, your rate of fire will increase. The real problem for tanks and infantry is spotting who the hell shot at you and where from.

Remember your in a tank moving across country, your looking through a periscope, your tired, afraid, soaked to the skin (its europe it always rains), hungry, dirty and unshaven. Your NBC suit itches like hell. You have radio chatter in one ear and crew in the other. You see a blinding light to one side as one of your troop explodes. To the flank 3km away is a tree line, can you spot the turret or smoke from its main gun? The enemy tank commander has already spotted and designated the next target as the gunner makes the kill. The loader reloads, the gunner takes over, lazes or ranging machine guns the target and pulls the trigger on the joystick to fire the main gun before you can even swing the turret towards them. If your dug in or in cover all of the above applies except your not hitting your head on the damn periscope and not so disorientated and you have the best chance of spotting and killing the enemy so long as you have surprize. You can do the same on the move but unless you spot the target your stuffed. In the game, NATO with TI, has a big adavanatge in poor visibility. They can effectively see through, smoke, mist and trees and at much greater distances then the soviet tanks.

(in reply to Alex1812)
Post #: 12
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 3:15:23 PM   
Zipuli

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 11/18/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alex1812
it means that rate of fire in urban or forest must be less than in open terrain. You need additional time for moving back and for new aiming after that


Not necessarily, you may move to position and keep blasting away...

But chances that you fire first are a lot higher, as:
- The enemy moving in the open is easy to spot, and easy to track (ATGMs, FCSs)
- You are in cover, meaning the enemy will not spot you as easily, and even when you move you are covered most of the time by buildings, trees etc. meaning you are harder to kill after you are spotted
- The moving enemy has harder time firing an accurate round (especially so with soviet equipment of the game's era, but same with even Leo 2A4s and Abrams', and in case of western tanks, loading in fast moving vehicles is not as quick as in stationary vehicle - so ROF goes down...)

All of the adverse effects for the one in the open increase as range increases. On point blank range the situation evens up.

But this is only taking into account direct fire engagements.

If the enemy in good cover is being bombarded with artillery, air strikes and smoke screens (yes, thermals see through, but driver has no thermal (the vehicle is very difficult to manouver), laser does not penetrate smoke (range must be estimated), etc.), open terrain allows you to move fast to close up with the enemy and overwhelm them with numbers. That's what the WP was planning on doing, with minimum of 3:1 superiority in numbers on operational level, and 10:1 on tactical level...

(in reply to Alex1812)
Post #: 13
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 4:10:53 PM   
IronMikeGolf

 

Posts: 899
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alex1812

quote:


ORIGINAL: Zipuli

Vehicles use the cover (buildings, woods, small hills) to expose themselves only to fire, and then move back to cover and relocate


it means that rate of fire in urban or forest must be less than in open terrain. You need additional time for moving back and for new aiming after that


Disagree. The target acquisition process is done independent of vehicle movement. Look up "berm drill". After shooting, when the driver is moving the vehicle to the protected position ("Cease fire. Driver move back."), the gunner either already has his next fire command ("Gunner shift left, next tank") or is scanning for his next target. A tank is going to be moving backwards at about the time a rounds impacts (range >1500 meters). Drivers often don't wait for the vehicle commander's order to move back.

The amount of time it takes to go from protected to firing positions is on the order of a few seconds at most. Looking at how many times a unit fires per minute, I don't see that rate as unreasonable for a defensive posture.

I don't know if the game engine models moving to alternate (covers the same sector of fire) or supplementary (covers a different sector of fire) firing positions. I think such movement would certainly temporarily decrease the rate of fire.

_____________________________

Jeff
Sua Sponte

(in reply to Alex1812)
Post #: 14
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 6:10:48 PM   
ivanov


Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline 		There are two types of combat that need to be looked at: a close combat and combat at long distances. From my experience 90% of the combat in RS is done at long distances. In those instances, the game simulates reality quite well. In my opinion the side which is dug in and hidden in an urban or forest hex, should have a clear advantage over an enemy that is moving across the open terrain. The second issue is close combat - here in my opinion the infantry should be able to beat the unsupported tanks. The main advantages of tanks are firepower, mobility and protection and the urban terrain negates all of them. 10 well trained infantrymen, will always poses better situational awareness, than 3 tanks fighting in a city or in a forest. The same goes to the helicopters - they should be effective if they use their guided weapon systems from longer distances. Hovering over an enemy unit hidden in the city should be a recipe for a disaster.

In many computer games the tanks have their strength automatically divided by 2 or more, when they fight in the cities or in the forests. I have no idea how the RS combat formulas work, but it would seem a right way to go. The tanks that are located within the city and forests, should be affected by some penalties, if they fight without infantry support and if they are being attacked or they attack from a close distance.

< Message edited by katukov -- 5/12/2015 7:12:40 PM >

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to IronMikeGolf)
Post #: 15
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 6:42:34 PM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 779
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline 		Katukov, If remember correctly infantry in close combat with tanks in urban or forested terrain have a much greater chance to get a flank hit on tanks with there anti-tank weapons...

like I said above, I had a urban fight with some t-80's v some German infantry+ Milan carrying Marders and they wiped me out to the last tank...

< Message edited by highlandcharge -- 5/12/2015 7:43:23 PM >

(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 16
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 9:32:22 PM   
ivanov


Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: highlandcharge

Katukov, If remember correctly infantry in close combat with tanks in urban or forested terrain have a much greater chance to get a flank hit on tanks with there anti-tank weapons...

like I said above, I had a urban fight with some t-80's v some German infantry+ Milan carrying Marders and they wiped me out to the last tank...



It doesn't seem to work that way. I've run some tests and attacked infantry with an unsupported tank unit. Note that the infantry is placed inside the city, not on it's edge:



subir imagenes


In each case the infantry suffered higher loses. First time it lost all 4 Marders and 2 infantry, while the tank unit suffered zero loses. The second time infantry loses were the same: all 4 Marders and 2 infantry against 2 tanks.


Infantry would have better chances to deal loses to the tanks if it was positioned on the edge of the city because it could fire longer with it's ATGM's. They are not effective in a close combat

Now my question is: are the infantry light AT weapons like RPG's, Panzerfausts or M72 LAW represented in the game? I have a feeling that they are not and this fact accounts for the weakness of infantry in a close combat against the tanks.

EDIT:

In a test where the infantry was positioned on the edge of the city, it managed to completely destroy the tank unit with Milans before the Soviets reached it's positions. So as it is now, infantry is good against the tanks in a long distance exchange of fire, not in a close combat.

< Message edited by katukov -- 5/12/2015 11:20:57 PM >

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 17
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 10:02:21 PM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 779
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline 		Hi Katukov, Im 100% sure light antitank weapons are represented in game, the range of the PzF44 used by the WG troops is 300m, as you know each hex is 500m wide, so although the T-80's may have been in the same hex they might not have been within range of the Germans Pfz44...

I wonder if we could get some input from the On target team :)




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by highlandcharge -- 5/12/2015 11:18:00 PM >

(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 18
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 10:17:11 PM   
ivanov


Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline 		OK, I see that they are represented:


subir fotos

So it makes the weakness of infantry in a close combat even more puzzling. Note that the urban terrain provides 90% cover, so it has to be quite densely built-up. In my test the units were fighting on the same hex over 30min so I doubt they would be 500 meters apart all the time.

< Message edited by katukov -- 5/12/2015 11:18:34 PM >

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 19
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 10:36:19 PM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 779
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline 		I notice the ammo for the PzF44 is only 3, so that gives each unit 3 chances to get a flank or rear shot on those T-80's, how many times did you run the test? could the WG units have been unlucky?

What scenario did you use to run the test?

Again it would be good if one of the OT devs could give some input :)


< Message edited by highlandcharge -- 5/12/2015 11:38:04 PM >

(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 20
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 11:25:15 PM   
ivanov


Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: highlandcharge

I notice the ammo for the PzF44 is only 3, so that gives each unit 3 chances to get a flank or rear shot on those T-80's, how many times did you run the test? could the WG units have been unlucky?

What scenario did you use to run the test?

Again it would be good if one of the OT devs could give some input :)



I've run the test three times and each time the infantry unit got almost entirely wiped out, while the tank unit was suffering the loses of 0-3 runners. The tank loses almost always occurred when the unit was approaching the infantry and entering the adjacent hex. I think only once a tank got destroyed, when the units were fighting on the same hex.

Note, than I've never observed a situation similar the one from your game, that the tanks got wiped put by the infantry. In my case it's always the other way around. Maybe in case of your game the tanks had low readiness? But if your run a test where both units are rested, then the tanks always get the upper hand.

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 21
RE: Open field combat - 5/12/2015 11:56:35 PM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 779
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline 		Maybe its hard to kill tanks equipped wIth composite and ERA armor, even in close urban terrain...I'm starting think that maybe the reason why the tanks seem to be coming out on top, my example was from a earlier version of the game...so maybe something was changed or tweaked...

Anybody else got any ideas?

< Message edited by highlandcharge -- 5/13/2015 1:03:56 AM >

(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 22
RE: Open field combat - 5/13/2015 12:19:00 AM   
ivanov


Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: highlandcharge

Maybe its hard to kill tanks equipped wIth composite and ERA armor, even in close urban terrain...I'm starting think that maybe the reason why the tanks seem to be coming out on top, my example was from a earlier version of the game...so maybe something was changed or tweaked...

Anybody else got any ideas?


Well but it shouldn't be that way - look at Grozny and T-80BV. Of course we are talking about the unsupported tanks, that is not accompanied by the infantry.

< Message edited by katukov -- 5/13/2015 1:21:50 AM >

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 23
RE: Open field combat - 5/13/2015 6:58:06 AM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 779
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline 		Well I'm out of ideas, anybody else know why tanks seem to be close invulnerable in urban fighting?

Any of he On Target guys have any ideas?


(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 24
RE: Open field combat - 5/13/2015 8:20:12 AM   
Pawsy

 

Posts: 339
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline 		Nope, unsupported tanks should die quickly if the infantry have AT weapons. Yes some systems like Milan have minimum engagement range (150m). But even then in a 500m hex they should be able to get clear shots even in a built up area. LAW wont be very effective against ERA but MAW will be. The tank isnt likely to kill a whole section of infantry hiding in houses or block of flats. APC's might get destroyed if your only using cover. In defensive operations they are sent to the rear to be called forward when you need to move out. So in Hold there should be no APC kills. You might consider keeping MiCV with good weapon systems in the position. The most likely affect is that the tanks just to roll through the area causing few if any infantry casualties.

Cant see tanks hanging around HEAT rounds bounce off them from unseen infantry

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 25
RE: Open field combat - 5/13/2015 12:22:36 PM   
ivanov


Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: starbuck310

LAW wont be very effective against ERA but MAW will be.



What about the infantry killing unsupported tanks, hitting their turrets from above on a short distance in an urban environment?



I've done tests with British infantry, the results were the same: 4 Warriors and 3 infantry lost against 2 tanks:



subir fotos

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to Pawsy)
Post #: 26
RE: Open field combat - 5/13/2015 12:32:29 PM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 779
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline 		Sounds like there is clearly a problem here, are infantry actually using there AT weapons?

I swear I remember my Soviet tanks being decimated in city fighting against WG inf, but that was with 2.05 or 2.06...

Is this possibly a bug?

< Message edited by highlandcharge -- 5/13/2015 1:33:43 PM >

(in reply to ivanov)
Post #: 27
RE: Open field combat - 5/13/2015 12:43:48 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alex1812

so, I request the new feature

vehicle rate of fire = 100 * basic vehicle rate of fire / hex cover

in this case infantry may have some additional advantage in close terrain



This isn't as simple as it sounds. We aren't talking the rate of fire of a single vehicle under normal game terms but a unit with as many as 10 vehicles in it.

A rate of fire would have to be variable to adjust for losses, visibility, etc.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Alex1812)
Post #: 28
RE: Open field combat - 5/13/2015 1:00:42 PM   
cbelva


Posts: 1843
Joined: 3/26/2005
Status: offline 		This issue has been discussed several times in the past. In my humble opinion, urban fighting is and has been the hardest issue to get right. I personally have spent way too many hours testing and reporting to Rob and Jim. It still has much work to be done on it and from my discussions with Rob and Jim, I believe we have pushed the engine in it current state as far as we can go on it. It is not perfect, but it is not bad either. When all the components are put together it does a pretty good job. The deficiencies come out when you start doing small limited tests like katukov's test. I am not criticizing that because I run them all the time and they are needed to help us find the problem areas. And we appreciate it when you do and discover some deficiency for us to look at. But we need to remember that small limited tests that are looking at a narrow range tends to amplify the problem.

Some of my observations (from past testing and in trying to duplicate katukov's test):  1) The more AT weapons the infantry have the better they do. I ran katukov's test with both WG and Ami infantry stripped of all vehicles and AT weapons except what the infantry squads carry (LAW-72's for the Ami and PzF 44's for the WG). They seem to do ok until they run out of AT ammo. The Amis do much better because they are carrying more than 3x the amount of AT ammo than the WGs. In fact, the Ami would usually win the fight. 2) Morale and readiness makes a difference for how well the infantry fights. In all of my testing I have noticed that the infantry fights well as long as their morale and readiness holds up. Once it starts to drop, their desire to fight drops with it. 3) Quantity makes a difference. The larger the ratio of tanks to infantry the worst the infantry does. In my tests I ran 5 tanks against 3 inf sqs. I have seen in past tests a single infantry plt with plenty of AT assets take out more than one company of tanks in a urban area.

Here the bottom line, at the end of the day we don't know how these battles would have played out. There are arguments and examples for both sides. I personally side with the sentiments expressed in this thread. I believe that infantry should be extremely hard to root out of a urban area (but at the same time not impossible). I have expressed this sentiment multiple times with the OTS team. It is that type of combat where infantry should shine. It is (and has been) one of my goals to help Rob and Jim to refine this as we go forward.

(in reply to Pawsy)
Post #: 29
RE: Open field combat - 5/13/2015 1:03:38 PM   
ivanov


Posts: 1107
Joined: 6/14/2013
From: European Union
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: highlandcharge

Sounds like there is clearly a problem here, are infantry actually using there AT weapons?

I swear I remember my Soviet tanks being decimated in city fighting against WG inf, but that was with 2.05 or 2.06...

Is this possibly a bug?



A separate issue is that the Brit infantry platoons don't have integral AT missiles in their structure ( there's an AT platoon per infantry company ), so a single infantry platoon is completely defenseless against the tanks. If it comes to Germans, they fired their Milans when the tank was on an adjacent hex, but didn't use them too much when the tank was already on the same hex.

_____________________________

Lest we forget.

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> Open field combat Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.953