Infantry Assaults (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

RobertMc -> Infantry Assaults (12/29/2000 11:40:00 AM)

I mostly like to play "small" scenarios or battle-generated games, me as the Americans against the Germans in summer of '44, say a company or two of infantry and maybe a platoon of tanks thrown in. I've noticed that infantry assaults are very potent at this small scale. I've removed rifle-grenades from the OB, as I think they were very rare, and substituted a "Close Combat" weapon that has no inherent HE penetration but is supposed to be strictly man vs. man with hand grenades and close range fighting. But...even with no bazooka and no inherent HE penetration, these troops are tearing up Tigers in assaults!! When the assault message flashes and the chance for success is 30 to 33 percent, in reality it seems more like 80 to 90 percent success. What are these guys using? I've lowered their experience/morale to the 60s and still...tearing up Panthers and Tigers in assaults much more often than to be believeable. No bazookas, mind you!! Why does anyone need an AT gun or a bazooka, when even less experienced troops have this kind of assault power? I thought the soldiers were way shortchanged regarding assaults vs AFVs in the original SP, but these new guys are approaching Superman's territory. I mean, really...whats a soldier going to throw against a Tiger without a bazooka or satchel charge at hand? What makes the close assault numbers so high, especially when the soldiers have no inherent HE penetration or HEAT weapons?



Flashfyre -> (12/29/2000 11:53:00 AM)

Do these GIs have grenades? Then tracks can be blown off, engines knocked out (drop one in the engine hatch), or the crew compartment destroyed (drop through a hatch). If not, climb on the tank, open the hatch, stick your gun inside, and fire. Bullets ricocheting inside a steel box makes a pretty good meat-grinder. Many true stories of guys doing just these things.....assaults in SPWAW consider many factors. But, your results do seem a bit extreme, even for US/GE in '44. May have to test this...... ------------------ The Motor Pool http://www.geocities.com/aurion_eq/index.html?976419304550 [email]kmcferren@cvn.net[/email]



Igor -> (12/29/2000 11:56:00 AM)

My brother-in-laws father was a movie cameraman during WW II; and during his days in France he helped eliminate 4 panzers using nothing but Mausers and water pipes. Simply insert one of these into the road wheels, and when the tread comes off invite the crew out to play. Granted, they didn't want to use explosives because they were looking to capture the goodies that could be found in the panzers (herring, booze, and such like); but the point is that once infantry close in with an unescorted tank it's not that hard to take it out.



RobertMc -> (12/29/2000 12:06:00 PM)

Absolutely agreed, these things can be done with grenades and stiff resolve and have been done in reality... but...I would prefer to see much more chance of failure by troops in the 50-to-70 experience/morale range. Or more immobilizations to heavy tanks instead of outright destruction. I know this sounds strange, but I'm not having to work hard enough to get my soldiers to destroy heavy tanks. I want to have to rely more on getting my bazooka-equipped squads and AT guns into position, while having to keep the other men from breaking and running before a Tiger's treads. And if I can't get them into position and my squads fail their 33 percent AFV assault chance (and it really IS 33 percent), then I ought to take my lumps.



RobertMc -> (12/29/2000 12:36:00 PM)

I guess what I'm wondering here is how the assault chances are computed and what goes into the computation. Size of tank? Thickness of armor? Total of HE in the weapons of the assaulting squad? Morale and experience of the assaulting squad? As I said, I removed all inherent HE Penetration from these squads and they still assaulted with incredible success. I do think SPWAW is great and I play it every day. Knowing the base program it came from, I suppose I'm wondering why the dancing bear can't do the polka.



orc4hire -> (12/29/2000 1:44:00 PM)

RobertMc, Your results are about what I've seen... In the last long campaign I played, as the Germans, my infantry was the only thing that got me through that long winter of 41-42 on the steppes... when the Russian heavy tanks showed up, I disengaged my panzers, who were totally helpless against them, and sent in the infantry. 1 infantry platoon per company of heavy tanks was about right. I pictured my boys grabbing a KV-1 in each hand and cracking them together, then tossing the mangled wreckage over their shoulders. I had squads taking out 3-4 tanks per turn, each. Now certainly, on occasion infantry did manage to take out tanks with improvised weapons. There's even a case of a Gurkha unit taking one out with their kuhkris. (Note, _1_. In the entire war.) These things were by far the exception. Until bazookas and such became common infantry was all but helpless against tanks. Witness the opening battles of the Korean war for a dramatic example. (A NKPA tank unit drove right through Task Force Smith without even realizing that they were being opposed.)



RobertMc -> (12/29/2000 4:20:00 PM)

Yep, this is exactly what I've seen. Kirby: "Sgt. Saunders, I've just got a crate of those new M9Bazookas fresh off the truck!" Saunders: "Forget that junk! I've got a truckload of new 18-year-old replacements each with four fragmentation grenades!" Kirby: "Hot dog! We're in business!!" [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



Dave_R -> (12/29/2000 7:02:00 PM)

I think the problem is, as gamers in general we've come to see the tank as being somewhat invulnerable to anything other then a tank. To many past games have put an emphasis on the armoured ellement of modern warfare, and have almost reduced the good old infantryman to an almost secondary role. SPW@W has addressed the ballance. Yes Infantry are perhaps a.3 little over strong, I can live with that, it adds to the challenge, and the reality is, this is me now talking as an ex-tanker, well motivated 'grunts' can take on unsupported armour and do well, even without dedicated anti armour equipment. I think the film Saving Private Ryan depicted this quite well, given a little time, some inginuity and some old socks (grins)even a Tiger can be stopped



David F. Wall -> (12/29/2000 9:01:00 PM)

And now, some slightly pedantic references to the manual: P. 34 of the manual states: "The minimum chance for close assault of hard targets has been increased from a base of 2%, to a formula that uses the number of men assaulting. So, for example, a 10-man squad has a base 10% chance. The effects of experience on infantry combat have been enhanced. Experience more directly affects the men killed in a target unit." So, the more men you have, the better off you are to start. P. 36 goes on to say: "Morale for fortifications units has been increased. Units that are in cover or entrenched now have a greater chance of success when close assaulting vehicles." So, you're better off assaulting from cover than from the open, because of the effects on morale. P. 53 tells us: "The Skill ratings for armor, infantry and artillery are used when the leader checks to see how successful the unit is at a variety of tasks like spotting for artillery, assaulting tanks, using anti-tank weapons, hitting targets and avoiding being spotted." I wonder which, exactly, influences computation of chances for close assault success? If it's armor, this could go some distance to the long-standing mystery of why bailed vehicle crews are so good at close assaults. On P. 54 we read: "Pinned units can’t move and buttoned vehicles do not spot the enemy very well and are much more vulnerable to infantry assault." No real mystique about that. Close assaulting when some joker is waiting with a machine gun and a 360 degree field of fire is problematic. On that same page: "Experienced units are less susceptible to suppression, have a better chance to hit enemy units, spot enemy units better, are harder to spot themselves, and close assault tanks better." We'd expect that as well. And still on P. 54: "The morale value is used in some circumstances to see if a unit takes certain action, like withdraw under fire, or assault a tank." This might be the one people are overlooking. Close assault starts here -- failing this morale check leaves them deer-in-the-headlights suppressed, and a leader who can't rally them is gonna find himself sans command in short order. All of which is summed up on P. 65. I've never had real quibbles with this in the game. In response to all the unlikely successes people have had close assaulting, I submit the poor, hapless airborne guys I've been trying to get off of Utah Beach. (1st battle of Utah to the Rhine). These guys are bristling with bazookas, grenades, et. al., and don't seem to be capable of hitting Mount Everest with Moby Dick. You know things are gonna be grim when an otherwise undamaged squad can't get up the wherewithal to close assault an empty halftrack. We'll leave the pair of AT-Guns that malfunctioned on the first shot for another note. DFW



Sami -> (12/29/2000 9:37:00 PM)

The infantry vs. tank efficiency is definitely a bit too good, but the tank is a rather defenseless against infantry, if the terrain is other than plain steppes or desert. Visibility from a tank WASN'T that good, and if the infantry got within 20 m or so (anywhere else than in the frontal arc of the tank), that infantry man was quite safe (unless, of course, the tank has buddies near by covering it's ass). That's why tanks alone, without friendly infantry were in dire straits if opposed by determined infantry. E.g. the Soviet tank losses in the Winter War was 3179 tanks (including technical failures etc.) according to a Russian source. From these, combat losses were some 1800 tanks. (The war lasted 105 days, in case someone doesn't know about the war) And from those 1800 tanks, only three (3) were destroyed by Finnish tanks !!! According to the same source, 819 tanks were destroyed by mines, satchel charges or burned by molotov cocktails. Anyone interested can check out my website at http://www.winterwar.com and especially this page http://www.winterwar.com/Tactics/FINatTactics.htm Cheers, Sami



Panzer Capta -> (12/29/2000 9:54:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Sami: The infantry vs. tank efficiency is definitely a bit too good, but the tank is a rather defenseless against infantry, if the terrain is other than plain steppes or desert. Visibility from a tank WASN'T that good, and if the infantry got within 20 m or so (anywhere else than in the frontal arc of the tank), that infantry man was quite safe (unless, of course, the tank has buddies near by covering it's ass). That's why tanks alone, without friendly infantry were in dire straits if opposed by determined infantry. E.g. the Soviet tank losses in the Winter War was 3179 tanks (including technical failures etc.) according to a Russian source. From these, combat losses were some 1800 tanks. (The war lasted 105 days, in case someone doesn't know about the war) And from those 1800 tanks, only three (3) were destroyed by Finnish tanks !!! According to the same source, 819 tanks were destroyed by mines, satchel charges or burned by molotov cocktails. Anyone interested can check out my website at http://www.winterwar.com and especially this page http://www.winterwar.com/Tactics/FINatTactics.htm Cheers, Sami
Sami, i just wanted to compliment you on the Winter War site, it is very interesting and informative.



Sami -> (12/29/2000 10:13:00 PM)

Panzer Captain, Thanks for the compliments, I'm trying to do my best! Happy New Year!



Kluckenbill -> (12/30/2000 12:52:00 AM)

I am of the opinion that in general, Infantry are WAY too effective at knocking out tanks. I have no problem with the effectiveness of the Bazookas, Panzerfausts etc., they seem to be modeled very well, but I think that it should be much more difficult for an infantry unit with no organic anti-tank weapon to knock out a tank. I too have experienced the destruction of multiple tanks by snipers and crews as well as real infantry, sometimes I benefit from it but its just not right. I think that the close range infantry AT weapons, such as AT Grenades, should be included in a weapons slot, and lacking these, the close assalt capabilities should be greatly reduced. The anecdotal stories of Heroes knocking out tanks with molotov's, and hand grenades, not to mention some lesser weapons are, in my opinion, grossly exaggerated. ------------------ Target, Cease Fire !



Charles22 -> (12/30/2000 12:53:00 AM)

I don't believe in the concept of 'chance' but that aside, I did happen to open up the SP3 manual the other day, and glance at it while doing routine maintenance in the tiny room. Anyway, my eyes fell on this subject matter, and though David Wall's quotes are extensive, he missed what I read, or I just didn't read him throroughly enough. The manual made mention that if the assaulter was unspotted prior to the assault, that this helped his assault. I'm not sure of the descriptive terminology used, perhaps it said "dramatically enhances the assault" or merely "helps it".



Charles22 -> (12/30/2000 1:01:00 AM)

Consider the prior two posts for a moment. Kluckenbill is sick of getting maimed by assaults that are far too efficient. Now why could it be that they are so efficient? If the assaulter being unspotted makes a dramatic difference, there is your answer. And just why is it that Kluckenbill may compare this to the SP series and conclude that the assaults are way too efficient? If Kluckenbill is anything like me, this is the reason: because we're running into more unspotted units. Why are we running into more unspotted units? Because we no longer (for the most part) carry any infantry on the tanks when mopping up, because so many of the infantry men would be lost, due to insufficient space on tanks, for all but the Soviets.



David F. Wall -> (12/30/2000 2:09:00 AM)

There's nothing in the SPWAW manual that directly states whether or not the success chance for close assault is impacted by whether or not the assaulting unit has been spotted, at least that I've been able to find using the PDF Reader's search function. If it says this in the SP3 manual, it might still be true in SPWAW, but someone with access to the code would need to comment for us to be sure.



orc4hire -> (12/30/2000 2:14:00 AM)

Actually that's not quite what Kluckenbill said... I know that I very rarely lose vehicles to infantry assault but am confident that my infantry can take out pretty much any number of enemy tanks. I have _repeatedly_ sent a few squads of infantry across _open_ ground in a counter-attack against a dozen or more tanks. Attacking the tanks, mind you, not laying in ambush waiting for them. On occasion I've even _chased down and destroyed_ fleeing tanks. And I've never failed to crush the tanks and send the survivors fleeing... in fact, I've never even lost a squad doing it. Hmm, I think in that whole long campaign as the Germans the only time I lost an infantry squad to enemy tanks was 1 time I'd miscalculated how long it would take my counter-attack to move through the snow, and 1 infantry platoon got overrun by 3 companies of Russian tanks, from 3 different directions. I lost a squad there, though it cost the Russians about 20 tanks. Now, granted, occasionally good infantry can take out tanks bare-handed, but it's very, very rare. Look at it this way; should the _expected result_ of an infantry platoon attacking a tank company on open ground be the destruction and routing of the tank company? That's the result I expect to see in the game. It it considered good tactics to send unsupported infantry in against armor? That's what works in SPWAW.



RobertMc -> (12/30/2000 2:26:00 AM)

David: Thank you for looking up in the manual those items pertaining to infantry vs. AFV assault. Those are informative and helpful. I do still have questions, though, about the sheer number of assaults each infantry unit is allowed during any particular incident. They seem infinite. Granted, the first assault untaken seems to have the highest percent chance of success, but if you can rally the troops you can continue to assault until the squad is down to three or four men. (Maybe even one man). Now this may be really where I see the problem. There is no "tiring" effect involved in these computations. If the squad uses their grenades and improvised assault weapons in the first, second and third assaults, how can they continue to assault a fourth and fifth time? I think the assaults should be like smoke rounds. Each squad should have an assault "number"--unknown to the player--and after those assaults are done, they're done. Say, most squads would have one or two attempts, and the more elite three or four. But as it stands now, squads will continue to assault and assault and assault if you can get their suppression number to "2". Shouldn't these guys be using their weapons up and getting exhausted?



RobertMc -> (12/30/2000 2:38:00 AM)

**Now, granted, occasionally good infantry can take out tanks bare-handed, but it's very, very rare.Look at it this way; should the _expected result_ of an infantry platoon attacking a tank company on open ground be the destruction and routing of the tank company? That's the result I expect to see in the game. It it considered good tactics to send unsupported infantry in against armor? That's what works in SPWAW** Absolutely right. I have come to depend more on my unsupported infantry than AT guns or bazookas. In fact, my squads that have no inherent HE penetration factors at all do better destroying tanks than those squads with bazookas. Bazookas can miss, but my AT weaponless-squads rarely do.



Paul Vebber -> (12/30/2000 2:43:00 AM)

The following things increase your chance of success in assault: Morale - you must pass a morale check or you freeze and gain 20 suppression Kill chance is a rather involved function of Experience (above 75 helps, below hurts), target armor, buttoned status or open top,and lacks MG, if the attacker is hidden (not spotted), dug in or in cover. Things that hurt: Fail a skill roll, move, targets speed (faster makes it more difficult). SO if you run blindly into an ambush by hidden, dug in or in cover troops, and are going fairly slow, even without AT wepons they have a good chance of sticking a log in your running gear to throw a track, or shove dirt inthe exhaust pipe and stall the engine and then once they on top of you, its a tough spot to be in as a tank crew... The Japanese would just pound on US tanks with crow bars and burn brush underneath to smoke and panic the crew to open a hatch...then it was all over. We'll take a look at wheether there might be a bug in the routine...always possible BTW I'll be glad to take a tank company against anyones non-AT armed inf platoon? I think what you are seeing here is getting used to what works against the AI. A have never seen an infantry platoon take out a whole tank company. Hardly the expected result...??? [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited December 29, 2000).]



Charles22 -> (12/30/2000 3:26:00 AM)

I guess nobody wants to consider what I was saying as being true. Yes, Kluckenbill didn't say that precisely, but I was trying to blend his problem with what I read, which is why I mentioned that "if" Klucken bill is anything like me. I must add, that not only are things different as far as unspotted units go, because very few of us play the Soviets regularly (maybe our second or third choice in campaigning), therefore we can't carry infantry units, but also because there are MORE small units out there. There were no foot recon, no crews, and no snipers in the SP series to run into. Now the battlefield can run amok with crews at times.



orc4hire -> (12/30/2000 3:45:00 AM)

Charles, maybe we're not considering what you've said, because what you've said isn't the problem we're complaining about. You're talking about people being upset because they lose tanks at what they feel is an unreasonable rate to unsuppoprted infantry. What we're talking about is being annoyed because our unsupported infantry are destroying tanks at an unreasonable rate. I would like to be excited if I saw one of my squads assault an oncoming tank, gun down the supporting infantry, knock out the tank, then move forward through the smoke and knock out 2 more tanks. That would be an awesome performance, and it would be nice if it were viewed as such. But it's normal; I'm a _lot_ more surprised to see a squad fail to destroy a tank than to succeed.



Charles22 -> (12/30/2000 4:33:00 AM)

orc4hire: Sorry, Kluckenbill did mention small units, the more serious stretch to knocking out tanks.



Arralen -> (12/30/2000 5:06:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by orc4hire: I would like to be excited if I saw one of my squads assault an oncoming tank, gun down the supporting infantry, knock out the tank, then move forward through the smoke and knock out 2 more tanks. That would be an awesome performance, and it would be nice if it were viewed as such. But it's normal; I'm a _lot_ more surprised to see a squad fail to destroy a tank than to succeed.
Sorry, but I can't believe this as this simply couldn't be(*) - unless you have fiddled with either the preferences or the unit stats, but than it's not the games fault but yours. (*) Simply make a "test battle" using the battle creator - I have done this various times to test things like "OPfire chances"," Close assault chances" etc., and from what I have seen there, and what I'm seeing in the battles I'm in at the moment to test OOBs, inf. squads are rather easily spottet when assaulting tanks in the open, and machinegunned to pieces immidatly ?! Arralen



RobertMc -> (12/30/2000 5:35:00 AM)

**Sorry, but I can't believe this as this simply couldn't be(*) - unless you have fiddled wit either the preferences or the unit stats, but than it's not the games fault but yours.** I see this happen all the time. SPWAW is--God love it--such a complicated and fantastic piece of work that things may not repeat themselves to one person as they do to another, but it's my general feeling that infantry assaults are too strong. It just doesn't feel "real" to me that infantry squads have such assault power vs. afvs. I don't think in reality they'd pass their assault checks so easily. Paul, I wonder what would be the result if that 10 percent base assault chance was not based on each man in a squad but rather based on "two man initiative", which would start out at 5%. I still think there are too many assaults permitted per squad. If there are potentially ten assaults in a ten-man squad, that's 40 assaults per platoon. Not counting whatever AT weapons they have available. Also, how can a crew assault? Shouldn't they be heading for their own edge of the battlefield in order to save their skins (much like emptied trucks)? Snipers. Assault? No. The game has mixed up snipers with "heroes". My take on a sniper is a sharpshooter trained to move slowly, stealthily, and shoot at long distances. Not to advance with a fast movement rate and take out AFVs singlehandedly.



orc4hire -> (12/30/2000 6:00:00 AM)

Arralen Well, I'm sorry; I can't help what you believe. But I've seen it dozens of times. I wonder if there's a level of skill or experience above which infantry units' AT deadliness jumps up dramatically. From what I understand of the SPWAW combat system it's certainly possible; a lot of factors go into the CA calculation and experience affects most of them. I can picture a situation where at 1 point an infantry unit may be easy to spot, have a poor chance of making its pre-AFV attack morale check, less likely to have all of its members participate in the attack, and poor odds on the attack iteslf. But then it crosses a certain threshold of experience and all of a sudden it's hard to spot, rarely fails a morale check, everyone attacks, and with a higher chance of doing damage, and the cumulative affect is a 10 man tank-grinding machine. It would be nice if that sudden upward curve in lethality, if that is indeed what's going on, were flattened out a little bit.... perhaps a geometric increase instead of logarithmic.



Arralen -> (12/30/2000 6:24:00 AM)

So you are talking about campaigns here, where your inf has gone through multiple battles, gaining exp. etc., and where you have changed units during the "repair phase" ? Could be that you are partly right - in fact, experience has a geometric effect on unit performance, as not only the exp. rating goes up, but the leaders skills as well. But -and that's worse- there's still a bug in the "unit upgrade routine" - you can oberve it by units gaining "recon ability" when formations up in the list get new equipment - it doesn't matter if you change heavy for medium tank or stay with medium, just hit the "change" button, and things get awful. Maybe there's not only the recon ability flag screwed up but some other values as well, who knows? (And only the programmers could tell, if anyone [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] ) Arralen



orc4hire -> (12/30/2000 6:33:00 AM)

I've seen it most in campaigns, but I noticed it as early as the 1st battle... of course, this was German troops, who start out at a fairly high experience level (and by the end of the campaign, the 1 infantry platoon that had never lost a squad, and had maybe 500 total kills and experience levels around 130, strode across the battlefield like gods, crushing everything that came against them....) So, depending on what the hypothetical magic experience threshold is, it may be something that some nationalities start out start out above or below, and it may also depend on the year, since I think most nationalities troop quality varies by year. This could somewhat account for people's varying experiences in this area.



Blackbird -> (12/30/2000 6:55:00 AM)

Yes, the infantry is too good in assaults. But what about this: I was attacking with soviet PTRD some weak Rumunian tank and when targeting it said about 30%. But as it was next to tank it assaulted him, and it said chance 8%!?! Ofcourse it missed... I would rather that they didn't assault so they would have better chances (at least they'd damage him).



Charles22 -> (12/30/2000 7:16:00 AM)

ord4hire: Clearly you've been exaggerating to a great degree here. 500 kills? You can't be serious. Try dividing that into 4 years straight of war and you would need such a unit to achieve around 10 1/2 kills a game. I've never seen anyone claim a 100 kills for a unit much less 500 (100 is entirely possible though) for ANY unit. How many battles have you fought where you had a unit with 10 kills? And if you did, just how frequently did that occur? You can get an experience of 130 without even a 100 kills, rest assured. One thing further, you spoke of this in relation to campaigning, but I play campaigns, and I guarantee you'll NEVER get 10 1/2 kills a game with one infantry unit, and probably not with engineers either, no matter their experience, and you sure wouldn't storm around with them as you think you can (unless the opponent is silly enough to cut all his unit's ranges to zero, and the AI, since you mentioned "campaigns", doesn't do that), but at best get the majority of their kills in mop-ups. The AI is much too opfire happy for that to happen. I think I had a German commando unit get 12 kills, ONE TIME (and 1/2 of those were mop-ups), and I've yet to see any unit I've played top that with which I've played in one battle.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.734375