The "infantry problem" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade



Message

varangy -> The "infantry problem" (1/13/2020 1:24:58 PM)

The following picture perfectly exemplifies the „infantry problem” (the fact that infantry is mostly useless):

Once detected, an infantry team remains visible and vulnerable until destroyed. The enemy will fire everything they have on our little guys until they are dead no matter the conditions, and this is quite unrealistic.

Imagine a squad inside buildings for example. When they receive heavy fire, they will not remain in the windows / behind walls which cannot stop bullets going through. However, in the game they are killed with continous fire, even if that only involves small arms.

What I suggest is, based on the amount of cover available in the given location, that the infantry units get in cover, and „get lost” after some time. So they become a hidden units again for the enemy. When hidden, they will not fire any weapons. After some time they will start to shoot again, will be visible for the enemy, and the whole cycle starts again.

What do you think?

[image]local://upfiles/60976/A207B066581F4F65ADD95D73E6F59F4A.jpg[/image]



Emx77 -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/13/2020 4:26:00 PM)

I completely agree with your observation and I like suggested workaround.



exsonic01 -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/13/2020 4:57:52 PM)

There should be a good criteria for infantry squad to give up their position and run to other position, which can be clearly described by code, mostly if loop and for loop. Other thing needed to be mention is, smoke cover should be followed. If infantry smoke is empty, then AI should be able to call artillery or mortar for dropping small smoke in front of them.

First of all, when they should run? Too early retreat would bring a situation of giving up fighting back or would unnecessarily expose their position to other enemy units. Too late retreat would bring annihilation, better hide in the cover until smoke cover arrives. There is no easy way to let AI know "when" to perform such escaping behavior.

Second problem is, where they should run? Right now, in above pic, there are other good cover tiles around their position. But what if the situation was happened in completely open field, but just only one cover tile? Do they still need to run?

It would be also kinda problem for "shoot and scoot" behavior for armors and vehicles. For vehicles, it still would be better then infantry because vehicles are faster than infantry.

And, in reality, some commanders are not that smart. Some commanders really sometimes speaks like WH40k Astra Militarum such as "We die standing here". True story.




exsonic01 -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/13/2020 6:21:09 PM)

As far as I know, current AB already has a feature of soldiers retreat to other tiles opposite from enemy direction (or towards to friendly HQ direction), isn't it?

Anyway, I was thinking about some conditions like:

1) If morale dropped to below 50%.
2) If 5 or more enemy units are concentrating fire.
3) If 50% or more number of soldiers of squad are dead or incapacitated.
4) If there are smoke cover available (self or mortar or artillery)
5) If there are 70%+ cover tile within 500m

Then activate retreat algorithm. But I think something similar is already inside AB.



varangy -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/13/2020 8:19:33 PM)

I am not suggesting to retreat to other tiles. I am suggesting to hide in that tile they are currently standing. In other words, get low and stay behind cover where you are right now.

Because now a simple machine gun fire kills an entire squad.

Kinda like hide and hope the enemy thinks you are gone. And when they do, open fire on them again, because right now an ATGM team can fire one missile then they are dead.



varangy -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/13/2020 8:21:36 PM)

double



varangy -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/13/2020 8:25:24 PM)

I don't know what I'm pressing LOL, please delete



Panzerpanic -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/13/2020 8:40:54 PM)

One of the thing that i would like to be updated and that could help is the fact that once something is spoted everyone is the AO sees it and shoot at it.
Of the spoting could be by unit and not shared that could help



exsonic01 -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/14/2020 3:23:18 AM)

quote:


In other words, get low and stay behind cover where you are right now.


In current AI, when they are suppresed, they look for cover, isn't it?

I also felt that, in this game, once you make a contact to infantry, somehow that contact survives for quite a while. To break the contact in this game, the only thing you can do is deploy smoke and set soft and hard target range 0 (which means hold fire). Usually, when my recon or infantry make a contact during non-scout move, I manually pop smoke or drop mortar smoke, and retreat them fast, and try other route. Same for such screen shot situation: If my hold-fire recons are detected by enemy, I pop smoke, and make them run for their lives.

I also think there is a element of non-tactical or non-realistic behavior. But I thought this as some sort of compensation to absence of area-fire. This game's spotting logic is very tight anyway, which is very friendly to ambushing infantry already. So, I thought maybe devs nerfed "hiding" or something similar to compensate absence of suppressive fire.

If I were commander of enemy, as long as ammo is OK, I would order to shoot whatever we have until it is confident that hidden enemy infantry in the building totally neutralized or ran. If this game introduced area fire (and resupply), I would use such suppressive fire (or smoke) every time for the battle in forest or urban.



exsonic01 -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/14/2020 3:23:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerpanic
One of the thing that i would like to be updated and that could help is the fact that once something is spoted everyone is the AO sees it and shoot at it.
Of the spoting could be by unit and not shared that could help

Yeah that would make this game much more realistic but I guess this will not be an easy task.



varangy -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/14/2020 6:38:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerpanic

One of the thing that i would like to be updated and that could help is the fact that once something is spoted everyone is the AO sees it and shoot at it.
Of the spoting could be by unit and not shared that could help


This could help, but the developers already decided against it.



Veitikka -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/15/2020 7:25:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerpanic
One of the thing that i would like to be updated and that could help is the fact that once something is spoted everyone is the AO sees it and shoot at it.
Of the spoting could be by unit and not shared that could help

Yeah that would make this game much more realistic but I guess this will not be an easy task.


Perhaps spotting at the individual unit level will be added when we will move on to the engine version 2.



Panzerpanic -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/15/2020 8:58:17 PM)

Glad to hear. Even if it does not happen i am glad to see that it is being look at.
I'm confident that this solid game will just become better ..... as long as you add the Canadian army! :p



Perturabo -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/16/2020 3:59:53 AM)

Aren't infantry units a bit too easy to destroy with small arms fire when they are dug in or in hard cover?

Also, I have a distinct impression that at the same time heavy weapons are ineffective. Like, high and vhigh damage weapons would probably make quite mess of a squad hiding in a house?



varangy -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/16/2020 7:06:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Aren't infantry units a bit too easy to destroy with small arms fire when they are dug in or in hard cover?



Exactly, this is why I have started this thread.



varangy -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/16/2020 7:06:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka
we will move on to the engine version 2.


Hmm nice to know that an engine upgrade is on the way [:)]



exsonic01 -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/16/2020 4:06:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka
Perhaps spotting at the individual unit level will be added when we will move on to the engine version 2.

May we ask when you guys start work for engine version 2? Or are you started? Whatever you do, we all wish the best outcome. This time, maybe it would be consider MP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Aren't infantry units a bit too easy to destroy with small arms fire when they are dug in or in hard cover?
Also, I have a distinct impression that at the same time heavy weapons are ineffective. Like, high and vhigh damage weapons would probably make quite mess of a squad hiding in a house?

I'm not sure about small arms fire. But I do think heavy weapons are not that effective against covered infantry.

Heavy weapons like GL, RR, and thermobaric warheads should have very good damage against infantry inside the building or bunker. Especially thermobaric like RPO should have more damage bonus when infantry is inside the closed structure when compared to open-top cover or open terrain. (But of course, once they 'hit')

During Falkland war, Brit paratroopers used Milan against Argentine fortified position and bunkers. Current AI of AB seems not designed to use ATGM or AT rockets against infantry in the building or cover. I guess it might be good to give very low chance of using ATGM/AT rockets to infantry in the building. Or, include an option in SOP for all units, to use AT weapon against infantry in the cover or not, and give 3 options for that SOP: none (no chance) / conservatively (low chance) / actively (high chance)

50cal should be able to penetrate light building, and autocannon should be able to penetrate heavy building as well. Eventually, I wish they introduce HP to building / structure and make them destroyable during combat.

If this game introduce WP and Chemical shells, dealing infantry in cover would be come a bit easier.

Current spotting mechanics of AB is very conservative and slow, forcing all players to play slow. If this spotting mechanics become modified just a little bit, then maybe it would help to bring faster phase / speed of AB. I think this will be important for MP.



Panzerpanic -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/16/2020 9:06:26 PM)

As long as we dont get ammo resupply i would have a fit if i see a milan, one of three or four that the unit possess be launched at a squad of conscripts! I do get your point and i agree , its just its so hard making the atgm team engage mbt and not the first jeep they see already!



exsonic01 -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/17/2020 6:10:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerpanic

As long as we dont get ammo resupply i would have a fit if i see a milan, one of three or four that the unit possess be launched at a squad of conscripts! I do get your point and i agree , its just its so hard making the atgm team engage mbt and not the first jeep they see already!

Good point, one of the reason why I don't use ATGM teams anyway, rather I buy ATGM vehicles. More ammo and more mobility...

But anyway, it would be great if we have such additional SOP option for all AT weapons: Engage hard armor only (tanks) / engage up to medium armor (tanks and IFVs) / and engage all vehicles (tanks, IFVs, and all other vehicles including opentop or softskin ones)

I really wish battlefield resupply at least for 'large' scale games, but not sure if devs have plan to introduce them.

Or, I wish they introduce "redistribution of ammo" or "reorganization"
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/atp3-20-15.pdf
Page 3-20, it is OK for tank platoon to redistribute main gun ammo and perform essential maintenance in 'ready area', which is not necessarily the far rear area.




22sec -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/17/2020 7:22:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka


quote:

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerpanic
One of the thing that i would like to be updated and that could help is the fact that once something is spoted everyone is the AO sees it and shoot at it.
Of the spoting could be by unit and not shared that could help

Yeah that would make this game much more realistic but I guess this will not be an easy task.


Perhaps spotting at the individual unit level will be added when we will move on to the engine version 2.



Engine version 2......[&o]



Perturabo -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/18/2020 7:08:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
Aren't infantry units a bit too easy to destroy with small arms fire when they are dug in or in hard cover?
Also, I have a distinct impression that at the same time heavy weapons are ineffective. Like, high and vhigh damage weapons would probably make quite mess of a squad hiding in a house?

I'm not sure about small arms fire.

Thing is that small arms fire accuracy is non-linear.

The problem was the reason for ACR program:
https://youtu.be/EPm7eDFeaFs?t=221

Particularly this graph shows how brutal the accuracy drop is under combat stress. This is against kneeling rifleman target:
https://youtu.be/EPm7eDFeaFs?t=274

But it also shows that in CQB accuracy should be also higher than it is now.

In AB it's impossible to have a weapon with accuracy of 50% at 50m, 20% at 100m, 10% at 300m and 5% at 600m.

With poorly trained troops it should be even worse. Like, there was that thing in 2004 where Mahdi Army tried to take a city hall in Karbala defended by, like, 30 Polish and Bulgarian soldiers for 3 nights and they took losses of 80+ killed while failing to even wound a single defender with small arms. One Bulgarian soldier was lightly injured by a mortar shell.
In Armored Brigade the defenders would get wiped out by poorly trained militia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

But I do think heavy weapons are not that effective against covered infantry.

Heavy weapons like GL, RR, and thermobaric warheads should have very good damage against infantry inside the building or bunker. Especially thermobaric like RPO should have more damage bonus when infantry is inside the closed structure when compared to open-top cover or open terrain. (But of course, once they 'hit')

During Falkland war, Brit paratroopers used Milan against Argentine fortified position and bunkers. Current AI of AB seems not designed to use ATGM or AT rockets against infantry in the building or cover. I guess it might be good to give very low chance of using ATGM/AT rockets to infantry in the building. Or, include an option in SOP for all units, to use AT weapon against infantry in the cover or not, and give 3 options for that SOP: none (no chance) / conservatively (low chance) / actively (high chance)

50cal should be able to penetrate light building, and autocannon should be able to penetrate heavy building as well. Eventually, I wish they introduce HP to building / structure and make them destroyable during combat.

If this game introduce WP and Chemical shells, dealing infantry in cover would be come a bit easier.

Also, tank cannons and bombs. I think they are seriously under-performing now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

50cal should be able to penetrate light building, and autocannon should be able to penetrate heavy building as well. Eventually, I wish they introduce HP to building / structure and make them destroyable during combat.

More precisely, it would need to introduce actual buildings and structures. From what I understand, these are just tiles now.



Gratch1111 -> RE: The "infantry problem" (1/18/2020 12:54:01 PM)

Depending on the situation an infantry squad/platoon would fire for 15-60 seconds if they are firing on armour and then move to new position = for heavy weapons such as AT 1-2 rounds. If only infantry of equal strength they might defend and if its squad vs platoon would try fighting withdrawal. At least that was how we did it, two rounds from AT and then move fast if against armour to next position 500-1000 m away



Perturabo -> RE: The "infantry problem" (2/1/2020 2:50:09 AM)

Speaking of infantry, why does infantry walk slowly towards cover instead of sprinting?

Also, I remember reading in various memoirs about infantry sprinting to get away from fire, including artillery fire.



sfbaytf -> RE: The "infantry problem" (2/6/2020 1:58:09 AM)

So far I've found that using smoke if available helps infantry survive once spotted. I'll dump smoke onto of my own infantry if necessary. I also try not to position infantry at the edge of town where the enemy has a long line of sight and clear fields of fire. I've found infantry to be very effective in woods. I placed them on the reverse edge opposite of the enemy advance. When the tanks foolishly advanced through the woods they suffered heavily-even falling prey to LAWS. Other tanks and AFVs advancing towards the objectives got hit in the side and rear by Dragons. When the Russian infantry did move through the woods to engage my infantry they were at a disadvantage.

My M-60A3s supporting the infantry did well engaging enemy armor and infantry. I am finding the T-62s to be pretty resilient to hits from M-60s.



sfbaytf -> RE: The "infantry problem" (2/6/2020 7:25:38 PM)

Might be worthwhile to add a shoot and scoot command for infantry.



Veitikka -> RE: The "infantry problem" (2/7/2020 2:35:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Speaking of infantry, why does infantry walk slowly towards cover instead of sprinting?

Also, I remember reading in various memoirs about infantry sprinting to get away from fire, including artillery fire.


You mean why they use 'Advance' instead of 'Fast'? Because it's the safer type of movement. If you mean why they move so slowly, well, they use the same suppression rules as always. Usually they're under fire when moving to a cover.



sfbaytf -> RE: The "infantry problem" (2/8/2020 12:00:09 AM)

Question about buildings in general. Is there different defensive values for different types of building and construction material used? If so what different types are included? Wood, stone, brick, clay? are there any very resilient structures like buildings with very thick concrete and rebar?

I haven't play enough yet to know if multi story building are simulated.

Probably would be very complicated to implement, but underground sewers, basements and the ability of infantry and engineers to improve positions-especially buildings in urban areas and rubble would be very welcome.



blaa -> RE: The "infantry problem" (2/11/2020 8:35:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka


quote:

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerpanic
One of the thing that i would like to be updated and that could help is the fact that once something is spoted everyone is the AO sees it and shoot at it.
Of the spoting could be by unit and not shared that could help

Yeah that would make this game much more realistic but I guess this will not be an easy task.


Perhaps spotting at the individual unit level will be added when we will move on to the engine version 2.




That would be awesome. I agree that the instant multi-locks are a bit over the top atm, with situations like 20 units firing at a house from kilometers away while on the move cause somebody kilometers away from the firing units spotted an enemy there.

When will the engine be updated? What other changes will that bring? First time I heard of that.





Edit: "I haven't play enough yet to know if multi story building are simulated."

Well units positioned there have a very good LOS so in that sense, it´s simulated to a degree. Of course that works both ways.



Veitikka -> RE: The "infantry problem" (2/11/2020 10:22:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Question about buildings in general. Is there different defensive values for different types of building and construction material used? If so what different types are included? Wood, stone, brick, clay? are there any very resilient structures like buildings with very thick concrete and rebar?


The smaller buildings have two categories: 'light' and 'heavy'. In addition to that there are warehouses, industrial buildings, and churches. All of them can have their unique characteristics.



Veitikka -> RE: The "infantry problem" (2/11/2020 10:29:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: blaa

When will the engine be updated? What other changes will that bring? First time I heard of that.


The next engine will likely be in a sequel. One reason is that it's practically not possible for us to update all the existing content to be compatible with the new system. There will be announcements in the future.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.453125