Keep the infantry strong vs tanks ...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Keep the infantry strong vs tanks ...

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Keep the infantry strong vs tanks ...

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Keep the infantry strong vs tanks ... - 1/17/2001 1:59:00 AM

MindSpy

Posts: 272
Joined: 5/13/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

Howdy. I must say I really like the way the infantry can kick butt when facing tanks. Please keep it this way, afterall if you don't want to lose tanks to infantry don't drive unescorted and don't get within six hexes of them either. Of course if ambushed -- retreat! "Soon sad news arrived that the CO had fallen ... helping a wounded officer ... to a safer place ... the CO attracted ... a Russian tank, which fired a shot that hit him, on the return trip. The death of the CO depressed the men, ... enraged ...attacking tanks were destroyed ... no living enemy soldiers remained in their trenches ... Especially brave, was a small man ... He destroyed three tanks, but was badly shaken while blowing up the third one ... The unit entered the battle with 800 men, ... 1/3 were left ... the Red Army told a worse story, ... 7000 men lost...over 100 tanks half by the infantry" Battle of Izjum (Estonian Battalion Narva) [This message has been edited by MindSpy (edited January 16, 2001).]

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 1/17/2001 2:16:00 AM

Warrior

Posts: 1808
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: West Palm Beach, FL USA
Status: offline

I totally agree. I like the mental picture of my brave troops assaulting an armored vehicle and blowing it away!

_____________________________

Retreat is NOT an option.

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 2

- 1/17/2001 2:41:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

Hmm. I take it realism and historical accuracy aren't part of what you guys are interested in?

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 3

- 1/17/2001 4:17:00 AM

Captn_Jack

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Reedsville, WV, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by MindSpy: Howdy. I must say I really like the way the infantry can kick butt when facing tanks. Please keep it this way, afterall if you don't want to lose tanks to infantry don't drive unescorted and don't get within six hexes of them either. Of course if ambushed -- retreat!

My thoughts are that vehicle crews need to be toned down a bit. I have had a 2 man crew from a destroyed Greyhound, move 1 hex behind a Tiger and destroy it. Not just disable it, but turn it into a burning hulk. Now, I guess it would be possible for the crew to "surprise" a stationary, unbuttoned tank, jump on it and fire down into the open hatch killing the crew, but to blow it up with only small arms?? I don't think that the regular infantry needs adjusted at all. There is a circle around every tank that is a "safe zone" for attacking troops. An area where they can stay out of the field of fire of any gun on the tank. If any tank moves close enough to infantry, especially ones with RPG's or bazookas, they are in trouble. It should stay that way. CJ

_____________________________

M(1)&M(9)'s...they melt in your tank...not in your hand!

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 4

- 1/17/2001 4:32:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

CJ, This was discussed at some length a week or so back, and a bug in the infantry close assault routine was confirmed; the bug was tripling the infantry's chance of success. As far as a tanks 'blind zone' goes, on modern tanks it varies from about 9-15 meters, depending on the tank and the facing. Interestingly enough, the minimum range of effective infantry anti-tank weapons is about 10 meters. So, when infantry is in the zone in which the tank can't hurt them, their ability to hurt the tank is dramatically curtailed. Keep in mind that SP hexes are 50 yards, and it has been established that for targetting purposes that everyone is in the middle of the hex, so infantry assaulting from an adjacent hex are crossing 50 yards of ground to attack a tank that is probably in motion, and may easily be going 20-30 mph. In certain circumstances, skilled infantry who had had time to prepare and were willing to accept the casualties, could defeat a tank without the use of specialized anti-tank weapons. But in general, infantry is more afraid of tanks than the other way around, and that should be represented in the game. And to those who say, "If you don't want to lose tanks to infantry who are 3 times as effective as they should be, don't let the infantry get within 100 yards of your tanks," I can only say, "If you want your infantry to be able to take out tanks without the benefit of anti-tank weapons, either accept the historical capabilities and learn how to use your infantry, or adjust the preferences to reduce tanks to the state of impotence that makes you happy."

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 5

- 1/17/2001 4:41:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

I also found that in addition to the bug that was tripling the INF's close assault precentages that Rifle Grenades were all being given penetration averages based on the HEAT rating of the weapon vs. the HE rating since all RG's in the early war scenerios dont have any HEAT rounds. I'd set up a few test scenerios and sure enough, all the nation's squads equipped with RG's when they got hits were documented as HEAT round hits and being given pen ratings based on that.....even for squads that started the battle with *zero* HEAT grenades! I hope this gets addressed in time for 4.6 I like Infantry too that can kick butt and serve a purpose but historical accuracy must take precedence!

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 6

- 1/17/2001 4:55:00 AM

Major_Johnson

Posts: 280
Joined: 6/29/2000
From: Beach Haven, NJ, USA
Status: offline

IMO, the settings are just fine. I think that the cases of crews destroying tanks are rare. I can't think of it happenning with me. One of my strategies when putting infantry up against armour is too, when possible, let the armour come to me. There is a much higher chance of destruction when they come to you. Or that seems to be the case when i play. ------------------ MJ We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves.

_____________________________

M.J.!
We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves.

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 7

- 1/17/2001 5:09:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

Nikademus, I only played SP a little after 4.0 came out, then got back into it with 4.5, and I was astonished to see that every squad had been issued RPGs.... I mean, is this 1939 Poland, or 1969 Vietnam? If you're going to do that sort of thing you might as well go all the way and have 'powerups' on the map; when an infantry squad moves over one of them they start glowing and automatically destroy any tank in a 5 hex radius for the rest of the turn....

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 8

- 1/17/2001 5:20:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Yes, i was a bit surprised as well, but in honesty, i did'nt really notice it until after i'd played several early war scenerios in a row and found that half the tank casualties were being caused by unsupported INF squads, some even out in the open, attacking and knocking out tanks (mediums included) head on at 100 and 150 yards out. According to Paul, RG's were added to most basic INF units because of user comments about INF not being powerful enough against tanks. This disturbed me greatly, because up to that point i'd just automatically assumed that they were included because they were actually part of the TO&E. Guess thats what i get for not being around for a while ;-) Historical accuracy is very important to me....my personal opinion is that RG's should be restricted to 'Heavy' Infantry squads or Heavy Weapons teams, same as with the dedicated AT rifles. Unless of course, RG's were part of everyone's TO&E, then its tough cookies i guess. I also found it odd that the British and Japanese were excluded from this upgrade. Japanese, well they always did have to improvise a bit when it came to fighting armor (strap that mine on my back babeeeeeee!) but the British, fighting German Panzers as is often the case, would put them at quite a disadvatage compared to other nations. It was later that i discoverd the HEAT bug. I'd spent a whole damn hour!!!! modifying my personal OOB's halving the HE of the grenades in order to dampen their successes a tad only to find that the 'average' penetration figure was still hovering between 45-60mm of armor per hit, *and* that the message box was indicating that the tank was struck by a HEAT round, even though the RG had only HE ammo at the time.

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 9

- 1/17/2001 5:44:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

Yeah, I know what you mean; you go away for a few months, and the whole place goes to hell. :} As far as I'm concerned, someone who complains that unsupported early WWII infantry has a hard time standing up to tanks and needs beefing up is playing the wrong game. Early war infantry _did_ have a hard time standing up to tanks, and that was a major part of tactical and operational decisions of the time.

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 10

- 1/17/2001 5:52:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

agreed. It was the later debut of truely effective and portable HEAT based weapons such as the PIAT, Bazooka and Panzerfaust within the basic INF squad that made Combined Arms tactics not only the best method as opposed to the earlier and tank heavy Blitzkrieg of earlier days but essential! Until that time INF had to rely either on supporting AT guns and artillery, or in absence of that the marginally effective RG and AT rifles or beyond that.....steel nerves with Molotov in hand and a prayer on your lips. And just in case its misunderstood (yet again) this is not in reference to the close assault formula/discussion) Whole different ballpark there, as the Finns aptly showed us in 39-40 when they made tank-hunting a popular sport in the cold and desolate arctic forests!

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 11

- 1/17/2001 7:56:00 AM

Captn_Jack

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Reedsville, WV, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by orc4hire: CJ, This was discussed at some length a week or so back, and a bug in the infantry close assault routine was confirmed; the bug was tripling the infantry's chance of success.

But tripling a 2 man crew with pistols chance of success should still be very close to 0% anyway wouldn't you say?

quote:

As far as a tanks 'blind zone' goes, on modern tanks it varies from about 9-15 meters, depending on the tank and the facing. Interestingly enough, the minimum range of effective infantry anti-tank weapons is about 10 meters. So, when infantry is in the zone in which the tank can't hurt them, their ability to hurt the tank is dramatically curtailed.

This may be true for rifle grenades and bazookas, but what about satchel charges, molotovs and hand grenades? Are you saying once a person gets within this "safe zone" that they have no effective means of destroying a tank? I disagree with you here and say the chance of destroying the tank is greatly enhanced using these weapons. Tossing a satchel charge into an engine compartment is a whole lot better than throwing it at the tank from 50 meters away.

quote:

Keep in mind that SP hexes are 50 yards, and it has been established that for targetting purposes that everyone is in the middle of the hex, so infantry assaulting from an adjacent hex are crossing 50 yards of ground to attack a tank that is probably in motion, and may easily be going 20-30 mph.

I have no problems with this either, but there are as many times when tanks are stationary or immobile not to mention suppressed. Then the infantry can move into the very hex the tank occupies. Or how about infantry moving into the same hex with a tank who has expended all it's op fire?

quote:

In certain circumstances, skilled infantry who had had time to prepare and were willing to accept the casualties, could defeat a tank without the use of specialized anti-tank weapons. But in general, infantry is more afraid of tanks than the other way around, and that should be represented in the game.

Tell me there is no fear in a tankers heart when he is told to drive his platoon of tanks through an un-scouted forest, which is occupied by infantry. Tanks can take out any infantry when they see them, and the greater the distance the better. Infantry can also take out any tank, and the closer the better. Infantry doesn't cower from armor. If that were the case, the world would be a whole lot different than it is now as the Panzers would have scared everybody out of their paths. Broken infantry will retreat from armor in the game, same as in real life. Casulties "are" suffered by the squads in the game when attacking armor. BTW, most of my tank kills come from bazooka equiped squads firing their weapons selectively. I think my kill ratio is higher this way then by "close assault" as I have seen many "CA"'s fail.

quote:

And to those who say, "If you don't want to lose tanks to infantry who are 3 times as effective as they should be, don't let the infantry get within 100 yards of your tanks," I can only say, "If you want your infantry to be able to take out tanks without the benefit of anti-tank weapons, either accept the historical capabilities and learn how to use your infantry, or adjust the preferences to reduce tanks to the state of impotence that makes you happy."

That's really funny as I haven't made a statement that would in anyway imply what you quote. I feel that not only should the infantry perform as they did in real life, but all the weapons and units should. And, I rely on my tactics to render an enemy tank impotent, not a request for a programmer to change some code. Cheers and good hunting to you!

CJ

_____________________________

M(1)&M(9)'s...they melt in your tank...not in your hand!

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 12

- 1/17/2001 8:58:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

Captn_Jack, >But tripling a 2 man crew with pistols chance of success should still be very close to 0% anyway >wouldn't you say? I would. The game engine disagrees. And it's a bug in the game engine I was talking about. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As far as a tanks 'blind zone' goes, on modern tanks it varies from about 9-15 meters, depending on the tank and the facing. Interestingly enough, the minimum range of effective infantry anti-tank weapons is about 10 meters. So, when infantry is in the zone in which the tank can't hurt them, their ability to hurt the tank is dramatically curtailed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This may be true for rifle grenades and bazookas, but what about satchel charges, molotovs and hand grenades? Are you saying once a person gets within this "safe zone" that they have no effective means of destroying a tank? I disagree with you here and say the chance of destroying the tank is greatly enhanced using these weapons. Tossing a satchel charge into an engine compartment is a whole lot better than throwing it at the tank from 50 meters away. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, let's see, did I say that? "So, when infantry is in the zone in which the tank can't hurt them, their ability to hurt the tank is dramatically curtailed." Hmm. I would say, no, I didn't say that. By the by, how many satchel charges did, oh, let's say, a 1940 vintage Belgian rifle squad carry around with them? The way people talk about infantry's awesome power of radiating death in close combat with tanks you would think every rifleman carried 3 or 4. And I would have to disagree wtih you and say that the crowbars, grenades, and the old log between the tracks so often referred to in the other thread, are NOT more effective than a bazooka. After all, if those things were doing the job so well, why come up with the RPGs? quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keep in mind that SP hexes are 50 yards, and it has been established that for targetting purposes that everyone is in the middle of the hex, so infantry assaulting from an adjacent hex are crossing 50 yards of ground to attack a tank that is probably in motion, and may easily be going 20-30 mph. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have no problems with this either, but there are as many times when tanks are stationary or immobile not to mention suppressed. Then the infantry can move into the very hex the tank occupies. Or how about infantry moving into the same hex with a tank who has expended all it's op fire? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, sure, I read all the time about individual tanks driving out into a field and stopping to take a nap while their infantry support catches up. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In certain circumstances, skilled infantry who had had time to prepare and were willing to accept the casualties, could defeat a tank without the use of specialized anti-tank weapons. But in general, infantry is more afraid of tanks than the other way around, and that should be represented in the game. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tell me there is no fear in a tankers heart when he is told to drive his platoon of tanks through an un-scouted forest, which is occupied by infantry. Tanks can take out any infantry when they see them, and the greater the distance the better. Infantry can also take out any tank, and the closer the better. Infantry doesn't cower from armor. If that were the case, the world would be a whole lot different than it is now as the Panzers would have scared everybody out of their paths. Broken infantry will retreat from armor in the game, same as in real life. Casulties "are" suffered by the squads in the game when attacking armor. BTW, most of my tank kills come from bazooka equiped squads firing their weapons selectively. I think my kill ratio is higher this way then by "close assault" as I have seen many "CA"'s fail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tell me there isn't more fear in the infantrymans heart when he hears the tank coming. Which is what I said. Infantry _DID_ cower from armor, the panzers _DID_ scare most out of their paths in the early years. I hate to break your heart and all, but it happened. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And to those who say, "If you don't want to lose tanks to infantry who are 3 times as effective as they should be, don't let the infantry get within 100 yards of your tanks," I can only say, "If you want your infantry to be able to take out tanks without the benefit of anti-tank weapons, either accept the historical capabilities and learn how to use your infantry, or adjust the preferences to reduce tanks to the state of impotence that makes you happy." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's really funny as I haven't made a statement that would in anyway imply what you quote. I feel that not only should the infantry perform as they did in real life, but all the weapons and units should. And, I rely on my tactics to render an enemy tank impotent, not a request for a programmer to change some code. Cheers and good hunting to you! CJ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, gee CJ, that's really funny 'cause I never said you did. However, Mindspy said, "afterall if you don't want to lose tanks to infantry don't drive unescorted and don't get within six hexes of them either." If you're going to go through the trouble to quote me, I'd think you'd at least take the trouble to read what you're quoting.

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 13

- 1/17/2001 9:09:00 AM

Captn_Jack

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Reedsville, WV, USA
Status: offline

Hmmm....that's funny cause I thought your reply was to me, seeing as how it was addressed as such. And I didn't see anything in any of the post concerning timeframe or countries involved. I must be missing the whole point then as everything I quoted and replied to was from a message you addressed to me...or didn't you do that either? LOL CJ

_____________________________

M(1)&M(9)'s...they melt in your tank...not in your hand!

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 14

- 1/17/2001 9:17:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

CJ, Read this again: **** And to those who say, "If you don't want to lose tanks to infantry who are 3 times as effective as they should be, don't let the infantry get within 100 yards of your tanks," I can only say, "If you want your infantry to be able to take out tanks without the benefit of anti-tank weapons, either accept the historical capabilities and learn how to use your infantry, or adjust the preferences to reduce tanks to the state of impotence that makes you happy." **** Catch that there at the beginning, "And to those who..." Think hard and see if you can figure if perhaps that part of my post to this forum, which you will note was not a private email to you, might have been more generally addressed.

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 15

- 1/17/2001 9:23:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

Oh, and CJ, _you_ brought up time frames and countries when you made sweeping statements about how infantry and tanks interact, implying that those things were universal constants.

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 16

- 1/17/2001 9:29:00 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

While i support making any fixes to bugs that cause the game not to reflect the considerable research Matrix has put into Ordnance performance and combat modeling ... i am asking PLEASE do not weaken the infantry so that folks who want to just play with tanks can safely run arround the battlefield .. as a minimum the various arms of combat should at least instill some caution in armor

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 17

- 1/17/2001 9:37:00 AM

Alby

Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by AmmoSgt: While i support making any fixes to bugs that cause the game not to reflect the considerable research Matrix has put into Ordnance performance and combat modeling ... i am asking PLEASE do not weaken the infantry so that folks who want to just play with tanks can safely run arround the battlefield .. as a minimum the various arms of combat should at least instill some caution in armor

Yes!!! I agree alby

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 18

- 1/17/2001 9:39:00 AM

krull

Posts: 513
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

I have a ? what ever made ya think theres a safe zone around a tank? you ever seen one spin in a circle. or his buddy tank spray him with MG fire

granted they maynot fire but I have seen in real combat other tanks spray em with Mg's to clear of some charlie's. And ya know i dont ever rember them guys complainng about friendly fire

_____________________________

Krull

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 19

- 1/17/2001 9:47:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

Krull, The combat veterans who told me. 'Safety' on a battlefield, of course, being a relative thing. :}

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 20

- 1/17/2001 10:11:00 AM

krull

Posts: 513
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

HEHEh sounds about right orc4hire. I personaly tried stay away from large tempting targets my self.

better a Sniper in the bush than A tank In the field

specialy after 1967 to many rocket throwing junk cured my days of sittign on top of a M-60 to use for elevation

_____________________________

Krull

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 21

- 1/17/2001 10:54:00 AM

Captn_Jack

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Reedsville, WV, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by krull: I have a ? what ever made ya think theres a safe zone around a tank? you ever seen one spin in a circle. or his buddy tank spray him with MG fire granted they maynot fire but I have seen in real combat other tanks spray em with Mg's to clear of some charlie's. And ya know i dont ever rember them guys complainng about friendly fire

Here's a quote from current US Army Field Manual:

quote:

b. An armored vehicle without close protection (dismounted infantry) in woods, MOUT, or other restrictive terrain is vulnerable to close attack. This type of attack is most likely to originate from well-armed infantry-type teams organized into armor-killer teams. (Noninfantry units may also be required to perform this mission.) Skilled firers from these teams should engage the suspension or engine compartment of vehicles that have applique or reactive armor. When an armored vehicle is buttoned up--all hatches are closed and personnel are inside the vehicle--the crew cannot see well enough to protect itself from close attacks or attacks from the flanks or rear. The personnel inside cannot see anything within 10 meters of the vehicle, and they cannot shoot at anything (using their main guns) within 20 meters. The white area in Figure 6-3 shows the most favorable direction of attack when the turret is facing to the front; the gray area shows the vehicle's principal direction of fire and observation when the turret is facing to the front.

Here's a link to a great site with all the Field Manuals concerning different weapon systems and tactics. There's even one on Serwage...just in case you want to find out how to handle a little "BS"...

http://155.217.58.58/atdls.htm CJ

_____________________________

M(1)&M(9)'s...they melt in your tank...not in your hand!

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 22

- 1/17/2001 11:26:00 AM

krull

Posts: 513
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

Well capt jack ya got me there not read many ARMY manuals. I do distinclty rember several old M 48 and M 60 type tankies In marines In the LAND of Milk and honey and minefields and stakes etc etc. Strappign on some nice claymores just for such occasions. Thats the nice thing about games those manuals actualy work

for real instead of sitting in some butterbars bags yes

_____________________________

Krull

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 23

- 1/17/2001 11:29:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

krull, Well, you're here talking about it, so it must've worked for you... :} You're right, of course; just because you're in a tank's dead zone and _it_ can't hurt you doesn't mean some bright boy won't get the idea of hosing the thing down, and whether it's ma deuce or a russian .51 doesn't make much difference to you, no? Like they say, "Friendly fire isn't."

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 24

- 1/17/2001 11:36:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

You know, that's a point too, Krull. Everyone's spending so much time talking about how clever and determined the infantry are, just dying for some helpless tank to come within arms' reach so they can slather it down with all those backpacks of high explosive they've been dragging around for just such a contingency, and how the tank crews are huddled inside their steel coffins, drizzling down their legs at the thought that some infantry might show up, but it doesn't seem to have occurred to many people that the tank crewmen might be clever, determined improvisers too.

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 25

- 1/17/2001 1:08:00 PM

Igor

Posts: 184
Joined: 12/11/2000
Status: offline

They might be; but fighting an enemy you can't see while buttoned up can still be tricky. Sure, in an unbottoned vehicle the commander can stick his head up and see all those naughty infantry. On the other hand, the commander can get his head blown off in reality; SP kind of overlooks that possibility... In early WW II there were various short range (contact) weapons available to the infantry; demolition charges made out of seven stick grenade heads, magnetic mines, sticky bombs, and etc. Troops with these weapons should be feared by tanks in close terrain; countless tank badges were earned with them. Of course, a lot of those honors were posthumous... Troops without that kind of equipment, though, should have a very slender chance of hurting armor. Moreover, the infantry should be impotent against armor at range until HEAT weapons are introduced. The point of all this? IMHO, heavy infantry should be left able to crucify unescorted tanks which wander into their hex. Otherwise, the regular infantry should be all but useless.

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 26

- 1/17/2001 1:26:00 PM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

Igor, Well, sure, once the tank is buttoned up its options are limited... that's why you do your improvising beforehand. If your tank is vulnerable to molotov cocktails landing on the rear deck and spilling burning gasoline down into the engine, mount some wire mesh or camouflage webbing or something back there so the bottles _bounce_ instead of shattering. Those track links you see stuck all over Shermans? Those were more to protect against HEAT warheads, like panzerfaust rounds, than high velocity AP. Some tanks mounted extra machine guns, to keep from getting pinned down in the first place. One unit equipped their Shermans with 60 lb. aircraft rockets, and there was something called an Anti-personal Tank Projector... I'm not sure of the details, but it had 4 hull mounted tubes that I'm pretty sure didn't shower close-in infantry with rose petals.... In Vietnam US forces put chain link fence up in front of vehicles in defensive positions to detonate RPGs. And I seem to recall a TC telling me once about a bag of grenades he kept handy to greet callers with.... And these are just a few things off the top of my head; I'm sure if I were out at the sharp end, and so strongly motivated, I could come up with more. But, on the whole, I agree; I've been saying for a couple of weeks now that infantry without specialized anti-tank weapons should have a very tough time doing anything to hostile armor....

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 27

- 1/17/2001 1:33:00 PM

Captn_Jack

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Reedsville, WV, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by krull: Well capt jack ya got me there not read many ARMY manuals. I do distinclty rember several old M 48 and M 60 type tankies In marines In the LAND of Milk and honey and minefields and stakes etc etc. Strappign on some nice claymores just for such occasions. Thats the nice thing about games those manuals actualy work for real instead of sitting in some butterbars bags yes

Well, that explaines it Krull. When the M60's and M48's rolled up, poor ol Charlie was so damn scared, he jumped right out of his cozy little tunnel and onto the tank! As a matter of fact, he was so scared, they had to use a claymore to pry his scrawny little fingers off the hulking beast!

My point is crewmen with pistols should not be able to take a tank, infantry, if equiped, should. They have done it for ages and will continue to do so. I think the game models this aspect better than some armor vs armor duels anyway. I've seen King Tigers take suppressing fire from mortars, mg's and 13 hits of AP and APCR from 76mm guns in the game and not even slow down. All this in one game turn. So tell me how "real' is this??

CJ

_____________________________

M(1)&M(9)'s...they melt in your tank...not in your hand!

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 28

- 1/17/2001 3:37:00 PM

RobertMc

Posts: 134
Joined: 5/10/2000
From: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Status: offline

Where SPWAW falls down currently IMHO is the fact that it doesn't require a MASSIVE gut check for troops to attack tanks. I have no problem with soldiers blowing up tanks with the proper equipment or even with improvised equipment. But the assaults with improvised equipment ought to require a big old test of massive sized balls to even get the guys up and trying. If they pass this and succeed, God love 'em!!! Also: I think the next patch is going to take care of this. But guys, also consider that we know a whole lot more today about the weaknesses of tanks than the soldiers did, especially in the early years of the war. They had to learn the hard way, for sure. One neat thing about the CC series was when you ordered soldiers to attack a tank without the proper weapons, you got "We can't hurt that, sir!!" In other words, "YOU go, dumba##!!!"

_____________________________

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 29

- 1/17/2001 4:09:00 PM

Captn_Jack

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Reedsville, WV, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by RobertMc: Where SPWAW falls down currently IMHO is the fact that it doesn't require a MASSIVE gut check for troops to attack tanks. I have no problem with soldiers blowing up tanks with the proper equipment or even with improvised equipment. But the assaults with improvised equipment ought to require a big old test of massive sized balls to even get the guys up and trying. If they pass this and succeed, God love 'em!!!

I'm not sure that the game doesn't already do this. I have tried to have infantry units assault a target, only to see no attack take place but a rise of 25 points occurs to the suppression of the unit that was ordered to attack. This seems to happen more to troops who have rallied back than "fresh" ones. Or another observation I have noticed, is that the target will fire before my unit carries out its assault. So those "checks" may already be programed in. CJ

_____________________________

M(1)&M(9)'s...they melt in your tank...not in your hand!

(in reply to MindSpy)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Keep the infantry strong vs tanks ...

Page: [1] 2 next > >>