Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The "infantry problem"

 
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] >> Armored Brigade >> RE: The "infantry problem" Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The "infantry problem" - 2/11/2020 10:43:11 PM   
blaa

 

Posts: 55
Joined: 12/23/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

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.




Will there be more DLC and patches for this one or are you in full sequel mode?

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 31
RE: The "infantry problem" - 2/12/2020 5:07:16 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1304
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: blaa

Will there be more DLC and patches for this one or are you in full sequel mode?


The current engine is still being improved.


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to blaa)
Post #: 32
RE: The "infantry problem" - 3/2/2020 8:20:10 PM   
ThunderLizard11

 

Posts: 573
Joined: 2/28/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Veitikka

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.



I just bought this one and it's already being replaced?

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 33
RE: The "infantry problem" - 3/3/2020 6:03:21 AM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 619
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline 		We are just setting up the ground works. Keep in mind this game was released in November 2018, so by the time eventual sequel might out it won't be that "young" anymore.

(in reply to ThunderLizard11)
Post #: 34
RE: The "infantry problem" - 3/11/2020 11:10:50 AM   
emeg

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 4/10/2008
Status: offline 		For that I use the disabling waypoint feature. Also very usefull to create forward operating base (FOB) or entry control point (ECP waypoints for your formations and units in their advance route to chance formations or for the last given SOB instructions before the (final) attack begins.

< Message edited by emeg -- 3/11/2020 11:21:39 AM >

_____________________________

Greetings, emeg.

(in reply to sfbaytf)
Post #: 35
RE: The "infantry problem" - 4/18/2020 5:23:43 AM   
RooksBailey


Posts: 80
Joined: 11/21/2009
Status: offline 		I just came across this "infantry problem" last night. I was really enjoying the little scratch scenario I set up when my infantry started getting plastered by an enemy armor formation. As others have related, it happened to me when my forward units, which I placed at the edge of a town, was spotted by advancing armor. Sure enough, the AI would pick a single infantry unit and pound away at it with every vehicle-mounted MG on the map. Then the AI would cycle to the next spotted infantry unit and blast away at it. It would move on to the next...and so on and so forth, with the cycle repeating over and over until all of my infantry units were broken or destroyed. It was a real immersion breaker to see that type of unrealistically instant coordination by every enemy unit on the map. I sure hope this is addressed in a forthcoming patch because it killed my enjoyment of the game last night.

Other than this issue, I have really been enjoying AB! Looking forward to improvements (to such as the above), as well as more Cold-War-Gone-Hot DLC!

< Message edited by RooksBailey -- 4/18/2020 5:29:15 AM >

(in reply to emeg)
Post #: 36
RE: The "infantry problem" - 5/1/2020 2:38:49 PM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2614
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline 		Does unit size/training impact damage that infantry takes? I was playing around with 25 man minimal training/medium morale units and they tend to be suspiciously durable. Including to iron bombs.

_____________________________

People shouldn't ask themselves why schools get shoot up.
They should ask themselves why people who finish schools burned out due to mobbing aren't receiving high enough compensations to not seek vengeance.

(in reply to RooksBailey)
Post #: 37
RE: The "infantry problem" - 5/3/2020 10:20:05 AM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1304
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Does unit size/training impact damage that infantry takes? I was playing around with 25 man minimal training/medium morale units and they tend to be suspiciously durable. Including to iron bombs.


The infantry unit size does affect the direct fire probability to hit, but I think it has no effect when it comes to indirect fire and bombs. Perhaps it should have, but any adjustments to the current system must be considered carefully and tested thoroughly. I think nobody has really thought of using such huge infantry units.


_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 38
RE: The "infantry problem" - 5/7/2020 9:51:41 AM   
wodin


Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline 		To soft infantry is why I gave up playing AB.

Games like Graviteam Tactics, Squad Battles and Combat Mission do a decent job.

_____________________________

My website


https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 39
RE: The "infantry problem" - 6/11/2020 1:30:01 AM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 619
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline 		Current infantry speed is in line with military average. When it comes to sprint standards, with or without 16kg of equipment, 60m in 8sec and 100m in 12sec is both reasonable and essential in combat. Translated to speed, that is anywhere between two and three times faster than current infantry maximum speed.

Maybe, once we are done with spotting rework, we can see how to improve infantry tactical combat. Maybe if infantry unit gets under fire while moving, it can sprint up to two squares, then it will have a slowdown period before it can do it again. The issue is how to implement this without having player micromanaging or having new commands, and how distance to the next waypoint will influence this.

New spotting chance will be increased, but there will be no Borg spotting, but it is too early for me to say how this will influence infantry combat. Maybe some kind of "cowering" will be needed.

_____________________________

Armored Brigade Database Specialist

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 40
RE: The "infantry problem" - 6/11/2020 7:24:06 AM   
varangy


Posts: 198
Joined: 11/1/2018
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

Current infantry speed is in line with military average. When it comes to sprint standards, with or without 16kg of equipment, 60m in 8sec and 100m in 12sec is both reasonable and essential in combat. Translated to speed, that is anywhere between two and three times faster than current infantry maximum speed.

Maybe, once we are done with spotting rework, we can see how to improve infantry tactical combat. Maybe if infantry unit gets under fire while moving, it can sprint up to two squares, then it will have a slowdown period before it can do it again. The issue is how to implement this without having player micromanaging or having new commands, and how distance to the next waypoint will influence this.

New spotting chance will be increased, but there will be no Borg spotting, but it is too early for me to say how this will influence infantry combat. Maybe some kind of "cowering" will be needed.


Thank you for working on this.

My opinion on the speeds is that it should be rather realistic than "gamey". I think infantry shouldnt be able to keep fast speeds for a long time. they should become winded, so implementing a tiredness value that changes the movespeed would be fine. This would recharge when they stop.

the other thing is they should really be able to hide and take cover for example in buildings from small arms fire. While they take cover, they wouldnt shoot back of course.

(in reply to nikolas93TS)
Post #: 41
RE: The "infantry problem" - 6/11/2020 6:28:09 PM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 619
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline 		Fatigue is already implemented, and units can get winded and tired. But this is not evident unless they have marched for some distance or are under heavy duty.

Increased infantry flexibility is certainly needed.

_____________________________

Armored Brigade Database Specialist

(in reply to varangy)
Post #: 42
RE: The "infantry problem" - 6/13/2020 3:40:30 PM   
JamesHunt

 

Posts: 192
Joined: 5/7/2016
Status: offline 		Infantry is definitely somewhat on the less-use side in AB

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 43
RE: The "infantry problem" - 7/4/2020 8:47:48 PM   
jason oates

 

Posts: 67
Joined: 11/8/2011
Status: offline 		In other games Infantry once spotted, disappear rapidly and are very deadly when they are un-suppressed and in close proximity to armour. In order for Armour to overrun Infantry They had to call in suppressive fire or do the job themselves while maneuvering for an assault. In AB that would require more combined arms co=operation which might not be a bad thing rather than unloading every available weapon at a single Squad. (we were trained to direct appropriate fire at a given target for suppression and to prevent the enemy from returning fire or tactical movement and to retain the bulk of ammunition for the assault.) Infantry should be more ghost like. I hope that helps the debate.

(in reply to JamesHunt)
Post #: 44
RE: The "infantry problem" - 4/20/2021 7:07:07 AM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2963
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline 		Got to agree with most the mentioned issues here. To me main annoyance is units giving up on ordered engagement ranges when receiving any direct enemy fires. After these resets to MAX(H) and MAX(S) units not just keep selecting unwanted return fire targets, they also forfeit a chance to regain hide status again. Any newly ordered engagement ranges get overridden again instantly. From this point battles go out of hand entirely, unless one gives up selected defense position without real needs.

I hope AB V2 will then provide some better solutions and SOP´s. RE engagement ranges I´d also wish for sectored areas and not full circle ones. Selectable threat engagement/reaction SOP would be another nice one. The current SOFT - HARD distinction needs more granulation, as is selection of ammo to use. No need to waste any AP rounds on thin skinned vehicles, when HE does just as well.

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to jason oates)
Post #: 45
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> RE: The "infantry problem" Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.891