Infantry casualties

[childress]

Does anyone get the impression that there are a bit too many infantry kills and not enough suppression? Maybe this is due to mostly playing the desert maps with less cover, but my grunts tend to get decimated over the course of a battle giving them less a weight as a combat arm. Even a winning battle. The Medic button helps but isn't always available as an option.

[jomni]

Yes, they are pretty fragile. Not realistic? But it's a good game mechanic.
They seem to hold their own in my Normandy multiplayer games. More cover and hiding places.

In the last North Africa mission, one of my infantry was able to kill the Tiger while all my tanks perished.
Just keep them in cover and don't let them cross the path of fire from other infantry in the open.

[pomakli]

[quote="jomni"]Yes, they are pretty fragile. Not realistic?

In the last North Africa mission, one of my infantry was able to kill the Tiger while all my tanks perished.[quote]

In my opinion it's done realistic, if you can notice the whole firepower used in WW 2!

and the humans are the weakest part of the fighting machinery!



The ones, who killed tiger were experienced infantry, I think!

[jomni]

The ones, who killed tiger were experienced infantry, I think!

I think they got promoted and used the assault move.

Anyway just pointing out that infantry can be very instrumental in battle.

[DaveyJJ]

I'm finding infantry is pretty balanced. Trying foolish tactics like dashing madly across open terrain with unsupressed, nearby enemy infantry or MG units gets them pretty chopped up. Sticking to fix-fire-flank-finish tactics and using cover effectively makes for far fewer losses and very effective infantry tactics.

[childress]

Anyway just pointing out that infantry can be very instrumental in battle.

I was more thinking of situations in which two adjacent inf squads, or inf next to an mg team, in stone buildings can shred each other's men rather quickly. I'd expect severe suppression, followed by an assault.