Mounted infantry combat / room for improvement

[ivanov]

I think that the issue, of how the combat of mounted infantry units is modelled in Panzer Corps needs to be addressed, as it reoccurs to me in every game I play. I said it before, and will insist on it, that the combat performance of that kind of units, has to be improved. Let's move quickly to some live examples.

This is how a "halftracked" infantry unit performas against an armoured counterattack:






And this is a result of the same type of regular infantry unit, but without an APC transport:





As we see, the mounted infantry suffers potentially 100% higher casualties, than a foot marching, twin unit. The later is not entrenched, so it means, that it's being attacked while marching, therefore it is not well prepared for the combat.

In my oppinion, a unit transported by the APS's, should have the same combat result as the foot marching unit, plus receive some bonus due to the presence of the carriers. A unit transported but the trucks like Opel Blitz, present in the game, should have the same combat result as a regular, foot marching infantry.

Right now, the importance of the motorized infantry in the game is diminished due to issue mentioned above, while the role of tanks is greatly exaggerated. It is safer to occupy the newly captured towns with tanks, than with the motorized infantry, which is a bit absurd. I understand, that Panzer Corps is not pretending to the title of the most realistic and complex war game in the world. But it would be nice, if it reflected some basic balance betweend the various types of units on the mobile battlefield.

[deducter]

As I understand it, the German transports weren't like modern APC. They were transports with light armor. The infantry did not fight in the vehicle, rather, the infantry dismounted to fight. Just like Cavalry in WW2, the horses moved the soldiers around, but they dismounted to fight.

Part of the issue is that half-tracks are hard targets. Let's say you increase the GD of the half-track to 8. Then it'll be nigh invincible against attacking enemy infantry. That doesn't seem right to me. And even then it'd suffer more against the T-34, since those have better hard attack than soft attack. So you need to increase its GD to 10.

And in what circumstances are you sending your half-tracks ahead of your panzers? Why would you possibly need them to fighting tanks while mounted?

Furthermore, you can mount most soft units on a half-track. It'd be absurd if your artillery-mounted half-track were fighting on equal footing as your infantry-mounted half-track.

[taffjones]

Having served as a infantry man in both a mechinised and air portable (on foot) role. I can say that we expected to take significantly more casulties if we were attacked mounted in a APC than on foot.

Ie:- if 1 tank round hits a APC with a crew of 2 +8 men carried = 10 killed

Because you are all contained in a confined space with little or no chance of getting out and even in the 80's when I served most APC's were armed with light/ general purpose machine guns which had no effect on tanks.

Where as if you were on foot, when you came under attack, you spread out and took cover. Making much smaller targets over a larger area.

1 tank round fired = 1 or 2 casulties

It wasn't untill the late 80's/ early 90's when the Marder/Warrior/Bradley APC's came into service that APC's had a chance against tanks.

I think the combat results you posted show this

[ivanov]

The solution of this problem would be if the infantry simply dismounted when attacked - just like you said. It was done in Panzer General 2 and it worked fine. I never send any infantry against tanks in the open. The real problem occurs when the tanks counterattack mounted infantry in a newly captured town.

Mounted infantry defence in a town:



Foot-marching infantry defence in town:



The motorized infantry should be as good in holding the town against the tanks as the other unit and basically massacre the attacking armour, not the other way around.

[ivanov]

Also, it seems that tanks are better in holding a town against the infantry attack...



...than the mounted infantry. Forget about the APCs, it could be also Opel Blitz, but the motorized infantry should be better in a urban combat than tanks.

[dragos]

The motorized infantry should be as good in holding the town against the tanks as the other unit and basically massacre the attacking armour, not the other way around.

Actually the infantry mounted in APC on your example is not holding the town, but is moving into positions. The tank attack against mounted units should be seen as a surprise attack. To be safe you need to move on foot.

I would like the following implementation: the first attack against mounted units should be devastating as it is now, but then the unit should immediately dismount. However this should apply only if the unit is infantry, not artillery.

[MartyWard]

You would need a new unit that included the transport abilities in it's base stats for example an infantry with a movement of 6 and some slight improvement to it's HA and SA to account for the half track for a mechanized unit. They would be mechanized/motorized who always dis-mount at the end of their move.

[RichardL58]

As I understand it, the German transports weren't like modern APC. They were transports with light armor. The infantry did not fight in the vehicle, rather, the infantry dismounted to fight. Just like Cavalry in WW2, the horses moved the soldiers around, but they dismounted to fight.

The german pzgrenadier infantry with SPW:s did most of their fights on foot. But 10-15% of the grenadier battalions supporting APC:s where armed with a varity of heavy weapons, 37 mm, 75 mm, mortars, the rest of the APC:s support with their mg:s.

I can accept the fact that they take some heavy casualties while mounted, but I think they should be able to inflict a little more casulties on an attacker.

[ivanov]

The motorized infantry should be as good in holding the town against the tanks as the other unit and basically massacre the attacking armour, not the other way around.

Actually the infantry mounted in APC on your example is not holding the town, but is moving into positions. The tank attack against mounted units should be seen as a surprise attack. To be safe you need to move on foot.

Let's keep in mind that Panzer Corps is a operational scale, turn based game where each turn covers a period of at least few hours and the unit scale is approximately regiment/brigade. At least how I see it, each movement/combat sequence reflects some longer period of time and I would disagree that in my example the tanks simply bumped into an infantry unit that didn't have suffient time to jump off their Hanomags...

C'mon, there has to be some generalization due to the game's scale.

[ivanov]

You would need a new unit that included the transport abilities in it's base stats for example an infantry with a movement of 6 and some slight improvement to it's HA and SA to account for the half track for a mechanized unit. They would be mechanized/motorized who always dis-mount at the end of their move.

That sounds really reasonable.

[RichardL58]

Another thing. If units in wheeled or tracked transport takes heavier casulties while transported, shouldn't cavalry take the same heavy ponding while mounted, which they supposedly are if they moves more than 2-3 hex?

[El_Condoro]

In Red Dawn I am experimenting with combined units: M3 HT and Infantry; M4 Sherman and infantry. The US tank doctrine was very different to that of the Germans and Russians and why there is really only the M26 in the game that can match the other heavies: tank destroyers were supposed to do that work while the medium tanks supported the infantry. Hence the combined unit that is switchable to the normal M4. Similarly with the M3s I am having them switchable - one is the normal M3 with a MV of 8 and the other is the M3 with the infantry dismounted and a MV of 5. Both units combine the best of each with an increased prestige cost. So far both are working really nicely.

[dan_hnnng]

In Red Dawn I am experimenting with combined units: M3 HT and Infantry; M4 Sherman and infantry. The US tank doctrine was very different to that of the Germans and Russians and why there is really only the M26 in the game that can match the other heavies: tank destroyers were supposed to do that work while the medium tanks supported the infantry. Hence the combined unit that is switchable to the normal M4. Similarly with the M3s I am having them switchable - one is the normal M3 with a MV of 8 and the other is the M3 with the infantry dismounted and a MV of 5. Both units combine the best of each with an increased prestige cost. So far both are working really nicely.

Experimenting is good. I like what I see.

[dan_hnnng]

I think that the issue, of how the combat of mounted infantry units is modelled in Panzer Corps needs to be addressed, as it reoccurs to me in every game I play. I said it before, and will insist on it, that the combat performance of that kind of units, has to be improved. Let's move quickly to some live examples.

This is how a "halftracked" infantry unit performas against an armoured counterattack:






And this is a result of the same type of regular infantry unit, but without an APC transport:





As we see, the mounted infantry suffers potentially 100% higher casualties, than a foot marching, twin unit. The later is not entrenched, so it means, that it's being attacked while marching, therefore it is not well prepared for the combat.

In my oppinion, a unit transported by the APS's, should have the same combat result as the foot marching unit, plus receive some bonus due to the presence of the carriers. A unit transported but the trucks like Opel Blitz, present in the game, should have the same combat result as a regular, foot marching infantry.

Right now, the importance of the motorized infantry in the game is diminished due to issue mentioned above, while the role of tanks is greatly exaggerated. It is safer to occupy the newly captured towns with tanks, than with the motorized infantry, which is a bit absurd. I understand, that Panzer Corps is not pretending to the title of the most realistic and complex war game in the world. But it would be nice, if it reflected some basic balance betweend the various types of units on the mobile battlefield.

I agree strongly that APC's need at least a little boost. Can they be tweeked like other units? If so what would everyone recommend for these tweeks?

[ivanov]

Another thing. If units in wheeled or tracked transport takes heavier casulties while transported, shouldn't cavalry take the same heavy ponding while mounted, which they supposedly are if they moves more than 2-3 hex?

Very sound logic - yes sir!

The cavalry is not suffering any penalties for being cavalry because it was fighting dismounted. That's why the Polish Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade was able to stop the 4th Panzer Division in the Battle of Mokra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra

A myth that Polish cavalry was charging German tanks in 1939 was a spawn of the Goebbels propaganda. Cavalry and the motorized infantry were using a combined arms tactics, therfore neither should be penalized in the game due to the fact that they were going to the battle on horseback or driving Hanomags, Trucks, Halftracks etc.

[ivanov]

In Red Dawn I am experimenting with combined units: M3 HT and Infantry; M4 Sherman and infantry. The US tank doctrine was very different to that of the Germans and Russians and why there is really only the M26 in the game that can match the other heavies: tank destroyers were supposed to do that work while the medium tanks supported the infantry. Hence the combined unit that is switchable to the normal M4. Similarly with the M3s I am having them switchable - one is the normal M3 with a MV of 8 and the other is the M3 with the infantry dismounted and a MV of 5. Both units combine the best of each with an increased prestige cost. So far both are working really nicely.

The late war US tactics, were definitely the most mature of all what the WWII armies managed to achieve. From the other hand, they were not that far from what the Germans did by employing various "kampfgruppen", that were a mixture of motorized infantry, tanks and artillery.

I think the problem we are facing here originates from the basic misconception, that the motorized infantry when attacked is actually fighting packed in their transports. It could happened on a smaller scale, when few tanks ambushed a column of a moving infantry, thus resulting in a massacre of the later. As I said before, the combat in Panzer Corps takes place between bigger units and over some longer period of time. If the infantry units are at least regiments, then they are not only APCs or trucks, but also for example artillery and anti-tank artillery. Of course, I am not saying, that any type of infantry should stand a chance against the tanks in the open. But the motorized units shouldn't be disadvantaged in comparison to the foot marching infantry. In a regular German infantry division, there were many more horses, than the mechanized vehicles. I don't see why this fact, should make it superior to the usually better trained and better equipped motorized/mechanized units.

What is Red Dawn by the way? I assume you are not talking about a movie here?

[El_Condoro]

I agree with you, hence the mod so that the HTs and infantry appear together - otherwise the combat stats only represent the transport rather than the infantry, who will dismount quickly even in an ambush situation.

Red Dawn is my hypothetical, end of war 1945, Russians vs Americans, campaign. I am in the process of extending it a bit by adding Metz and Nordwind to the first scenarios before the Russians start being an issue.

Version 1.0 is here. viewtopic.php?t=27451
I hope to release v2 in the next couple of weeks - hopefully!

[ivanov]

Red Dawn is my hypothetical, end of war 1945, Russians vs Americans, campaign. I am in the process of extending it a bit by adding Metz and Nordwind to the first scenarios before the Russians start being an issue.
Version 1.0 is here. viewtopic.php?t=27451
I hope to release v2 in the next couple of weeks - hopefully!

That is sweet:) Thank you!

[deducter]

In multiplayer, I might get 2-3 infantry with motorization at the start of a map. But I never get motorization as the game progresses. Your changes might actually be a good thing for multiplayer.

However, in single player, how many of us actually use infantry marching on foot, outside of the odd Gebirgsjager or Fallschirmjager? Even when I play with -75% prestige, I get all my infantry motorization. To be historically accurate, you'd need like 10 foot mounted infantry for every motorized infantry, and the artillery, at gun etc. should be towed by horses. Furthermore, the movement of the various units is completely wrong. Infantry march at 60% of the speed of a panzer? That doesn't sound right.

I'm not necessarily against a mod with these changes or more. El Condoro's mod looks quite good. But changing the equipment table in the base game is a tricky proposition, and such a massive change would seriously break the balance of the DLC campaigns. Although for MP, that might actually be a good thing, as players may get motorization for more than 10% of their infantry.

Your best bet is simply to change the equipment table yourself and see how it works out.

[Kerensky]

In multiplayer, I might get 2-3 infantry with motorization at the start of a map. But I never get motorization as the game progresses. Your changes might actually be a good thing for multiplayer.

I'm not necessarily against a mod with these changes or more. El Condoro's mod looks quite good. But changing the equipment table in the base game is a tricky proposition, and such a massive change would seriously break the balance of the DLC campaigns. Although for MP, that might actually be a good thing, as players may get motorization for more than 10% of their infantry.

Your best bet is simply to change the equipment table yourself and see how it works out.

I'd say this is a result of the two comprehensively different play styles you see in single player and multiplayer.

In singleplayer, quality is king. You build your units to last not just one scenario, but potentially for dozens or even more.
In multiplayer, you want maximum efficiency. Spend as little as possible for maximum effect, which often means skipping on bells and whistles because you are buying units who are extremely expendable. What good is it to preserve a unit in multiplayer? There is no following scenario, the only thing that matters is winning the scenario you're playing.

.... And having fun, naturally.