Mounted infantry combat / room for improvement

[El_Condoro]

Exactly - Red Dawn has a custom efile and efx.pzdat. It's just a test at this stage - I'm not suggesting it should become part of the base game. As I say, so far it works really nicely.

The basis of the movement values is that the infantry are assumed to be mounted for part of the move and dismount as they approach the enemy. So there is no way the infantry can march at a rate of 5 as I have my close combat M3 HTs at but they could be assumed to be mounted for a large part of the move and dismount for combat. Especially given the time frame of a typical PzC turn it's not unreasonable IMO.

[dan_hnnng]

I think infantry should dismount after being attacked once.

[RichardL58]

I think infantry should dismount after being attacked once.

That's a good idea. The first attack get the mounted bonus of the target, just like the first attack who get the suppression bonus, but the next don't.

[Lut]

if an mounted infantry unit is being attacked it should have a penalty compared to foot soldiers (jumping from carrier and organize should be a disadvantage) but not like it is right now (sitting in their trucks and wait until the enemy finished first wave).

I would prefer:

Enemy is attacking a mounted infantrie in

Trucks:
Infantry gets a penalty of -3 Initiative

APC:
Infantry gets a penalty of -2 Initiative

=> in this case a hero with ini bonus would be the "kampfgruppen" leader rushing forward with is mot inf. to secure close terrain targets...

[ivanov]

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.

I'm not sure if that kind of change would have such a dramatical impact on the game balance. In the multiplayer it would be equally beneficial for both human players. It could also prevent the AI, from counterattacking motorized infantry in towns.

My proposal for the improvement is that the infantry should immediately dismount when attacked. Truck-borne infantry should suffer -2 initiative penalty, while the APC-brone units should suffer -1 initiative penalty. That would reflect the dismouting process, that happened at the beginning of the combat sequence ( while the final casualties reflect all set of events that took place during whole combat sequence over the period of at least few hours).

It's not about achieving maximum realism, but getting the right "feel" of the WWII mobile battlefield.

[MartyWard]

It's not about achieving maximum realism, but getting the right "feel" of the WWII mobile battlefield.

I agree with that. For the most part the reason infantry was motorized/mechanized was so they could keep up with the tanks, get someplace quick and fight like foot soldiers.

[ivanov]

Another thing that occurs to me, is that if the mounted motorized units supposedly suffer such a heavy casualties when attacked, due to the fact that "it was suprised when the infantry was inside the transporting vehicles", then following this logic, any type of unit should suffer simmilar penalties, when attacked after the movement ( having the entrenchment level zero). For example the tanks, moving on the road should also be severely disadvantaged when attacked. Arguably, maneuvering under the enemy fire a marching column of dozens of tanks, into a battle formation, should be even more difficult, than dismounting a motorized infantry unit. I don't say that it would be a preferable solution for Panzer Corps - to the contrary I think, that in the game of the operational scale the things should stay as they are - simplified. Due to that, the severe disadvantage of the mounted motorized units, contradicts the whole logic and concept on which the Panzer Corps is based.

[Casaubon]

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.

...as I understood from some other place in these forums (can´t remember where exactly) I read that horse towed transports are being prepared or even drawn currently. it that the case?

[MartyWard]

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.

...as I understood from some other place in these forums (can´t remember where exactly) I read that horse towed transports are being prepared or even drawn currently. it that the case?

I thought the horses were already included since artillery can move 1 hex without any added transport. Or do the artillerists have really big muscles?

[Anfield]

Horse use may be historically true, but seriously, can you see anyone really using them once you can change that by getting updated equipment lol

[ivanov]

Horse use may be historically true, but seriously, can you see anyone really using them once you can change that by getting updated equipment lol

There could be a horse drawn transport for the auxiliary units. That would reflect the difference between your elite, motorized/panzer core corps and the rest ( 90% ) of the Wehrmacht, relying on the non motorized transports, just like in the WWI.

[Anfield]

Horse use may be historically true, but seriously, can you see anyone really using them once you can change that by getting updated equipment lol

There could be a horse drawn transport for the auxiliary units. That would reflect the difference between your elite, motorized/panzer core corps and the rest ( 90% ) of the Wehrmacht, relying on the non motorized transports, just like in the WWI.

Thats a good idea. You could also make guns come with horse teams, yet cant be upgraded till deployment in the next battle.

[Casaubon]

Horse use may be historically true, but seriously, can you see anyone really using them once you can change that by getting updated equipment lol

Well I definitely would use them for some units. Currently I´m playing DLC42 on field marshall, my core has grown to about 80 units (70 of them have heroes) and there is cheap equipment in my AAs, ATs or low calibre artillery that I use occasionally but not in the very front line. i.e. I use cheap ATs to guard objectives once conquered and would like to have the option to transport them around a little (if there is no railway nearby). I also could live with the lorries and lvl1 halftracks being a bit more expensive if horse carriages were implemented.

[Kerensky]

Well in Panzer Corps, like Panzer General before it, halftracks are somewhat limited to being transports, not actual combat units.
In the future, I think exploring combat halftracks is a definite possibility.

I'd like to see flamethrower (high SA, high CD, low init), mortar (2 range), anti-tank, and HMG halftracks be implemented. Might be as a new class, or added to the recon class, or spread out among the various existing classes.

Ohh imagine a whole class of 'Combat Recon' that all share the same 'family'. Based on what the scenario calls for, you can quickly interchange all of your anti-tank half tracks to FT or mortar units, and then switch them back later. They'd be sort of jacks of all trade units, that could be cool.

[El_Condoro]

I recently read somewhere on this forum that the switch function is not limited to 2, so a unit could have a circle of links with unlimited possibilities. As long as the end of the link returns to the start you could have your 251 variants all available. Nice.

[ivanov]

Well in Panzer Corps, like Panzer General before it, halftracks are somewhat limited to being transports, not actual combat units.
In the future, I think exploring combat halftracks is a definite possibility.

I'd like to see flamethrower (high SA, high CD, low init), mortar (2 range), anti-tank, and HMG halftracks be implemented. Might be as a new class, or added to the recon class, or spread out among the various existing classes.

Ohh imagine a whole class of 'Combat Recon' that all share the same 'family'. Based on what the scenario calls for, you can quickly interchange all of your anti-tank half tracks to FT or mortar units, and then switch them back later. They'd be sort of jacks of all trade units, that could be cool.

Than would be really nice to have indeed. At least we know that this thread was not started in vain;)

The thing is that the motorized infantry units are not some specialized small units, like for example flamethrower halftracks, but they are big regiments ( at least ), that form the core of the motorized/panzer divisions. Obviously the halftracks draw most of the attention of the general public, but the truck borne infantry should also be able to defend itself ( especially when placed in towns ). The solution is here - no new units are required for it - just a simple dismounting mechanism.

Since you mentioned Panzer General. Clearly Panzer Corps is a direct succesor of it and the whole concept and many mechanism of both games are practically the same. Some things were improved, but the lack of the dismountig mechanism is a severe shortcoming in my eyes.

A combat sequence from Panzer General 2:





As we see the Panzergrenadier units is automatically dismounting when attacked and that is how the things should be...

Anyway - thank you for paying attention to this thread.

[Kerensky]

Well the mechanics in place right now serve a very specific purpose. We do NOT want people to blindly advance their units in transport forward without serious repercussions. An infantry unit who can suddenly dismount and fight as an infantry unit can really turn the tables on a tank, especially in close terrain. For an example, just compare the performance of a Grenadier 43 against a Soviet tank in close terrain (city, forest, hill). The Grenadier 43 is already powerful, and giving such a unit a quick dismount will make it extremely powerful.

Right now, you are intended to lead your advances with 2 units. Tanks, with high armor and decent spotting, and recon cars, who have lower armor but increased movement and spotting compared to tanks. It's also entirely possible to lead an advance with infantry, but such an advance would be much slower, as infantry move a maximum of only 3 hexes at a time.

In any case, there is a definite risk/reward factor. If you rush your units ahead in transport, yes you might be able to cover a lot of ground very quickly. If they are attacked though, they are very vulnerable, that's the trade off.

It might make infantry more useful if they could recon ahead and auto dismount when attacked, but it would throw off too many other balances, diminish the importance of true recon units, and obviously require various penalties that would then need to be tested and balanced as well.

[Mark50]

Since you mentioned Panzer General. Clearly Panzer Corps is a direct succesor of it and the whole concept and many mechanism of both games are practically the same. Some things were improved, but the lack of the dismountig mechanism is a severe shortcoming in my eyes.

A combat sequence from Panzer General 2:

I think PzC is rather a descendent of PG, not PG2. Plenty of the nice(imo) things of PG2 are missing in PzC.

An infantry unit who can suddenly dismount and fight as an infantry unit can really turn the tables on a tank, especially in close terrain.

But the point ivanov and others were making is actually that the infantry unit would indeed get a penalty for being attacked while mounted and as a result be seriously reduced, but that it would only happen once and that after-which it would dismount. At which state it would still be in an inferior state to the tank given the casualties it had just taken while mounted. It`s a better reflection imo than having the infantry running away/retreating in trucks to the point of complete annihilation.

[ivanov]

Well the mechanics in place right now serve a very specific purpose. We do NOT want people to blindly advance their units in transport forward without serious repercussions. An infantry unit who can suddenly dismount and fight as an infantry unit can really turn the tables on a tank, especially in close terrain. For an example, just compare the performance of a Grenadier 43 against a Soviet tank in close terrain (city, forest, hill). The Grenadier 43 is already powerful, and giving such a unit a quick dismount will make it extremely powerful.

Right now, you are intended to lead your advances with 2 units. Tanks, with high armor and decent spotting, and recon cars, who have lower armor but increased movement and spotting compared to tanks. It's also entirely possible to lead an advance with infantry, but such an advance would be much slower, as infantry move a maximum of only 3 hexes at a time.

In any case, there is a definite risk/reward factor. If you rush your units ahead in transport, yes you might be able to cover a lot of ground very quickly. If they are attacked though, they are very vulnerable, that's the trade off.

It might make infantry more useful if they could recon ahead and auto dismount when attacked, but it would throw off too many other balances, diminish the importance of true recon units, and obviously require various penalties that would then need to be tested and balanced as well.

I understand the intentions but I think right now at least in my oppinion the game is a bit too tank-orientated. I also understand the purpose of it because the tanks always draw the most attention of the war game lovers.

What about the arguments that the penalties suffered by the mounted infantry are "unfair" in comparison to the other type of units? For example following this logic marching tanks and cavalry should be equally vulnerable.

As you can see from the Panzer General screenshot the attacked infantry does not stand a chance against the armour in the open anyway. So advancing with infantry in the open is never a good idea. But why tanks should be able to wipe out motorized infantry from the towns, when in reality that kind of units were used to hold the objectives, beacuse the tanks were useless in this role?

Rarely during the WWII tanks were charging without the infantry support and usually when they did, the outcome was quite tragical for them. For example the initial American tank charge during the battle of Sid Bou Zid in Tunisia, ended up in a massacre and was a result of lack of the experience in using combined arms tactics. Historically the advance was usually performed by the various kmapfgruppen or combat commands and improving the performace of the motorized infantry could help to reflect it a little. At least from my point of view that would be a big improvement.

[Kerensky]

But the point ivanov and others were making is actually that the infantry unit would indeed get a penalty for being attacked while mounted and as a result be seriously reduced, but that it would only happen once and that after-which it would dismount. At which state it would still be in an inferior state to the tank given the casualties it had just taken while mounted. It`s a better reflection imo than having the infantry running away/retreating in trucks to the point of complete annihilation.

It might make infantry more useful if they could recon ahead and auto dismount when attacked, but it would throw off too many other balances, diminish the importance of true recon units, and obviously require various penalties that would then need to be tested and balanced as well.