POOL / Motorized infantry combat

[Kerensky]

Hi Kerensky!

Thanks for looking into that! Just in keep in mind, that the apparent balance between the two factions, is due to the way in which the pool question was formulated. I represent the "hardcore", revolutionary left wing and due to that, have been promoting the concept of the motorized infantry being automatically dismounted before the first combat. However my understanding is, that many of those who voted "no" would say "yes" for the infantry being dismounted after the first attack.

In my opinion, the pools results clearly indicate that there is some significant need for the change and further discussion. And I'm not trying to be manipulative here...

Thanks again

Wise man once game me some pretty sage advice.

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

Tim aka LZ

viewtopic.php?f=125&t=23499

[ivanov]

Hi Kerensky!

Thanks for looking into that! Just in keep in mind, that the apparent balance between the two factions, is due to the way in which the pool question was formulated. I represent the "hardcore", revolutionary left wing and due to that, have been promoting the concept of the motorized infantry being automatically dismounted before the first combat. However my understanding is, that many of those who voted "no" would say "yes" for the infantry being dismounted after the first attack.

In my opinion, the pools results clearly indicate that there is some significant need for the change and further discussion. And I'm not trying to be manipulative here...

Thanks again

Wise man once game me some pretty sage advice.

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

Tim aka LZ

Bingo! I leave it then to your imagination and creativity...

viewtopic.php?f=125&t=23499

[impar]

Late to the party.

I dont see a problem with the current system except for when the trucked\haltracked infantry gets attacked a second time and they are still in trucks\halftracks.
On the first atack, sure, they pay the price of the mobility, but on a second attack they should be on foot.

[ivanov]

Late to the party.

I dont see a problem with the current system except for when the trucked\haltracked infantry gets attacked a second time and they are still in trucks\halftracks.
On the first atack, sure, they pay the price of the mobility, but on a second attack they should be on foot.

You respresent then a growing faction of board members, who would go for a less radical change of the current mechanics - but still a change.

Thank you for your input.

[vgo]

Yes for dismount after first attack, because there's already units that can act during opponents turn, like artillery.

[Kerensky]

So... they'll dismount if you soften them with an artillery attack or bombing attack? Not exactly what I'd call softening a target.
What about ambush situations, where the halftrack is doing the ambushing. Will Polish or even Italian Infantry dismount after one attack, I don't think they had much Panzer Grenadier training. Add a new unit attribute for units with Panzer Grenadier trait? Invisible traits are already a problem we need to address, adding more that affects some infantry but not all hardly seems helpful to solving our problem of 'undocumented features'

Its easy to come up with ideas, but making them fit into any situation not only takes careful consideration, but each possibility must also be coded for.
Going to need a lot more than a majority vote for that, and this majority still isn't that strong either.

[vgo]

It shouldn't matter what kind of attack it is. In my opinion this would benefit the AI more than the human player, I've seen it rolling it's artillery and infantry mounted in their trucks next to my tanks.

But I'm perfectly happy with the current system too.

[ivanov]

So... they'll dismount if you soften them with an artillery attack or bombing attack? Not exactly what I'd call softening a target.
What about ambush situations, where the halftrack is doing the ambushing. Will Polish or even Italian Infantry dismount after one attack, I don't think they had much Panzer Grenadier training. Add a new unit attribute for units with Panzer Grenadier trait? Invisible traits are already a problem we need to address, adding more that affects some infantry but not all hardly seems helpful to solving our problem of 'undocumented features'

Its easy to come up with ideas, but making them fit into any situation not only takes careful consideration, but each possibility must also be coded for.
Going to need a lot more than a majority vote for that, and this majority still isn't that strong either.

However I am just a humble member of the board and didn't attain the honour of being selected as a beta tester, I can easily address your examples:

Just from the top of my head:

1. Yes - I think the infantry should dismout after being attacked by the aircraft or the artilery. In this way it would suffer adequatelly higher casualties during the attack but then, it will dismout. The German Instructions for the Employment and Tactics of the Motorized Infantry also address this situation:

"If a formation of motorized infantry is surprised by the enemy, or forced off the road by enemy aircraft or artillery, it will deploy on the order of its commander or of the local commanders. The deployment will usually be carried out on the move".

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/motor ... yment.html

2. If a mounted infantry ambushes an enemy unit, it should stay mounted during the initial encounter and then dismout.

3. Are there any Polish motorized infantry units in the game? Poland had two motorized brigades but only one was fully deployed during the campaign of 1939 ( it's commanding officer gen. Maczek was commanding later the famous 1st Polish Armoured Division during the battle of Falaise ). Polish elite mobile formations were the cavalry brigades, but they are featured in the game as always mounted. By the way, I'm from Poland so I know what I'm talking about. As to the Italinas, their motorized units - the Bersaglieri - were an elite formation and gave a very good account of themselves.

4. I don't understand what's the issue with the invisible traits?

[pedror]

Please introduce some dismounting mechanism. It was present in PG2 and as Panzer Corps is a direct descent of PG1, this feature is missing and much needed.

[impar]

So... they'll dismount if you soften them with an artillery attack or bombing attack?

You could use the already existing method of suppression, artillery attacks and air attacks dont remove suppression and they wouldnt force an "dismount", only a direct attack would.

What about ambush situations, where the halftrack is doing the ambushing. Will Polish or even Italian Infantry dismount after one attack,...

Yep.

[Lut]

Any news (devs) on that?

for me still one of the most interesting features to be implemented...

[dragos]

Since there is not even a consensus on this, and it's not a bug, I doubt this will be implemented in a patch.

[Lut]

yes, looks like...

for me a pity that my nice halftracks are not more or less a better transport in rough terrain than the trucks...

If they are ambushed running into a hidden enemy - I agree - they should not dismounting and being slaughtered... o.k.

But moving a unit in halftracks somewhere and these guys are not dismounting after finishing my turn - not even in city hexes - and than being slaughtered in the next turn does not seem right to me.

[ivanov]

Any news (devs) on that?
for me still one of the most interesting features to be implemented...

I do understand, that this eventual feature would need to be tested and the game itself rebalanced before implementing it. Due to that, I don't expect to see it anytime soon. The developers have probably enough work with the upcomming DLC's East-West and then Afrika Corps, but...

But here is an idea for you - by the end of the year, all the DLC's will be probably released and to keep the game alive ( and of course earn few additional bucks ), maybe you could think of the "Allied/Soviet Armoured Corps" or maybe even "Panzer Corps 2"? IMO that there is some room for improvement in this game of enormous potential and the requested changes go far beyond the scope of simple patching.

First of all, I would like to see a little improved game's interface ( it has been mentioned few times already in different threads ) and regarding the gameplay, I would like to see increased role of the infantry and reworking the defensive aspects of the game. I would like to see more realistic cores, with less tanks and more infantry. Right now, the ratio tanks vs infantry tends to be about 5 : 1 or more, while it should be the other way around. Appart from the fact that the motorizeded infantry does not dismount after being attacked, what bothers me a lot, is the fact that the tanks can attack the infantry sitting in a town and destroy in with a reletively small casualties. When the infantry is suppressed by the artillery, the tanks can take the town without any casualties at all! The tanks vulnerability in the urban combat, is only visible when the infantry counterattacks the armour sitting in a captured town - again this this is because the game mechanics is too offensive-orientated and the defensive aspect of it is diminished. IMO, the tanks alone shouldn't be able to defeat the infantry in the urban combat. Right now this happenes way too often.

Another thing I would like to be implemented, is the enhancement of the anti-tank weapons. It's them, not other tanks that were the main armour killer during the WWII. I would be great if they could fire like the "normal" artillery in the support of the adjacent friendly units ( idea taken from the Lating Generals e-file of the PG2 ).

I don't consieder myself a "purist" and I don't expect the game to be 100% historically accurate, but I would enjoy it much more it some aspects of the WWII battlefield reality were reworked. I know many gamers who would ask for the same - a system that would reward more historically balanced cores instead of "beer & pretzel cores", where the tank is turned into a universal super-weapon and the infantry is a cannon-fodder that needs to be protected in the rear in the 80% of the combat situations.

"We have history under our skin" is supposedly the motto here. But is it going to be a "historical history" or maybe a "Discovery Channel history"? In my opinion making some of the game's mechanisms more realistic wouldn't hurt the overall playability. For example, if I saw a little less tanks in throught the battles, I would simply cherish and appreciate them even more than it is now

The bottom line is, everyone has some individual preferences and expectacions from the game, but my general impression is that some changes would be welcomed by the majority of the gaming community. I can assure the developers that if one day you commit yourselves to the enormous undertaking of implementing some serious changes in the current system, you can count on our support! I myslef, volunteer right here and right now to help you as a tester or even a member of some future, respectable think-tank devoted to tanks

[deducter]

Any news (devs) on that?
First of all, I would like to see a little improved game's interface ( it has been mentioned few times already in different threads ) and regarding the gameplay, I would like to see increased role of the infantry and reworking the defensive aspects of the game. I would like to see more realistic cores, with less tanks and more infantry. Right now, the ratio tanks vs infantry tends to be about 5 : 1 or more, while it should be the other way around. Appart from the fact that the motorizeded infantry does not dismount after being attacked, what bothers me a lot, is the fact that the tanks can attack the infantry sitting in a town and destroy in with a reletively small casualties. When the infantry is suppressed by the artillery, the tanks can take the town without any casualties at all! The tanks vulnerability in the urban combat, is only visible when the infantry counterattacks the armour sitting in a captured town - again this this is because the game mechanics is too offensive-orientated and the defensive aspect of it is diminished. IMO, the tanks alone shouldn't be able to defeat the infantry in the urban combat. Right now this happenes way too often.

I'm staying away from this debate for Single Player, but I would like to point out that for Multiplayer, I use a lot of infantry. It is also much, much easier to defend in MP than to attack. The biggest mistake players make in MP is to attack relentlessly and overly aggressively. It is often better to wage a fighting retreat and keep reserves in position to counterattack an overextended advance than to just throw all your units in for a massive slugfest. I think historical realities are for the most part reflected very well in MP, as there is never enough prestige to simply buy the best of all units, and to succeed you really need combined arms tactics, using the full range of tanks, infantry, armor, recon, air power, and artillery. Yes, there are some unhistorical/gamey things about MP that some players dislike intense, like capturing cities in the back and holding them to spawn tanks in the enemy's rear. But in terms of infantry vs. tank, infantry is absolutely critical in MP.

As for features I want in an expansion: game replay! Every strategy game has it today, it is tragic that this game doesn't.

[soldier]

I agree that the game is a bit too offensively orientated. Towed AT's are still pretty useless and deep entrenchments are easily overcome with one artillery salvo and a troop but i don't see tanks knocking infantry out of towns very much, especially not the 43 era. Attacking these guys with armour results in wholesale destruction of the tanks involved and i won't go near them unless i can hit them with an artillery piece first and then my own infantry

[ivanov]

I agree that the game is a bit too offensively orientated. Towed AT's are still pretty useless and deep entrenchments are easily overcome with one artillery salvo

Yes, I think the entrenchments should protect units more from being supressed by the artillery. Right now, one or two salvos from the artillery suffice to suppress the infantry sitting in the entrenchments completely and then the attacker can destroy it, without taking any casualties at all.

[hs1611]

I voted yes, dismount after first attack.

It is not about pressurizing the developers to implement a quick change, but about getting a comprehensive feedback form the community on the issue.

Are the developers on a Level Bomber, at 30.000 feet, with a broken window?

[impar]

Yes, I think the entrenchments should protect units more from being supressed by the artillery. Right now, one or two salvos from the artillery suffice to suppress the infantry sitting in the entrenchments completely and then the attacker can destroy it, without taking any casualties at all.

So, the the artillery would destroy entrechement before suppressing?

[ivanov]

Yes, I think the entrenchments should protect units more from being supressed by the artillery. Right now, one or two salvos from the artillery suffice to suppress the infantry sitting in the entrenchments completely and then the attacker can destroy it, without taking any casualties at all.

So, the the artillery would destroy entrechement before suppressing?

Yes, I think it should firstly lower the entrenchment of the unit, while protecting it from the suppression. Also, it would be cool if the arty efficiency against the entrenchements depended on the caliber of firing guns. It will be interesting to see, how the current system will work in the 44 and 45 DLC's, where as I imagine the Germans will often need to hold on to the defensive, entrenched positions against the maelstrom of Soviet artillery