POOL / Motorized infantry combat

[Kerensky]

Entrenchment does offer additional ground defense to units being attacked by artillery. Giving any more defense than already is present is unlikely, based on the vulnerability of artillery pieces and the fact that suppression is only short term.

[ivanov]

Entrenchment does offer additional ground defense to units being attacked by artillery. Giving any more defense than already is present is unlikely, based on the vulnerability of artillery pieces and the fact that suppression is only short term.

The suppression is short term indeed but it usually sufice to wipe out the unit during the same turn and due to that it's pretty impossible to create a comprehensible defence line in the game. I don't understand the point about the artillery being to vulnerable? It is vulnerable in any war game I know and that's the way it should be.

[deducter]

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.

If you play MP, you'll find that AT units are universally used and perhaps too common by far. The SU-100 and the JadgPanther are the best armor units in the game in terms of prestige/effectiveness. On the map Iron Cross, Red Star the StuG IIIF/8 is used way too much, and on the map Steamrollers against Steel the ISU-122 and Elefants are used too much. If anything, medium tanks like the T-34 and Panzer IV are typically not valuable enough. Fortunately infantry works wonders against the AT units. This is the problem with having just one equipment file.

The towed AT guns are very useful if deployed correctly, and they are great on the defense.

Futhermore, at a high level in MP this is not an offensively minded game. A stubborn defense is almost impossible to overcome without serious losses. The AI may not be able to give a good account of itself on the defense, but a human can fight incredibly tenaciously.

[Kerensky]

Futhermore, at a high level in MP this is not an offensively minded game. A stubborn defense is almost impossible to overcome without serious losses. The AI may not be able to give a good account of itself on the defense, but a human can fight incredibly tenaciously.

Yup, been there done that!
viewtopic.php?f=145&t=30390

Its hard to believe that after 30 turns it came down to the very last turn and also my actual last attacking unit at Zabutai. So if it was a loss it was by the smallest possible margin. I was a bit nerve racked there. The seige of schetyna was truly epic, i just could not dig you out ! It looked relatively straight forward after i broke out of the centre and moved up to the outskirts with only some sporadic resistance slowing my progress... Too think i was still fighting over that same ground some 14 turns later.
them shells...

[ivanov]

Futhermore, at a high level in MP this is not an offensively minded game. A stubborn defense is almost impossible to overcome without serious losses. The AI may not be able to give a good account of itself on the defense, but a human can fight incredibly tenaciously.

Those tenacious humans... Maybe you are right, I haven't tried MP yet, however I always prefered this mode in PG and Strategic Command, where I even managed to get the best score in the online tournament. Right now, I'm getting the right feel about PC testing it and playing the AI. Don't forget that the vast majority of players ( the silent majority ) are those who never try the MP mode so IMO ( and also from the devs point of view ) the game should be balanced towards fighting the AI and not few, really good MP opponents.