Slitherine

brettz123 wrote: The more I think about it the more I come to think entrenchment is the real issue and not infantry.

I would point out two most important elements of the game's that would need to be reworked:

1. Certain types of close terrain ( cites, forests, mountians ) should have a bigger impact on the combat performance of the tanks ( both in the defence and in the attack ).

2. Suppression inflicted by the artillery should be much more reduced by the entrenchment, certain types of close terrain and by the unit experience.



So the real issue is not the change of the unit stats ( infantry or artillery ) but a slight tweak of the combat mechanics.


I also belive that in order to boost the infantry potential, the mechanized or motorized should dismount when attacked ( either before or after the first attack ) but it's that is a little different story

deducter wrote:I remember reading in the post about core forces that many players use pionieres exclusively in their cores. It seems players either love them or hate them.

I still use mine just for sentimental reasons. I loved them in PG1 and I still like the fact that you negate entrenchment which isn't completely useless.

Lamont wrote:

dragos wrote:I definetly agree with you that there is no point at all in buying/using a pionere over PzG (panzer Grenadiers) or fallschirmsjägers at all. Well maybe for rpg reasons but thats it. I noticed this after only a short time spent with the game. Pioneres should've 1 or two traits going for them compared to others in say defence and attack on an entrenched enemy (I know they ignore entrenchments but to no real advantage compared to Pzg and Fj).

Obviously you have never encountered the 200 entrenchment Russian Bridge Engineer it the GTPG mod!

brettz123 wrote:

deducter wrote:I remember reading in the post about core forces that many players use pionieres exclusively in their cores. It seems players either love them or hate them.

I still use mine just for sentimental reasons. I loved them in PG1 and I still like the fact that you negate entrenchment which isn't completely useless.

Still use a couple from time to time in GC DLC too and no they arent compleatly useless, just not all that good for the price. Sure would've love a trait or two that would imply that they are in fact pionere's thats all

MartyWard wrote:

Lamont wrote:

dragos wrote:I definetly agree with you that there is no point at all in buying/using a pionere over PzG (panzer Grenadiers) or fallschirmsjägers at all. Well maybe for rpg reasons but thats it. I noticed this after only a short time spent with the game. Pioneres should've 1 or two traits going for them compared to others in say defence and attack on an entrenched enemy (I know they ignore entrenchments but to no real advantage compared to Pzg and Fj).

Obviously you have never encountered the 200 entrenchment Russian Bridge Engineer it the GTPG mod!

Nope! Dont played any mods at all yet in fact. Sticking to the main game and dlc might look into mods later on after all DLC is done (both east and west).
Anyhow, what does a mod have to do with the main game ? I thought that was what we were talking about in this thread or am I wrong ?

Well mods are a good way of addressing some of these problems for now. For instance, my DLC Rebalancing Mod does address to some extent the weakness of infantry in 1943. There's no easy way to mod the effects of entrenchment/terrain to my knowledge. The only thing that can be done is to change the base entrenchment of the various terrain types.

I would be very much in favor of having the ability to mod combat rules as a feature of an expansion.

Lamont wrote:Nope! Dont played any mods at all yet in fact. Sticking to the main game and dlc might look into mods later on after all DLC is done (both east and west).
Anyhow, what does a mod have to do with the main game ? I thought that was what we were talking about in this thread or am I wrong ?

Just joking about not needing engineers who ignore entrenchemnts

MartyWard wrote:

Lamont wrote:

dragos wrote:I definetly agree with you that there is no point at all in buying/using a pionere over PzG (panzer Grenadiers) or fallschirmsjägers at all. Well maybe for rpg reasons but thats it. I noticed this after only a short time spent with the game. Pioneres should've 1 or two traits going for them compared to others in say defence and attack on an entrenched enemy (I know they ignore entrenchments but to no real advantage compared to Pzg and Fj).

Obviously you have never encountered the 200 entrenchment Russian Bridge Engineer it the GTPG mod!

Let me guess. Did they dig 500 meters deep trenches?

I believe Pioniere can get better with experience, but it's expensive to keep their XP up and I'm usually playing on Rommel. I have notice an unit gains experience faster if he is attacking an unsupressed unit who returns fire. FJ and Grenadiers can handle this due to their high initiative, but Pioniere get mauled by the returning fire, so you need to supress the enemy first, and then the ignore entrenchment feat is a moot point. I had 3 pioniere in my current campaign, now I'm down to one and don't plan to buy any more. On the other hand, I've never lost a FJ (two of them) and they both have 3+ stars.

Pioneers seem to have lost their specialized role as safe crackers in PzC due to the above mentioned issues with powerful artillery and weak entrenchments. Rugged defenses have also been watered down so you don't have to be as careful assaulting those heavily entrenched positions. They were a necessity in the old version if you didn't have some red star cannon fodder to throw in and get slaughtered.

I have'nt been able to figure out if the pionier entrenchment bonus works on the on-map fortifications or the opponents level of entrenchment or both. But both of them are easily assulted by other units once they are suppressed.

I only have one pionier because they at least seems good assaulting strongpoints (but those could also easily been taken care of by a panzer), in Pz-general half my inf was pioniere.

In my PzC core I use a mix of Grenadiers and FJ:s because they have better initiative ...and I also keep two SE Gebirgsjäger for the speed and better ammo than the FJ.

I believe Pioniere have bunker buster as a special ability. Unfortunately for them I think fallschirmjaeger do to.

the "elite" fallschirmjager are so weak. that needs to be fixed! even playing or rommel, all you need is like 30 tanks, 10-15 artilerry and 10-15 planes and you pwn everything in your way. infantry was and will always be backbone of armies and that needs to be fixed, i agree :/

RichardL58 wrote: I only have one pionier because they at least seems good assaulting strongpoints (but those could also easily been taken care of by a panzer)

It is another example of how the tanks are turned into a universal super-weapon in the game. I don't recal any example from the WWII when tanks alone were used in order to overcome the enemy fortifications. To the contrary, German commanders were always seeking an opportunity to find a weak spot in the enemy line, where their panzers could be unleased and take the advantage of their mobility and firepower. There was no single tank in Manstein's 11th Army during the siege and assault of the Sevastopol, but there were 65 precious Stugs III. So in my opinion the tank ability to fight the fortification should be seriously toned down, while some special ability should be given to the assault guns. It would then make more sense to purchase those specialized units, forcing players to build more diverse cores and that could be only beneficial for the gameplay.

As to the pioneer units, I think that their initiative should be increased to 3, while their amo scaled down to 4. Also their price could be increased, so having them as a basic infantry unit in the core would be too costly.

dragos wrote:Let me guess. Did they dig 500 meters deep trenches?

I think it was just an oversight by the scenario designer but boy what shocker! Nothing but an Engineer would touch it.

Maybe that is the answer, allow higher levels of entrenchment, say to up to 20-25. It would make it hard to supress the unit and hard to dislodge with anything except a unit designed to tackle strong defenses.

ivanov wrote:

RichardL58 wrote:It is another example of how the tanks are turned into a universal super-weapon in the game. I don't recal any example from the WWII when tanks alone were used in order to overcome the enemy fortifications. To the contrary, German commanders were always seeking an opportunity to find a weak spot in the enemy line, where their panzers could be unleased and take the advantage of their mobility and firepower. There was no single tank in Manstein's 11th Army during the siege and assault of the Sevastopol, but there were 65 precious Stugs III. So in my opinion the tank ability to fight the fortification should be seriously toned down, while some special ability should be given to the assault guns. It would then make more sense to purchase those specialized units, forcing players to build more diverse cores and that could be only beneficial for the gameplay.

Amen. Having access to such delightful array of specialized units only works if the game engine encourages a "Swiss Army Knife" approach to core composition. Otherwise, they are just pretty pictures in the equipment roster.

PS. One change that might be beneficial would be to sharply increase the marginal cost of ADDITIONAL units of relatively newly introduced equipment types. For example, when Tigers are still relatively new, purchasing a second unit would cost considerably more than the first. This would discourage homogenous cores.

boredatwork wrote:IMO the problem isn't infantry units specifically but rather, as I commented upon in Beta, the massive increase in casualties (to both sides) compared to PG. Because all units are much more fragile (done in an attempt to prevent 15str elites from steamrollering everything in their path) it's exaggerated their relative strengths and weaknesses and to some extent nullified the original way PG simulated combined arms

A nice feature to have that will increase a little survivability of some units would be to be able to switch the units between two stances: normal - as they work now, and a fall back mode, in which if they are attacked and suffer at least one kill they automatically retreat. Countless times I had a recon occupy an empty city or airfield only to trigger the activation of a nearby bunch of tanks who two-shot kills it. In reality the recon would never try to resist an attack from enemy tanks. See: http://etloh.8m.com/strategy/recon.html

Of course, this solution would not work perfectly, as it may retreat in an even worse position, but overall I think it will improve things a bit and open new interesting options.

it is another example of how the tanks are turned into a universal super-weapon in the game.

Well this is a bit of an exaggeration and not really a helpful comment. Many tanks in the game struggle against troops in close terrain. Load up Bagration and send your T- 34 85's into the German held towns and tell me what happens ?
Or try out some Renault tanks and Panzer II's in France, or maybe a Matilda
I think you'll find most tank vs infantry combat in the game is not featuring super tanks. Its more likely your top of line, star Panzers from the campaign (with a little artillery help) that are causing the trouble.
Guards and Grenadiers from 43 on can be very deadly to tanks if left untroubled by artillery but are too easily suppressed.

It should also be pointed out that many infantry in WW2 just didn't have the means to knock out tanks and their natural inclination was to retreat or avoid combat, even panic. It took experience, determination, improvisation and a shitload of courage to assault a tank. Things that not all foot soldiers possessed.

soldier wrote:

it is another example of how the tanks are turned into a universal super-weapon in the game.

Well this is a bit of an exaggeration and not really a helpful comment. Many tanks in the game struggle against troops in close terrain. Load up Bagration and send your T- 34 85's into the German held towns and tell me what happens ?
Or try out some Renault tanks and Panzer II's in France, or maybe a Matilda
I think you'll find most tank vs infantry combat in the game is not featuring super tanks. Its more likely your top of line, star Panzers from the campaign (with a little artillery help) that are causing the trouble.
Guards and Grenadiers from 43 on can be very deadly to tanks if left untroubled by artillery but are too easily suppressed.

I agree with this it isn't until you get the PZ-IV f/2 that you start to see tanks really becoming super dominant on the battle field in this game. And frankly a Tiger or a Panther should make short work of a bunker.

soldier wrote:

it is another example of how the tanks are turned into a universal super-weapon in the game.

Well this is a bit of an exaggeration and not really a helpful comment. Many tanks in the game struggle against troops in close terrain. Load up Bagration and send your T- 34 85's into the German held towns and tell me what happens ?
Or try out some Renault tanks and Panzer II's in France, or maybe a Matilda
I think you'll find most tank vs infantry combat in the game is not featuring super tanks. Its more likely your top of line, star Panzers from the campaign (with a little artillery help) that are causing the trouble.
Guards and Grenadiers from 43 on can be very deadly to tanks if left untroubled by artillery but are too easily suppressed.

I am talking here from the DLC 43 point of view. My comment was an intentional exaggeration, but tell me what is the best way to deal with a strongpoint in the DLC 43? Just send in a Tiger. It is not going to get suppressed by the artillery, the AI won't even attempt to counterattack it and it will destroy the strongpoint with minimal loses. If you try to perfom the same task using a pioneer unit, then it the best case it will take heavy loses and in the worst case it will be destroyed, because the AI will fire upon it with the artillery and then most likely will try to attack the pioneer unit with it's own tanks. I am firmly against the tanks being able to fight and destroy the strong points. That kind of fortifications were always full of the antitank obstacles, so they had to be stormed by the spacialized units, not the tanks. What would be the problem if the game reflected this fact correctly? Tank was a true king of the WWII battlefield but only if some specific conditions were met. Just imagine the Germans sending in the tanks to capture Eben Emael or storm Sevastopol... During the Kursk battle, the Russian trenches ( they were "only" field fortifications ) were overcomed by the use of the combined arms tactics, yet still it proved to costly for the attackers.