Slitherine

I remember the Eben Emael and Sevastopol scenarios. Tanks had their place in those scenarios, but it was definitely my infantry units who did the majority of the work, albeit with a lot of artillery support in Sevastopol.

Using 1943 as a comparison is hardly fair, as has been stated, it was made to be the big big BIG tank battles DLC.

We'll see how DLC 1944 and 1945 turn out, but right now they are shaping up to be at least more infantry friendly than DLC 1943. Mostly because there are some pretty significant urban/close terrain engagements in the closing years of the war.

Warsaw, Koenigsburg... Berlin. Just to name a few.

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.

Well i havn't finished 42 DLC yet but i agree with what your saying. Its something about the bunkers being hard targets in the game that will always leave them vulnerable strong HA killers (like the Tiger) which is probably not ideal. It should be a job for the Pioneers not Elephant.

I hear a few comments that infantry need to be even better (they already were improved in a previous patch BTW).

I just don't see it though. They have their role and they do it incredibly well. That is, fighting in close terrain.





And when you consider the cost difference between that Panther (674) and the HW infantry (227) on top of that, it's hard to image infantry needs any more improvements.


Best way to think of it is like this:
Tanks beat infantry. (This is actually not true in close terrain either)
Anti-tank beats tank. (Anti-tank units have better defense and attack for lower price compared to pure tanks)
Infantry beats anti-tank. (Both towed AND self-propelled anti-tank units get murdered by infantry because of their absolutely terrible Close Defense values)

Kerensky wrote:We'll see how DLC 1944 and 1945 turn out, but right now they are shaping up to be at least more infantry friendly than DLC 1943. Mostly because there are some pretty significant urban/close terrain engagements in the closing years of the war.
Warsaw, Koenigsburg... Berlin. Just to name a few.

That would be really interesting to see how the new DLC's will be balanced because admittedly DLC 43 was biased towards tank-heavy battles in the open terrain. BTW are there any news when the DLC 44 will be released?

Kerensky wrote:I hear a few comments that infantry need to be even better (they already were improved in a previous patch BTW).

I just don't see it though. They have their role and they do it incredibly well. That is, fighting in close terrain.

And when you consider the cost difference between that Panther (674) and the HW infantry (227) on top of that, it's hard to image infantry needs any more improvements.


Best way to think of it is like this:
Tanks beat infantry. (This is actually not true in close terrain either)
Anti-tank beats tank. (Anti-tank units have better defense and attack for lower price compared to pure tanks)
Infantry beats anti-tank. (Both towed AND self-propelled anti-tank units get murdered by infantry because of their absolutely terrible Close Defense values)

But in the first screenshot you have a Panther attacking really strong AT gun. I think that the result would be similar even in the open terrain. What would happen if the tank was attacking a entrenched infantry unit in an urban terrain? One salvo from a decent gun would allow it to smash it without any serious loses. The main problem pointed out in this thread are not "pure" results of the combat, if you compare the potential results of combat between the units, but what actually happenes on the combined-arms battlefield. I think that probably all the poster agreed here, that it is too easy suppress the entrenched infantry in a close trrain, so then the tanks can overcome it with ease.

I don't see any example in your post...

Even so, then just smash enemy artillery with flanking attacks or air power. That's a good combined arms answer that will stop tanks dead in their tracks by wiping out their vulnerable support units.

If your enemy is ever strong enough to mass expensive armor AND expensive artillery, then you should easily have air superiority. Or you're playing custom content, I can speak for that, heh.

Well for me the areas where infantry need improving are when they actually fight each other. Where the mechanics of entrenchments and close defense come into play. How suppression from supporting units like artillery (which is too powerful IMHO) impacts the combat and the role of experience (which seems underdone) in that fight. The infantry did get a boost in the latest patch and some nationalities are much improved against tanks but its the nuts and bolts combat in these areas, (especially in defensive terrain) that is really lacking finesse in PzC and could do with some improvements. New content is always appreciated too

Kerensky wrote:I don't see any example in your post...

Even so, then just smash enemy artillery with flanking attacks or air power. That's a good combined arms answer that will stop tanks dead in their tracks by wiping out their vulnerable support units.

I cannot paste any screenshots right now

As to the attacking support units with a flanking maneuver - well I kind of don't expect that kind of behaviour from the AI... I think most of the posters have been concerned here with a singleplayer games and the ease with which the AI defensive positions can be overcomed.

You probably missed my other post - can we have some news when the DLC 44 will be released?

I think part of the problem is that the AI is incapable of executing ruthless kill moves that a player can. The usual strategy of moving up the best tanks and artllery to attack infantry in close terrain doesn't work so well in MP, as the opposing player can always counterattack on the next turn, either suppressing weak artillery or exhausting the ammo of the tough ones. And in MP, infantry losses aren't too bad in terms of prestige, but getting 3 Panthers wiped out is a serious blow. Imagine if the AI could execute moves like that.

Based on these posts, it seems that either the AI needs to be ruthless in SP, or entrenchment needs to be much better to pose more of a challenge to the players who aren't playing on the bonus modes. I think if entrenchment were better, it would do little except to slow the player down, or force a player to get all pionieres, as the limiting factor would be attacking into close terrain.

It might just be me, but I think the current system is mostly fine. You can still achieve great success with infantry, but their use just take more time to master. If you want a demonstration of close combat, watch my video AARs. I almost never attack into close terrain with tanks, even with suppression, as I do more damage with infantry fighting in close terrain anyway.

Kerensky wrote:I hear a few comments that infantry need to be even better (they already were improved in a previous patch BTW).

I just don't see it though. They have their role and they do it incredibly well. That is, fighting in close terrain.





And when you consider the cost difference between that Panther (674) and the HW infantry (227) on top of that, it's hard to image infantry needs any more improvements.


Best way to think of it is like this:
Tanks beat infantry. (This is actually not true in close terrain either)
Anti-tank beats tank. (Anti-tank units have better defense and attack for lower price compared to pure tanks)
Infantry beats anti-tank. (Both towed AND self-propelled anti-tank units get murdered by infantry because of their absolutely terrible Close Defense values)

The issue/complaint as I understand it in this thread is that even if an enemy infantry or AT gun is entrenched to the maximum level (what is the maximum entrenchment level by the way?) one or two artillery hits can completely cancel it out. The screen shot in your threat shows the Russian AT gun has an entrenchment of three. As such, shouldn't it take three hits before the unit is totally suppressed and loses its entrenchment, thus making it vulnerable to tanks? If all soft targets can be totally suppressed after two arty hits, what good is entrenchment? I play with a core that is composed of 20-25% infantry units, so I am not one of those players who uses no infantry. I see the value in infantry. However, as the Germans move to the defensive side in DLC 44 and 45, I predict that a lot of players will be complaining just the opposite--that German infantry is getting suppressed too easily by Russian arty units. My feeling is that if an infantry unit is entrenched at a 6, it should take 6 individual hits by arty to suppress it.

There are a few ways currently to mod the game to make the AI's entrenched infantry tougher.

1. Raise the base entrenchment for close terrain hexes. If say the base entrenchment in fortification hexes is 8 and that in cities is 7 and that in forests is 6, infantry and AT in those tiles would be tougher. The ability of pionieres to ignore entrenchment becomes quite useful in this case.

2. Lower ROF of artillery.

3. Raise CD of infantry to be the same as their GD. This might actually work in the player's favor somewhat, though it would make it take longer to root out infantry.

All of this can be modded very quickly, and it will likely achieve many of the goals of the players who want change in this post.

Well i play predominantly online and have pretty good success with infantry units. i'm not concerned with increased difficulty levels or how ruthless the AI plays. its purely about combat mechanics for me and i think its lacking at the moment. These things can't be modded for online games

deducter wrote:Based on these posts, it seems that either the AI needs to be ruthless in SP, or entrenchment needs to be much better to pose more of a challenge to the players who aren't playing on the bonus modes. I think if entrenchment were better, it would do little except to slow the player down, or force a player to get all pionieres, as the limiting factor would be attacking into close terrain.

Improved AI would be a VERY good thing. Entrenchment being better would not only slow the game down a little bit but make taking cities more realistic. It also has the advantage of allowing the players infantry to actually play a role later in the game (especially in 43). This is because there is a built in 1 turn lag in infantry combat as they need to transport up to the objective and then wait until the next turn to attack. Currently in the 43 DLC I can motor up a tank and some self-propelled artillery and just take the city before the infantry get a chance to actually fight.

I like blitzkrieg but I don't feel that the current model accurately models the late war combat.

deducter wrote: It might just be me, but I think the current system is mostly fine. You can still achieve great success with infantry, but their use just take more time to master. If you want a demonstration of close combat, watch my video AARs. I almost never attack into close terrain with tanks, even with suppression, as I do more damage with infantry fighting in close terrain anyway.

Yes I agree that the current system is fine. But I think some changes could make it even better. None of us would be here posting if we didn't like the game.

I always attack with tanks in close terrain after I suppress infantry and anti-tank because it allows me to finish the scenario faster and if you eliminate the enemy unit it really doesn't matter if you used a tank or an infantry unit to do it. The big difference as noted above is that I don't have to wait for my infantry to unload before continuing my attack.

Concerning strong points, since they are placed in the scenario at the start and you can't buy them the designers could set the entrenchement level for them to whatever level they wanted. THey could set one at level 15 and another at level 10 to give some variation in how difficult they are to destroy. You make the entrenchment level high enough and artillery and tanks won't do much to it but engineers will.

MartyWard wrote:Concerning strong points, since they are placed in the scenario at the start and you can't buy them the designers could set the entrenchement level for them to whatever level they wanted. THey could set one at level 15 and another at level 10 to give some variation in how difficult they are to destroy. You make the entrenchment level high enough and artillery and tanks won't do much to it but engineers will.

Speaking of this what was the entrenchment level of the one in DLC 41 that was so hard to kill? I remember having to wear out its ammo before I was able to take it out even with pioniere.

Kerensky wrote:I don't see any example in your post...

Here we got. Two examples from my favorite scenario of DLC 43 - Ponyri.

EXAMPLE 1

A 300 experienced pioneere unit attacks a strong point:



I will inflict 3 point loses on the strong point and and suffer 4 points of caualties. The pioneer unit with a Sdkfz 250 transport costs costs 393 of prestige, so the potential loses will cost the player 157 prestige points.


EXAMPLE 2

A 300 experienced Panzer IVH attacks a strong poing ( I have on purpose chosen this tank because it is quite an average German vehicle in the 43 DLC ):



I will inflict 5 point loses on the strong point and and will suffer 2 points of caualties. A Panzer IVH costs 486 of prestige, so the potential loses will cost the player 97 prestige points.


THE AI TURN:

The most significant for this test is what happenes in the AI turn. If the player attacks with the tank, then NOTHING happenes and he will be able to finish off the strong point in the upcoming turn. If the player attacks with a pioneer unit, then it gets inmediatelly fired upon by the artillery and suppressed. Then it is attacked by the strong point and by an innfantry unit. I restarted the AI turn few times and the pioneere unit got destroyed each time, while nothiong happened to the Panzer IVH.



CONCLUSION:

Currently the best and the quickest way to deal with the strong points, is to attack them frontaly with the tanks, because they are to efficient in this role, while using a specialized pineer unit, designed especially to fulfil this role is way too costly in comparison to the tanks. Storming a heavy fortified positions shouldn't be an easy task by any means and any tank attacking it frontally should IMO risk at least 50% casualties. A valid tactics in order to deal with strong points, should be sending tanks and other mobile units in order to isolate the defensive position and preventing any counterattacks. The second step would be then bringing in a specialized pioneere unit in order to deal with the strong point itself.

The fact that right now the tanks can so easily overcome practically ANY defensive positions, turns the game gameplay into an unsophisticated and crude slugfest, which encourages use of only the strongest units ( tanks ) while not promoting an intelligent use of a combined arms tactics, where each unit would have it's merits and disadvantages on the battlefield.

In your example ivanov you are launching a direct frontal attack into the teeth of the Soviet defenses supported by artillery. I don't mean to be rude, but your tactics are not optimum and this technique doesn't work with infantry. Admittedly it shouldn't work with Tiger or Panzer IVs either. If you want to launch a frontal assault like this, you need your own artillery to first suppress the AI artillery, then preferably suppress the strongpoint a little too.

Better yet, I would not attack that strongpoint immediately. I'd flank the two artillery and the 85 mm AA gun and destroy those first before tackling the strongpoint.

deducter wrote:In your example ivanov you are launching a direct frontal attack into the teeth of the Soviet defenses supported by artillery. I don't mean to be rude, but your tactics are not optimum and this technique doesn't work with infantry. Admittedly it shouldn't work with Tiger or Panzer IVs either. If you want to launch a frontal assault like this, you need your own artillery to first suppress the AI artillery, then preferably suppress the strongpoint a little too.

Better yet, I would not attack that strongpoint immediately. I'd flank the two artillery and the 85 mm AA gun and destroy those first before tackling the strongpoint.

Probably want to take out the Katyusha too while your at it. Though to be fair strong points probably should be able to be easily destroyed with units armed with high velocity 75mm and higher guns as they are pretty much just armed with machine guns. Later in the war heavy and even medium tanks would not have had much problem with these kinds of structures.

deducter wrote:In your example ivanov you are launching a direct frontal attack into the teeth of the Soviet defenses supported by artillery. I don't mean to be rude, but your tactics are not optimum and this technique doesn't work with infantry. Admittedly it shouldn't work with Tiger or Panzer IVs either. If you want to launch a frontal assault like this, you need your own artillery to first suppress the AI artillery, then preferably suppress the strongpoint a little too.

Better yet, I would not attack that strongpoint immediately. I'd flank the two artillery and the 85 mm AA gun and destroy those first before tackling the strongpoint.

Oh c'mon, please... Does anybody actually read the entire posts? I said in the conclusion that the best tactics would be to flank the position. It is just a test example to show that the tanks are too powerful in the frontal attack. The frontal attack shouldn't work for the infantry and the tanks either.

brettz123 wrote:Though to be fair strong points probably should be able to be easily destroyed with units armed with high velocity 75mm and higher guns as they are pretty much just armed with machine guns.

Ehm, I don't think that the main tool of the pioneeres agains the fortifications were their machine guns... They used a wide aray of weapons including flamethrowers, explosives or recoilless guns. In many case the tanks would be simply useles in the attack against the fortified positions due to the presence of the anti-tank obstacles. Most of all, the German commanders would simply choose to sprare their precious vehicles and send them to perform more important tasks than reducing the strong points. But admittedly I don't expect the game to model this in any way...