Open field combat

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: highlandcharge

I notice the ammo for the PzF44 is only 3, so that gives each unit 3 chances to get a flank or rear shot on those T-80's, how many times did you run the test? could the WG units have been unlucky?

What scenario did you use to run the test?

Again it would be good if one of the OT devs could give some input

I've run the test three times and each time the infantry unit got almost entirely wiped out, while the tank unit was suffering the loses of 0-3 runners. The tank loses almost always occurred when the unit was approaching the infantry and entering the adjacent hex. I think only once a tank got destroyed, when the units were fighting on the same hex.

Note, than I've never observed a situation similar the one from your game, that the tanks got wiped put by the infantry. In my case it's always the other way around. Maybe in case of your game the tanks had low readiness? But if your run a test where both units are rested, then the tanks always get the upper hand.

[Lowlaner2012]

Maybe its hard to kill tanks equipped wIth composite and ERA armor, even in close urban terrain...I'm starting think that maybe the reason why the tanks seem to be coming out on top, my example was from a earlier version of the game...so maybe something was changed or tweaked...

Anybody else got any ideas?

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: highlandcharge

Maybe its hard to kill tanks equipped wIth composite and ERA armor, even in close urban terrain...I'm starting think that maybe the reason why the tanks seem to be coming out on top, my example was from a earlier version of the game...so maybe something was changed or tweaked...

Anybody else got any ideas?

Well but it shouldn't be that way - look at Grozny and T-80BV. Of course we are talking about the unsupported tanks, that is not accompanied by the infantry.

[Lowlaner2012]

Well I'm out of ideas, anybody else know why tanks seem to be close invulnerable in urban fighting?

Any of he On Target guys have any ideas?

[Pawsy]

Nope, unsupported tanks should die quickly if the infantry have AT weapons. Yes some systems like Milan have minimum engagement range (150m). But even then in a 500m hex they should be able to get clear shots even in a built up area. LAW wont be very effective against ERA but MAW will be. The tank isnt likely to kill a whole section of infantry hiding in houses or block of flats. APC's might get destroyed if your only using cover. In defensive operations they are sent to the rear to be called forward when you need to move out. So in Hold there should be no APC kills. You might consider keeping MiCV with good weapon systems in the position. The most likely affect is that the tanks just to roll through the area causing few if any infantry casualties.

Cant see tanks hanging around HEAT rounds bounce off them from unseen infantry [:D]

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: starbuck310

LAW wont be very effective against ERA but MAW will be.

What about the infantry killing unsupported tanks, hitting their turrets from above on a short distance in an urban environment?



I've done tests with British infantry, the results were the same: 4 Warriors and 3 infantry lost against 2 tanks:



subir fotos

[Lowlaner2012]

Sounds like there is clearly a problem here, are infantry actually using there AT weapons?

I swear I remember my Soviet tanks being decimated in city fighting against WG inf, but that was with 2.05 or 2.06...

Is this possibly a bug?

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Alex1812

so, I request the new feature [:)]

vehicle rate of fire = 100 * basic vehicle rate of fire / hex cover

in this case infantry may have some additional advantage in close terrain

This isn't as simple as it sounds. We aren't talking the rate of fire of a single vehicle under normal game terms but a unit with as many as 10 vehicles in it.

A rate of fire would have to be variable to adjust for losses, visibility, etc.

Good Hunting.

MR

[cbelva]

This issue has been discussed several times in the past. In my humble opinion, urban fighting is and has been the hardest issue to get right. I personally have spent way too many hours testing and reporting to Rob and Jim. It still has much work to be done on it and from my discussions with Rob and Jim, I believe we have pushed the engine in it current state as far as we can go on it. It is not perfect, but it is not bad either. When all the components are put together it does a pretty good job. The deficiencies come out when you start doing small limited tests like katukov's test. I am not criticizing that because I run them all the time and they are needed to help us find the problem areas. And we appreciate it when you do and discover some deficiency for us to look at. But we need to remember that small limited tests that are looking at a narrow range tends to amplify the problem.
 
Some of my observations (from past testing and in trying to duplicate katukov's test):  1) The more AT weapons the infantry have the better they do. I ran katukov's test with both WG and Ami infantry stripped of all vehicles and AT weapons except what the infantry squads carry (LAW-72's for the Ami and PzF 44's for the WG). They seem to do ok until they run out of AT ammo. The Amis do much better because they are carrying more than 3x the amount of AT ammo than the WGs. In fact, the Ami would usually win the fight. 2) Morale and readiness makes a difference for how well the infantry fights. In all of my testing I have noticed that the infantry fights well as long as their morale and readiness holds up. Once it starts to drop, their desire to fight drops with it. 3) Quantity makes a difference. The larger the ratio of tanks to infantry the worst the infantry does. In my tests I ran 5 tanks against 3 inf sqs. I have seen in past tests a single infantry plt with plenty of AT assets take out more than one company of tanks in a urban area.
 
Here the bottom line, at the end of the day we don't know how these battles would have played out. There are arguments and examples for both sides. I personally side with the sentiments expressed in this thread. I believe that infantry should be extremely hard to root out of a urban area (but at the same time not impossible). I have expressed this sentiment multiple times with the OTS team. It is that type of combat where infantry should shine. It is (and has been) one of my goals to help Rob and Jim to refine this as we go forward.

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: highlandcharge

Sounds like there is clearly a problem here, are infantry actually using there AT weapons?

I swear I remember my Soviet tanks being decimated in city fighting against WG inf, but that was with 2.05 or 2.06...

Is this possibly a bug?

A separate issue is that the Brit infantry platoons don't have integral AT missiles in their structure ( there's an AT platoon per infantry company ), so a single infantry platoon is completely defenseless against the tanks. If it comes to Germans, they fired their Milans when the tank was on an adjacent hex, but didn't use them too much when the tank was already on the same hex.

[Lowlaner2012]

The Brit infantry have the LAW, the version they use is actually a later and better version than the US infantry have if I remember correctly...

I wonder if increasing the AT ammo the infantry squads carry would help?

Or Is there a danger that that would unbalance the game?

[Tazak]

The brits don't have AT platoons within each company, the AT platoon is a battalion level asset part of the support company. The OOB ingame distributes milan sections to each rifle company as 'SOP' but in reality there is nothing stopping a battalion commander from retaining control over deployment at Bn level. Same with the GPMG sections attached to each rifle company HQ within the game OOB.

The brits use 2 versions of 'LAW'

1. LAW66 or 66mm LAW - this is the same as the US/WG M72 LAW (brits have a habit of renaming items for internal use)
2. LAW80 or 84mm LAW - this is completely different to the above LAW, its still disposable but mounts a spotting rifle with 5 'flash on impact ' rounds (use the spotting rifle then 'flick a switch' to engage the rocket firing mechanism), it was introduced around 1986 and was meant to replace the Carl Gustav 84mm MAW

Common 'cold war' load out was in 2 phases (pre 1986 and post 1986)
1. 1 Carl Gustav 84mm MAW per section and as many LAW66 as the company QM could get his hands on
2. up to 3 LAW80 per section and as many LAW66 as the company QM could get his hands on

General use was expected to engage tanks with the MAW/LAW80 and LAW66 for anything smaller/less armour than a tank

I wonder if increasing the AT ammo the infantry squads carry would help?

wont help that much IMO, you need good readiness combined with the AP/HEAT value of hand held AT weapons vs side armour of tanks.

Has anyone looked at reducing infantry visibility in woods and urban areas, if the tanks don't see them the tanks wont fire although it wont make much difference until you can detach infantry from their vehicles

[cbelva]

ORIGINAL: Tazak


Has anyone looked at reducing infantry visibility in woods and urban areas, if the tanks don't see them the tanks wont fire although it wont make much difference until you can detach infantry from their vehicles

Yeah, it has been looked at and reduced. The main problem right now is the limitations of the code. I am hoping that Rob can do something more in this area as we go forward. We have tried to reduce some of this and make inf less brittle in urban areas. The problems we run into is we make inf too tough to see and hit and they get too strong--been there, done that. In fact the time we did do that people were complaining started complaining about that. There is a balance that we have reached for and I thing we are close to it. I don't think (at least at this moment) that this is a bug as much as the code itself and its limitations. The other problem is (as I mentioned earlier) is that the problem is inflated due to limited parameter testing. I have learned that when you set up a limited test, you are eliminating other variable that can have an effect on the outcome. I don't think infantry is as "brittle" in urban areas as this thread is indicating. I have a scenario that I have been working on where 2 British mech bns (with limited armor) are surrounded and holding a medium size town against Soviet mech regiment with T-80Us. It is a very touch fight but they give as much as they get and can hold the town even tho they are being assaulted from 3 different directions. If infantry was as brittle as this thread seems to indicate, this should have been an easy scenario for the Soviets. My point, is when you put everything together, you get better results.

[Pawsy]

<My point, is when you put everything together, you get better results.>

Yup, inf + tanks should get a bonus in such terrain because of mutual support? One think that is missing is the engineer support that NATO would have deployed in defence in addition to the GDP which is hown on the maps.

One point for all about army's is task organisation. Its common to task org your units to match the task ie add AD, Inf and tanks together in a battle group. Some are inf hvy or tank hvy etc. Could, should include Engineer support. So AT sections will be attached to other HQ's and not deployed within their parent administrative HQ as the situation requires. It works in the game to.

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: cbelva

We have tried to reduce some of this and make inf less brittle in urban areas. The problems we run into is we make inf too tough to see and hit and they get too strong--been there, done that. In fact the time we did do that people were complaining started complaining about that.

In my opinion you should be able to defeat infantry that is holding a city, only using another infantry unit with an artillery support. Or alternatively using infantry, tanks and artillery. Attacking cities with tanks only, is plainly unrealistic. As it is right now, the game is very tank orientated ( plus helicopter orientated ) and the tank heavy force, will almost under any circumstances have an advantage, over an infantry heavy enemy. When I play as Soviets, I always keep my tanks in the first line, while the infantry is kept in the rear, since it's much more vulnerable than tanks. Sometimes I use it as a cannon fodder, since it costs much less victory points than the tanks. As NATO, I often use infantry as an expendable speed bumps. I can live with that, every game has it's weak spots, but I would like to see the infantry a little more powerful in the defence.