Mad Russian -> RE: The Infantry (8/5/2012 3:10:01 PM)
ORIGINAL: Andy Brown
ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Well, there you have it. You have just joined those of us that think the infantry system needs to be considerably tweaked.
I don't think the system needs to be considerably tweaked. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm actually quite impressed with the way suppression appears to be handled and I believe suppression to be the heart of any realistic infantry combat model. Having just used area fire to kill a Sov SMG squad cowering in its foxholes however (Boot Camp 5), I am tending to think that casualties might be awarded a little too readily. With two MG-42s hosing it down, I'd expect such a squad to be well and truly pinned to the bottom of its scrapes but it seems a bit of an ask for even German machine-guns to reach out and touch someone through several metres of earth. Unless of course the Sovs broke and took the hits as they stood up to run away.
IMO, PC: O's infantry model doesn't need a lot of tweaking although, yes, it does need some and doubtless everybody has their own views on what that should be. As an old grunt, I tend to look at command and control and soft effects before considering other stuff as these, again IMO, are tactical wargame aspects most often overlooked or incorrectly modelled.
And it's really hard to model command and control if you don't model commanders and controllers [:D]
When I say that the infantry combat system in PC needs work. I mean the entire system. Not just one thing. There are some major issues with the infantry combat system in the game; from my point of view.
First and foremost, every round of an AFV is tracked, and yet an infantry squad has an unlimited supply of handgrenades. The infantry's most potent weapon. The discussion of just how detailed to make the infantry has gone through several rounds.
IMO, the infantry model should be as detailed as the armor model. I've heard all the arguments against making it that way, but for my money if you want the PC series to really be a classic it will do that by the different models, armor/infanty/artillery/air all getting the same attention to detail.
For me that means:
* A chain of command that works. Leaders are on the field so that you can put them in the places you need them. To more than likely get them killed but at least they will be in the game and doing their job. As in real life.
At the moment leaders can call for artillery. That includes any and all leaders. So, if you make a single sniper platoon, he is a leader. Which means he can call for artillery. There should be restrictions on who can call for artillery and there should be FO's in the game.
* Ammunition modeling. Specifically hand grenades. Squads didn't carry unlimited numbers of grenades like they do in PCO at the moment. They carried as many as possible but that is a finite number. When a squad or platoon runs out of grenades it's effectiveness is extremely limited. Not so in PCO at the moment.
* Buildings are not fortresses nor are they phone booths. At the moment buildings are a problem for infantry combat. They are much better than they were when we started but they still have a long way to go.
- Have to leave from the exact same spot you enter them.
- They provide the same type of issue that the ATG's do. They need to have a hard and soft target aspect. What are effects of an MG firing at a building vs a tank cannon? The differences in tank cannon size makes what kind of difference to the building?
- Buildings are not phone booths. You can normally get 20 men inside a single room if comfort is not an issue. PCO buildings have specific stacking limits. If the building is 'full' you can't assault inside.
- Destructible terrain is another entirely different issue that would have an effect on infantry combat.
* The effects of fear aren't modeled as well as they could be. Routing needs adjustment, where the unit will route and when it will rally needs tweaking. What about the units that go berserk, cower, become heroic and make that last stand. At the moment that is determined by SOP to a great extent. You decide how a unit will react in combat almost exclusively. Not entirely but the SOP is too dominant at times.
I'm not saying the infantry combat model doesn't work at all. I'm saying if we brought it to the same level as the armored combat model this would be a whole different game. Our armor model takes armored combat down to the nth degree, if that same attention to detail were to be applied to the infantry combat system it, IMO, would improve this game dramatically.
I'm glad what we currently have works for you. We worked long and hard on the improvements that are in the game at this point. It was always intended that the next game in the series would focus on improvements to the infantry combat system.
There are those on the team that don't agree with my views of where the series should go in the future. Which is okay, we all get a say.
Just my $.02 worth on the infantry model.