The Infantry

[Mad Russian]

This topic needs it's own thread. I've brought one of my posts in here to start the discussions.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

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.

MR,

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]


Cheers,

Andy

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.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

A point of reference...

[junk2drive]

PC was/is designed to be played as the Platoon leader and not the Squad leader as in other games. That is why a lot of detail is abstracted, a real commander would not know what each squad is doing in detail after giving them orders. This is not because Koios could not figure out how to put the detail in. Whether or not this makes for a popular choice amongst gamers is another debate.

Some people want a third person shooter in real time. Some want a board game in 3D. Some want to control each soldier and some can't be bothered.

Steel Panthers and it's variants are repeatedly brought up in forum discussions as one of the greatest games of all time. I agree. I've been looking for a 3D replacement for years. Once I got use to WEGO with CM and PC, I find it hard to play IGOUGO. Considering that the name Steel Panthers is about tanks, the game actually is great at infantry and combined arms.

So the question becomes, does the future of PC become a clone of CMx2, or Achtung Panzer, or Steel Panthers, or Panther games Command Ops, or ?

We could make the greatest game ever that flops because it has gameplay that no one else wants. Or just copy what sells well.

[Mobius]

I forgot to add.
Question:
When is an actual event merely anecdotal?
A: When it doesn’t support a game design.
Question:
When is an actual event historical evidence?
A: When it does.

[Mobius]

Now, MR makes a good point about the grenade count. But, to be true to the abstract nature caused by FOW it should be handled with finesse and not brute force counting. Maybe, they run out randomly after a number of turns of fire like things in PCK used to run out of ammo. I don’t know about re-supply then. You get in the realm of a resource hunting game. Or, ASL where your best item is a wheel barrow so you can carry around the booty your squads collect. (Though retaining treasure from one campaign game to the next just might make the game more popular.)

[KEYSTONE07950]

My understanding is that hand grenades were used in close combat. Why not have a random chance of loosing hand grenades every time a unit fires on an enemy within 100 meters?

Also, I think that command control is the singe most important element in tactical combat games. I strongly advocate for a formal command hierarchy for each side: battalion command group to company command group to platoon command.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Now, MR makes a good point about the grenade count. But, to be true to the abstract nature caused by FOW it should be handled with finesse and not brute force counting. Maybe, they run out randomly after a number of turns of fire like things in PCK used to run out of ammo. I don’t know about re-supply then. You get in the realm of a resource hunting game. Or, ASL where your best item is a wheel barrow so you can carry around the booty your squads collect. (Though retaining treasure from one campaign game to the next just might make the game more popular.)

If this is so we need to go back to tanks having random factors of shells and not do exact count on them. PCO only goes abstract when the infantry are concerned. I see no reason to do that.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Andy Brown]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Now, MR makes a good point about the grenade count. But, to be true to the abstract nature caused by FOW it should be handled with finesse and not brute force counting. Maybe, they run out randomly after a number of turns of fire like things in PCK used to run out of ammo.

Obviously, any adjustments need to be made in light of existing data structures. I notice that some units have three different types of ammo. I notice that inf squads do have separate smoke grenades. If it's simply a matter of adding ammo type grenades to rifle squads, why are we still talking about it? [:)]

Of course, if it's not, if grenades are not expended like ammunition but have their use factored into separate close assault routines, then understandably all bets are off. As one of you guys says somewhere else, you have been working on this for two years ...

Personally, ammo resupply would not be a high a priority for me. Once you start on it, you have to consider mechanisms for redistributing it between units, transporting it in vehicles, etc, etc. Some good scenarios could be built around the problems of ammo conservation but, IMO, there are more important aspects of any tactical infantry game that need to be "done right" before you get round to looking at running short of ammo.

I do think 300 volleys or bursts of small arms fire is too much for an infantry squad, though. I figure, say, 100 rounds per man for the riflemen and a maximum of 1000 rounds of link for a German MG firing 5 -10 round bursts, 100 would be a more appropriate figure, maybe 120 tops. How easy is this to change? Is it something scenario designers have access to?

Andy

[Mad Russian]

We are, in fact, talking about adding grenades as expendable ammunition.

The ammunition for infantry is another issue. I used to think it was too high but then when you look at the actual time elapsed it doesn't seem too bad. Ammunition, for both vehicles and infantry is set per scenario by the designer.

Ammo resupply is not high on my list either. But when tanks run short of ammunition I make allowances for that. When infantry run short of ammunition or won't close assault at full strength because they are low on grenades I'd like to know that too. I may just send a different unit to fulfill that mission.

That's what this is all about. Sending the best lead, equipped and motivated unit to get the job done.

Once you start redoing any of the infantry combat model it all gets moved out of alignment. As you pointed out with ammunition expenditure. That's why it was scheduled for the next game, so that it could be looked at in depth.

I was the last member of the team added and I got involved with PCO in March 2008. So yes, we've been at this awhile now.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown
Of course, if it's not, if grenades are not expended like ammunition but have their use factored into separate close assault routines, then understandably all bets are off. As one of you guys says somewhere else, you have been working on this for two

I noticed this in an earlier post. When comparing MG34 and MG42 firepower it is higher than other MMG and HMGs. Higher because they are firing more bullets. So to be fair these should have their ammo reduced in proportion to their higher firepower.

In the WO I posted it stated the effective ROF of the Bren was 120 rpm. So every rifleman had to carry ammo for himself and for the Bren. But if the actual squad strength is 6 riflemen instead of the official OOB of 9 men the tota; ammo count would be less. They probably aren't getting 120 rpm for very long. Luckily we aren't dealing with Uk forces right now.

[Mad Russian]

The British squads will be interesting. As the war stretched out there were manpower shortages in the infantry units. They tried to increase firepower to make up for that. By the end of the war each British squad had not one but two Brens. That will be interesting to model.

Good Hunting.

MR

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

We are, in fact, talking about adding grenades as expendable ammunition.

The ammunition for infantry is another issue. I used to think it was too high but then when you look at the actual time elapsed it doesn't seem too bad. Ammunition, for both vehicles and infantry is set per scenario by the designer.

Ammo resupply is not high on my list either. But when tanks run short of ammunition I make allowances for that. When infantry run short of ammunition or won't close assault at full strength because they are low on grenades I'd like to know that too. I may just send a different unit to fulfill that mission.

That's what this is all about. Sending the best lead, equipped and motivated unit to get the job done.

Once you start redoing any of the infantry combat model it all gets moved out of alignment. As you pointed out with ammunition expenditure. That's why it was scheduled for the next game, so that it could be looked at in depth.

I was the last member of the team added and I got involved with PCO in March 2008. So yes, we've been at this awhile now.

Good Hunting.

MR

Why on earth would you want to have the necessity of micromanaging infantry squads, to the point of counting hand grenades?

Completely the wrong way to go.

If the player is the company commander - is it realistic to picture a company commander getting on the radio and deferring a command to his platoons until they can hand count the grenades in their pouches?

Or is it better to just abstract it all into "close combat" factors for close assault/grenades/hand-to-hand combat, all of which would be happening simultaneously at ranges within 50 metres anyway? I would think the latter.

[Mad Russian]

Not the point MD.

The point is that an infantry squad or platoon only has so many grenades. If you have a platoon that is short of grenades would send them to assault the strongpoint or one that's not short?

Those are very much decisions a company commander would make, with information he very much better know. If you have a company commander that doesn't know the ammunition situation of his units he is getting ready to first get a bunch of men killed and then, if he survives, relieved of command.

The exact same reason you know how many rounds a tank platoon has. Why worry about their ammo load outs either? So you can make intelligent decisions on who to send to do what task.

Good Hunting.

MR

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Not the point MD.

The point is that an infantry squad or platoon only has so many grenades. If you have a platoon that is short of grenades would send them to assault the strongpoint or one that's not short?

Those are very much decisions a company commander would make, with information he very much better know. If you have a company commander that doesn't know the ammunition situation of his units he is getting ready to first get a bunch of men killed and then, if he survives, relieved of command.

The exact same reason you know how many rounds a tank platoon has. Why worry about their ammo load outs either? So you can make intelligent decisions on who to send to do what task.

Good Hunting.

MR

No way. The platoon commanders might do ammo checks and even redistribute some, but all other things being equal, I can't see a company commander deploying units based on the strength of how many hand grenades they have. Number of men, "natural fighters", what terrain they occupy, but a count of their grenades would have to be way down the list. Come to that, why not just get the CQMS to bring up more?

More importantly, in game terms, it's a layer of trivia that's just going to bog the game down. Folding it into the firepower rating like other games at this scale is wholly appropriate.

[Andy Brown]

MD, MR,

I would agree with MD except that the PC: O system does account for just about every other ammunition type. Sure, at the squad level, it does it in an abstract way, by counting squad "bursts" or "volleys" instead of individual rounds of ammo, but it does do it and that enables the player to include squad ammo states in troop tasking decisions.

To be consistent with this model, grenade "volleys" should also be included. Smoke grenade volleys are; it therefore seems illogical that HE grenades volleys aren't (The amount of smoke generated by a PC: O squad CBE would, IMO, require more than one "smoke grenade" to produce).

Grenades are a fundamental component of the aspect of battle that wargames represent as "close assault". A close assault made when a squad possesses a full complement of grenades is likely to be more effective that one made without. It makes sense to track them because a squad should only be capable of a finite number of more effective, grenade assisted close assaults. When the grenades run out, squad close range capability is degraded. This is something the player commander needs to consider.

(Of course, if you start going in this direction, you probably need to start modelling AT grenades/sticky bombs/grenade clusters as well, for similar reasons).

Andy

[Mad Russian]

So, MD, you wouldn't want the defender to have used up their grenades and reduce their defense because of that? They should always be at full defensive strength as well? This isn't just an offensive issue.

Ah yes, the QM can just bring me more. Except in the hour or so our battles cover there is no QM showing up just yet. The time frame makes that process prohibitive or no tank would ever run out of ammo in a game either.

Curious to the answer, would you send a platoon short of grenades/ammunition to attack the strongpoint?

As has been discussed by the team, and here, there are considerations to infantry combat and how that model works.

It's not there yet.



Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh
Number of men, "natural fighters", what terrain they occupy, but a count of their grenades would have to be way down the list. Come to that, why not just get the CQMS to bring up more?

Now, there's an idea. One set of miniatures rules has something called 'big men' which are guys you can trust to carry out the fight. Not necessarily the leader but natural fighters. I wonder how this could be incorporated?

[Ratzki]

I don't think that the grenade count is an important issue. When I play, all I want to know is if the squad has a chance at killing the enemy tank or whatever. Whether they use 20 grenades or stuff a potato in the tailpipe is of little importance. I do not want to move a squad across the map and later find that id does not have any weapons to perform the task that I set because they threw a couple grenades along the way and I forgot to look at the count. I would like to think that the commanding officers would make sure that the squad has enough weapons to do the job and then some. Keeping it abstract works for me.

[Mad Russian]

This discussion seems to be drifting.

The armor combat model for this game tracks everything. All levels of ammo. Then it tells you when you are running low.

That's what I want to see with the infantry combat model.

That's all I want to see from the infantry combat model.

I want the same attention to detail for all the combat models in the game. I want to simulate infantry combat to the same level we now simulate armored combat. Nothing more, and nothing less. The infantry combat model is far from being there at the moment.

What you do with that as a gamer is totally up to you.

Good Hunting.

MR