German infantry AT grenades

[LukeFF]

I do have patience, and I do agree that things are getting better (especially since the Russians have their own specifically-modeled AT grenade). I'd just like to see even better fidelity in regards to infantry AT weapons.

And now the new guys have still another thing to check, oh crap I ordered them to attack that tank and they don't have anything to attack it with!

That's why we have an equipment panel as part of the GUI.

[petergottlieb76]

I had two experiences playing Angriff as the Russians recently.

1. I had a platoon of Soviet infantry on an objective and two Panthers drove up. They were about 30-40 meters away so I tried to maneuver my squads into close assault range over mostly open ground. No dice. Dead Russians everywhere. I think three men managed to survive.

2. I had a platoon of Panzer IV's drive right on top of another platoon of infantry in the woods. The Soviets destroyed all four tanks in close assault with the loss of about a squad.

I think Battlefront has this about right. Most of the time spotted infantry that isn't right on top of a tank isn't going to survive. On the other hand, infantry can and did destroy tanks that were dumb enough to drive right over them. Actually it was kind of gratifying to watch the second platoon take out those Panzer IV's. Sometimes things go your way, even with Russian infantry. Of course it would have been even shorter and messier if a platoon of T-34's had blindly driven into panzerfaust armed Germans.

[John Kettler]

wolf66,

In Clark's The Battle of the Tanks: Kursk 1943, there is a primary Russian source who reports "every unit was given a supply of glass bottles." He then goes on to talk about making Molotov cocktails and the dangers they posed to users when completed, which is why they were kept in niches in the trench wall, lest disaster ensue. I even managed to find a successful Molotov cocktail use in Normandy!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Fizou]

Sure, but when every infantry unit on the map has the capability to take out a tank - no matter the weaponry they have on their person - it stretches the limits of what is and should be plausible.

And thats why I wrote:

What could be done, is to add more traceable inf AT assets, grenade bundles, mines etc. Thrown like grenades and once used the unit has all but lost its AT capability (grenades could then be nerfed down). Spread so that maybe not all units have them.

And about the 30 meters. Its still harder for inf to KO a tank that is further away (closer to 30). But it is possible and plausible.

But I understand if someone gets frustrated by the fact that ordinary grenades lobbed from 30 meters KO's a moving tank.... except, that's not what is happening. One needs to understand the abstraction/simulation and the limitations.

[womble]

Since it's abstract, a 30m kill could be assumed to be a PanzerWurfMine, or "foraged" RPG (in units that aren't explicitly noted as having them as standard issue) perhaps, flung by the district javelin champion...

[poesel]

Or BFC could teach infantry not to throw grenades at tanks which are for example more than 8 meters away (unless the infantry has special AT grenades with a greater range).

That way you had to get really close for abstracted AT measures to be useful but we could still keep the abstraction.

[Fizou]

Or BFC could teach infantry not to throw grenades at tanks which are for example more than 8 meters away (unless the infantry has special AT grenades with a greater range).

That way you had to get really close for abstracted AT measures to be useful but we could still keep the abstraction.

But then you lose the flexibility of real infantry / micro movement. The abstraction also simulates a close assault, not only throwing stuff from a disstance. I think its good and works as intended right now. 30 meters is pretty close with the micro movement in mind. Succesrate decreses with distance (havent tested this extensively ala Vanir but seems to be this way).

My only suggestion would be more true tracking/simulation of AT weapons (like the introduction of the Russian RPG-43) for future modules/families/upgrades. Then "ordinary" grenades could be nerfed but there should still be some chance for grenades and other improvised AT not tracked in the abstraction.

[womble]

...you lose the flexibility of real infantry / micro movement...

Um. That's a new concept: "micro movement". Care to elucidate?

30 meters is pretty close with the micro movement in mind.

I'd have to disagree. Any concept that has the word "micro" in it really shouldn't involve movement outside the AS the unit's in. Or even the square metre, since pTruppen explicitly move around inside the AS, on a 1:1 representational level for most purposes. But perhaps your concept is such that 30m "run out and plonk a mine on the engine deck" makes sense...

[Fizou]

Um. That's a new concept: "micro movement". Care to elucidate?

Units always sit upright in a vehicle as an example when the might actually be lying on the floor as it takes fire. Units running upright, everyone in the same way, one animation, when at times they would be running at a crouch when at the risk of being shot at. Etc. Abstracted micro movement.

I'd have to disagree. Any concept that has the word "micro" in it really shouldn't involve movement outside the AS the unit's in. Or even the square metre, since pTruppen explicitly move around inside the AS, on a 1:1 representational level for most purposes. But perhaps your concept is such that 30m "run out and plonk a mine on the engine deck" makes sense...

Abstracted macro movement then . You will never achieve perfect/natural behavior/movement of inf in such a complex environment as CM depicts. To portray the capabilities of inf in a good way, there is need for some abstraction. Such as the close assault of an enemy tank and infantry initiative to do this as a situation presents itself.

I think its perfectly reasonable that inf are able to move out a couple guys to close assault. Max distance 30 meters. Success < increased range as well as to lower quality troops.

To remove this abstraction and to add controls for the player to have full control of it would be really hard, especially in WEGO. Add to that the animations etc.

[Michael Emrys]

Units always sit upright in a vehicle as an example when the might actually be lying on the floor as it takes fire.

You might want to modify that statement a little. There isn't enough room on the floor of a halftrack or a truck for an entire squad to lie down, although I suppose with a little stacking you might come close now and then. Are there any references to this kind of behavior though? In close to 60 years of reading I've never come across one. What I would be more likely to expect would be that they all remain seated, but bend over at the waist to the extent that their equipment allows such movement and hunch down. But would this justify a new animation?

Michael

[Kieme(ITA)]

For what's Worth I have done some involuntary testing with german half tracks filled with squads and coming under fire in close quarters (made a mistake with setups and ended with placing some HTs in the middle of a soviet rifle force).

Anyway, before nades start to fly, which definitely kill the most of the troops inside, small arms fire usually kills not only the HT mg gunner, but at least a couple of soldiers (tested several repetitions). Probably the pixeltroops who don't keep their arms inside bus Windows.

Usually, at least 1 to 3 soldiers survive even the grenades (which Always cripple the vehicle) and furious rifle fire and keep inside paniked for some minutes, only to try a desperate flee running out of the HT and being gunned down.

[womble]

Units always sit upright in a vehicle as an example when the might actually be lying on the floor as it takes fire. Units running upright, everyone in the same way, one animation, when at times they would be running at a crouch when at the risk of being shot at. Etc. Abstracted micro movement.

Right. I thought that's the sort of thing you meant. The "postural" equivalent of "micro terrain".

Abstracted macro movement then . You will never achieve perfect/natural behavior/movement of inf in such a complex environment as CM depicts. To portray the capabilities of inf in a good way, there is need for some abstraction. Such as the close assault of an enemy tank and infantry initiative to do this as a situation presents itself.

No argument there.

I think its perfectly reasonable that inf are able to move out a couple guys to close assault. Max distance 30 meters. Success < increased range as well as to lower quality troops.

Can't agree, I'm afraid. There's an order of magnitude difference between crouch-running (when the pTruppe is depicted as running upright) and scuttling 4 whole AS to activate a contact mine. The potential for enemy action to prevent two guys covering that 30m in the open is just too high. If that's what the 30m kills represents, then people are, IMO, right to kvetch about the abstraction. There's no way to incorporate enemy action (having a few MGs overwatching the flanks of the tank, say) in the resolution of the attempt, since there's no way of assessing it. To an extent, having such telescoping "abstraction" would make a nonsense of trying to protect your armour by fire.

I haven't any problem with the range, myself, so long as range truly is a component of the success calculation, since I can conceive of situations where that range is plausible, but if the justification involves any part of a squad (or a team - your "two men running out" would be the entirety of a German TH team f'r'ex) moving more than 1 AS, then that's more than a bit off.

To remove this abstraction and to add controls for the player to have full control of it would be really hard, especially in WEGO. Add to that the animations etc.

To be quite clear: I'm not against the abstraction, I just don't think it should involve troops being immune to fire while they're running 30m.

[Michael Emrys]

...I just don't think it should involve troops being immune to fire while they're running 30m.

I agree for the reasons that you provide. This might be made conditional depending on the cover in the squares to be crossed, but this is starting to get complicated, and realistically might not make a lot of difference to the bottom line anyway.

Michael

[poesel]

Can't agree, too. 30m is way too far. Close assaulting a tank should be just that: close. And that is IMHO 1 AS max. At this range the new tank behaviour comes into effect, too, so that would fit very well together.

If infantry would start throwing grenades at close distances as an abstraction for improvised AT measures then that is fine with me. But it gets a bit too easy if that works from 30m. Why would the Germans lug around those Fausts then?

[Fizou]

Can't agree, I'm afraid. There's an order of magnitude difference between crouch-running (when the pTruppe is depicted as running upright) and scuttling 4 whole AS to activate a contact mine. The potential for enemy action to prevent two guys covering that 30m in the open is just too high. If that's what the 30m kills represents, then people are, IMO, right to kvetch about the abstraction. There's no way to incorporate enemy action (having a few MGs overwatching the flanks of the tank, say) in the resolution of the attempt, since there's no way of assessing it. To an extent, having such telescoping "abstraction" would make a nonsense of trying to protect your armour by fire.

Closer to 3 AS if calculated from center of own AS, and with the bunching of inf I don't think the range is a problem. Cover by fire etc so no inf get within 30 meters of said tank. Getting within 30 meters of inf is not a good idea nor good tactics. That inf might as well have fausts, zooks or other ranged AT. The reduced flexibility of inf in the simulation needs to be mitigated by this abstraction in IMHO. Keeping own infantry with tank will help handle this as they will spot within 30 meters in most cases.

I haven't any problem with the range, myself, so long as range truly is a component of the success calculation, since I can conceive of situations where that range is plausible, but if the justification involves any part of a squad (or a team - your "two men running out" would be the entirety of a German TH team f'r'ex) moving more than 1 AS, then that's more than a bit off.

Well the inf are not as flexible and agile as they are in real life. Hence the abstraction of this added range. And I also hope that range, quality of the unit, morale etc all are covered in the success rate. Making the 30m kill hard to achieve.

To be quite clear: I'm not against the abstraction, I just don't think it should involve troops being immune to fire while they're running 30m.

I see what your saying. IMHO the tank is already at an advantage compared to real life so giving the inf this added "immortal" range is more realistic than not being able to shoot them as they move these 30 meters.

In a perfect world all this would be simulated 1:1 but what we have is damned good as is.

[Fizou]

Can't agree, too. 30m is way too far. Close assaulting a tank should be just that: close. And that is IMHO 1 AS max. At this range the new tank behaviour comes into effect, too, so that would fit very well together.

If infantry would start throwing grenades at close distances as an abstraction for improvised AT measures then that is fine with me. But it gets a bit too easy if that works from 30m. Why would the Germans lug around those Fausts then?

Returns after some more tests. Had a look at just the distance of 30 meters, and it does look a bit long. I cant recall seing nade attacks vs tanks at these distances in any of my games (since release of CMSF). So I set up 6 tigers vs 6 us teams with only regular nades as their AT. Inf with good concealment and tanks facing away with arcs. Runt the test scenario two times til all nades where expended. Tanks where typical, the inf of various quality and leadership etc, varied from green -1 to elite fanatical +2.

30 meters.. several minutes no action from the inf, no matter if i target my self or not. In both runs for several minutes.

20-29 meters... nothing. Just as above.

Below 20 meters and stuff starts to happen.

As the inf is positioned within the AS the actual "assaults" happen within 1 or 2 AS. I couldn't produce one attack with 3 or 4 AS distance. Testing wasn't extensive but I think the conclusion is that things works as expected and attacks beyond 20 meters are outliers and extreme cases. I don't see a problem.

[Baneman]

Nice work Fizou - I was going to chime in to say -- I don't think I've seen "abstracted close assault" as far away as 30m.

I know when I played "Red Hordes" that some T34's tried to break in to the trench line which got nailed and elsewhere I had teams behind houses KO tanks that drove past that house etc.

But all these cases were much closer than 30m, 1 or 2 AS maximum.

[womble]

I've seen an engineer team fling a demo charge 30-35m, in FI. However, I am entirely prepared to write that down to the fact that the "close assault" resolution occurs at a moment in time, and the animation takes longer than that; the target tank was motoring past, and I am quite happy that it was just an animation "not quite fitting" (particularly because there was no noticeable damage to the M4).

20m is 2AS from the middle of your current AS; that's much more reasonable; there were examples of "desperation" AT measures which could be hurled that far with effect. I still think that any "running about" is too affected by enemy action to be reasonably abstracted, but the apparent actual range makes considering such things less necessary.