Has Infantry Been Boosted vs Tanks?

[c3k]

Early Tigers had 5 command detonated AP mines mounted on the hull for that very reason. Later Tigers did not have them.

[sburke]

I do think it's weird that every infantry grenade has AT capability in the ww2 titles... pretty sure in CMSF there's only ATGM and AT-rockets, when those are spent infantry is defenseless. When on the receiving end of those situations I do wish for a squad of CM ww2 super-soldiers.

Modern tanks have better visual capability and are all round tougher than ww2 tanks or do you guys think that shouldn't be included in your perception?

[Skwabie]

They don't. The whole grenades-throwing thing is an abstract visual representation of all the desperation close assault tactics that infantry were taught. That they are employed at all is a comment on the evolutions that resulted in tanks being in a position to be close assaulted (whether that be AI weaknesses or player... exuberance), not on the efficacy of close assault.

Abstraction... Say an infantry squad has 36 grenades. How many AT grenades can it chuck out... 36. Abstraction or not this seems to be the end result?....

Modern tanks have better visual capability and are all round tougher than ww2 tanks or do you guys think that shouldn't be included in your perception?

Far as I recall, the "tuning down" of tanks vs. infantry happened in CM Market Garden(v2.10), after a lengthy thread of users complaining difficulty of inf assaulting tanks. The changes include: reduced tank spotting ability with their vision blocks and periscopes; extra aiming time for tanks shooting past gun depression angle; extra aiming time for tanks shooting very close targets.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=111569

As for AT grenades, IIRC the ww2 titles have had it since forever.

Couple these 2 together you see why infantry is so effective.

Now for modern, extra aiming time past gun elevation restriction: valid; extra aiming time against close targets: valid; Abstracted AT grenades for infantry: valid.

That is by BF's own logic.

For reduced spotting with vision blocks and periscopes: sure you'd say invalid, but a vision block is a vision block, not much different on the Abrams as on a Tiger? The Abrams have many more gadgets, CITV for the commander, day/night sight for the gunner, rear view camera for the driver, ir option of the cameras for night sighting, plus network like FB2 for sharing target info.... BUT:eek:a vision block is still a vision block, used for 360deg scanning of close by targets, with its spotting capability reduced in CMMG...?

Now let's break the BS. For those of you who like your infantry, I think you're in for a treat gladly forking out the $$. I'd say that goes for most of the customers. For us few tank people, mehh....

[womble]

Abstraction... Say an infantry squad has 36 grenades. How many AT grenades can it chuck out... 36. Abstraction or not this seems to be the end result?....

Are you deliberately being dense?

The abstraction is that there is a visual depiction of 36 grenades being chucked which represents the various desperation close-range anti-armour measures that a typical squad might be capable of. Grenades have a similar abstracted nature to engineer demo charges. What is recorded as "36 grenades" is some Heisenbergian construct of Gammon bombs, grenades, PanzerWurfMinen, Molotovs, grenade bundles or whatever, which can be used for any of the purposes for which those things can be used (viz: lobbing at enemy infantry; discommoding enemy armour) at the expense of "grenades" from the unit inventory. If your infantry either do not attempt to close assault the armour or fail to inflict serious damage, then you can assume that either that particular element's Schroedinger's box of HE didn't include anything that could hurt the tank, or their morale or technique failed. Since you can't tell which, it's "below the abstraction layer".

If an infantry squad's grenade count was all AT, they could potentially destroy 36 vehicles. Since it takes several depicted-throws-of-grenades to do significant damage to armour, you can rationalise it as some of those putative grenades representing larger chunks of boom boom which take more carrying.

Abstraction: 36 grenades thrown is representing something else.

Far as I recall, the "tuning down" of tanks vs. infantry happened in CM Market Garden(v2.10), after a lengthy thread of users complaining difficulty of inf assaulting tanks. The changes include: reduced tank spotting ability with their vision blocks and periscopes; extra aiming time for tanks shooting past gun depression angle; extra aiming time for tanks shooting very close targets.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=111569

All of which changes solely give the infantry time to survive to execute their attacks. They say nothing about the potency of those attacks.

As for AT grenades, IIRC the ww2 titles have had it since forever.

Not explicitly represented, they haven't, not in CMx2. They were CMx1, but they only got specifically depicted again in CMRT. Hence the need for the abstrated close assault behaviour. Or TH teams having Demo Charges.

Now let's break the BS. For those of you who like your infantry, I think you're in for a treat gladly forking out the $$. I'd say that goes for most of the customers. For us few tank people, mehh....

Yeah, that's a great counter to perceived misinformation. More unfounded speculation. Real classy.

[Skwabie]

Are you deliberately being dense?

Nope, they're my god honest opinion. If it is considered an intention to "flame" I apologize. However it seems like we're trending towards that path so I'm pulling a halt..

[JoMac]

Skwabie,

This is what I do to help give me the desired effects im looking for. Go into the Scenario Editor and make some changes to a Scenario. If playing against an Opponent, then ask him to do the same ( this approach will also give alittle extra for purchasing units ).

Infantry:

- Inf Moral should always be either Conscripts ( if they are Green or Reg in Scenario ), or Green ( if they are Vet or better ), Give +1 Bonus to HQ's for Leadership or if good quality specialized Inf ( Airborne-Ranger, etc ), Give Inf in Defense Low Motivation and troops attacking Normal Motivation, All Inf should always be in Weakened status.

Armor:

You can also increase the Armor's Moral up a notch, and give similar bonuses if the above doesn't give you the desired effects.

At the very least, experiment with the Infantry alterations first, then the Armor if need be.

Reducing the effects of Infantry by making them alittle more brittle, and or increasing the effects of Armor make for what I think a better work-around approach to the Inf vs. Armor 'Close Assault' syndrome.

[Skwabie]

Thanks JoMc, gonna try it. Actually I bought CMMG but uninstalled due to tank blindness. Although MG has some really interesting stuff indeed like the sdkfz 251/17 and 21. Might be time to patch it back.

[A Canadian Cat]

This is interesting please tell me if I am reading this right. Several people explained why the game is the way it is and how to handle your tanks tactically in close quarters with infantry and the response was strange from my point of view. Here is what I think you want:

Tanks can go anywhere any time with impunity against simple infantry.

You seem to think that AT guns, other tanks and infantry rockets (bazookas and panzer fausts and panzer shreks) are the only things that can threaten tanks. Am I getting it now?

We already explained how the game is working and you reject that explanation so that is that I suppose. I'll ask you one other question and perhaps if you think about it you might realize that the game has it close enough to right (hence the term abstraction):

Why do you think tankers did not just crash around hell bent through the villages and forests of Europe without having infantry around to cooperate with them?

[Skwabie]

ian.leslie,

I don't think there's much point in keeping this up because 1 the issue has been argued to death and 2 without hard data it's going to become a bit pointless. I'd just say tank spotting has been tuned down too much, not really against infantry but more importantly vs vehicle targets, but hey that is my own perception.

If BF ever allows data modding for single player mode that would be great for all, so each can tailor to his own taste. Right now arguing over a few data values in the game engine is really tiring, which goes not only for tank spotting but most other debates I see here.

I leave the issue to you history grogs.

[JoMac]

Thanks JoMc, gonna try it. Actually I bought CMMG but uninstalled due to tank blindness. Although MG has some really interesting stuff indeed like the sdkfz 251/17 and 21. Might be time to patch it back.

Yeah, I wouldn't uninstall due to this 'Close Assault' issue that some of us have, and should try enjoying all Modules patched for full enjoyment...Using the nerfing down technique of Infantry, however, will help eleviate some of that 'Armor Blindness', and give Armor alittle better chance of survival.

Keep in mind thou, unsupported Heavier Armor ( Tanks, Assaults Guns, etc ) will still be vulnerable, but overall have alittle better chance of survival...I'm by no means an Armor person ( thou, they are fun to play with ), but prefer Inf or Combined Arms Scenarios.

Yes, it would be nice if there were some sort of seperate 'Close Assault' Order option for Infantry against Armor with a Such & Such chance of a KO the longer an Inf Unit stays in same or adjacent AS...But, not the way it is now.

Anyways, Skwabie, let me know how it goes, and PM back your results as time goes by so we can fine-tune anything thats needs it...My goal is to make CM as realistic as we can make it for those that are interested.

[Skwabie]

try enjoying all Modules patched for full enjoyment

Indeed. Got a bit of CMRT Angriff action tonight to dust off the ww2 rust, edited the infantries in scenario editor and it was quite a nice experience.

I got buttoned up tanks taking out AT guns, Su-122s and even infantry to the sides and rear. Ofc infantry support is always provided so they can share spotting info. Losses are high with 24 dead, 2 tigers lost and 2 HTs but the ruskies surrendered. Weren't too many places for inf close assault tho, long as the tanks stay away from woods and buildings and always have friendly inf nearby they're fine. My green normal motivation squads out performed my expectations to say the least, 1 squad lost 4 guys and kept fighting. Gonna keep trying this setting.

All in all a good one and i'm back to ww2.

[Pak40]

Yes, it would be nice if there were some sort of seperate 'Close Assault' Order option for Infantry against Armor with a Such & Such chance of a KO the longer an Inf Unit stays in same or adjacent AS...But, not the way it is now.

Anyways, Skwabie, let me know how it goes, and PM back your results as time goes by so we can fine-tune anything thats needs it...My goal is to make CM as realistic as we can make it for those that are interested.

You do realize the two phrases that I've highlighted above are contradictory? I'm sure soldiers in WWII would have loved to have known their exact % chance to knock out certain vehicle with certain weapons but that wouldn't exactly be realistic now would it?

I know as wargamers we are used to our "to hit" tables from old school tactial boardgames like Squad Leader. Heck, even CMx1 had % to hit. But as the CMx2 engine (and beyond) gets more realistic and less abstract, I think it makes less sense to do this.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Generally speaking, infantry did not attempt to close assault tanks without special anti-tank weapons, unless the tank was immobilized. In part that was because infantry tend to be mortally terrified of tanks. It was considered an extraordinarily brave thing to do, but it can work similar to how it does in CM if the right tools are available.

Of course,it was mostly the enemy's armour that prevented us from seizing the town of Skalat, although they had just some eight or ten tanks. The brigade had almost no weapons that would be effective against heavy tanks; we did not have anti-tank grenades, although they were anyway ineffective against the Tigers. We had very few petrol bombs that could be used. The Tigers grew so bold that they drove around town like chickens hanging around in a village, and only after Titov had burnt one Tiger did they become more cautious and stopped acting so boldly.

One sunny day a German tank rolled down the main street past our house, moving into our rear. It did not make it far. The company commander, Senior Lieutenant Petr Ivanovich Titov, blew it up. He burnt the tank with a single petrol bomb, which he threw from behind a house corner. For this heroic deed Titov was awarded with Order of Great Patriotic War 2nd Degree.

-- Tank Rider, Evgeni Bessonov

[JoMac]

Indeed. Got a bit of CMRT Angriff action tonight to dust off the ww2 rust, edited the infantries in scenario editor and it was quite a nice experience.

I got buttoned up tanks taking out AT guns, Su-122s and even infantry to the sides and rear. Ofc infantry support is always provided so they can share spotting info. Losses are high with 24 dead, 2 tigers lost and 2 HTs but the ruskies surrendered. Weren't too many places for inf close assault tho, long as the tanks stay away from woods and buildings and always have friendly inf nearby they're fine. My green normal motivation squads out performed my expectations to say the least, 1 squad lost 4 guys and kept fighting. Gonna keep trying this setting.

All in all a good one and i'm back to ww2.

Yes, you will be surprised on how well even 'Green' troops perform in CMx2 ( especially with one or two bonuses )...You can be at Half-Strength and still carry-on after a rest.

Remember, that playing against the AI is not the same as playing against an aggressive Opponent. You could still potentially loose even more units, and the player less.

However, an Opponent will be more wary to use Conscripts/Green Infantry to engage Armor unless they are sure enough it will be successful.

[A Canadian Cat]

I don't think there's much point in keeping this up because 1 the issue has been argued to death and

Fair enough I'll leave it here.

2 without hard data it's going to become a bit pointless.

My sole goal was to make sure that there was an alternate point of view so new people don't wonder in here and think there is a problem with the game when there isn't. You disagree with the designer's intent, which is your right, I want make sure that it is clear that the game is operating as expected and is based on evidence with a goal to create as realistic a game as possible. As you point out tweaks have been made and as BFC have demonstrated they will continue to make tweaks and fixes to make the game better. When people show them evidence they make changes.

You do realize the two phrases that I've highlighted above are contradictory?

Hee, hee exactly.

[Skwabie]

My sole goal was to make sure that there was an alternate point of view so new people don't wonder in here and think there is a problem with the game when there isn't. You disagree with the designer's intent, which is your right, I want make sure that it is clear that the game is operating as expected and is based on evidence with a goal to create as realistic a game as possible. As you point out tweaks have been made and as BFC have demonstrated they will continue to make tweaks and fixes to make the game better. When people show them evidence they make changes.

Far as I can see, there wasn't any hard data to begin with, as this issue is not like armor thickness values and such. But since BF migrated the ww2 titles from CMSF there was some left over data there. Suppose the original spotting values for modern tanks are 1, how much less do you think it should be set for ww2. 0.4? 0.8? It is a judgement call. And so far as I'm concerned "operating as expected" is in line with the majority of BF's customer's preference. And since the majority of the customer base favors infantry, and at the time of adjustment Market Garden was on the horizon, it just provides more incentive to bump up inf's ubran fighting ability.

Should the spotting capability be de-tuned. Of course. By how much, I don't think it is very clear.

And then in the process the spotting and, close fighting, against other tanks are also de-tuned. So we have interesting observations like this and the whole problem of TCs unwilling to button up and getting killed: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=118098

Mind you I'm not aiming to reverse the de-tunes, being aware that going against market demand is a pointless act. However it does not lessen my belief that tanks have been down-graded too much. And I will continue to raise voice on other future issues... if time permits that is.

[John1966]

This is all jolly interesting. Just playing a CM game for the first time in ages and just patched. I must admit I have been surprised by a couple of things.

Had a Sherman roll up to a known enemy position at what I thought was a safe distance (with plenty of infantry support). I knew there was a guy keeping his head down behind that hedgerow causing bother so I decided to get him out via overkill. So I was pretty surprised when what appeared to be a grenade came immediately over the hedge and the Sherman brewed up before it could even carry out the area fire order I'd given it for thar way point. He shot the crew too...

But on the other side of the coin, I've been even more surprised by the ability of my buttoned-up Shermans to spot an infantryman in a hedgerow at 600 yards or more. Not complaining though. Granted the infantry in question were firing small arms but, still, I imagine they'd be a bugger to spot through a periscope at that distance. The Sherman in question was not even involved in that bit of action (not that the game would realise that) and was just trying to get between two buildings when "bang" it starts unloading HE and MG fire at this distant target I wouldn't have even have bothered to check a LOS to.

So swings and roundabouts, eh?

[womble]

This is all jolly interesting. Just playing a CM game for the first time in ages and just patched. I must admit I have been surprised by a couple of things.

Had a Sherman roll up to a known enemy position at what I thought was a safe distance (with plenty of infantry support). I knew there was a guy keeping his head down behind that hedgerow causing bother so I decided to get him out via overkill. So I was pretty surprised when what appeared to be a grenade came immediately over the hedge and the Sherman brewed up before it could even carry out the area fire order I'd given it for thar way point. He shot the crew too...

Sounds like a Tank Hunter team to me. He was possibly lobbing a demo charge (automagically configured as an AT device of some kind - the demo charge is an abstraction of the things that CMx1 used to explicitly model). I've never seen a single-grenade throw brew up even light armour, so if it wasn't a TH or engineer, your opponent got extremely lucky.

[Pelican Pal]

The ability for infantry to knock out armor was present in CM:SF. It just tended to happen less often because of the terrain, enhanced sensors, enhanced lethality, proliferation of AT rockets, and general disparity of Blufor and Redfor. Grenades may also have gotten less of a bonus back then, but I do know it was possible.

Infantry currently have a bit too easy of a time close assaulting armor. The basic idea of the abstraction is fine. Tanks should be vulnerable to infantry.

However, these "AT" grenades maintain all the physical capabilities of the normally thrown grenade. So it is possible for an "abstracted close assault" to be thrown 25-30 meters, bounce, and then destroy a tank. Which is an absurd situation to have happen.

[womble]

However, these "AT" grenades maintain all the physical capabilities of the normally thrown grenade. So it is possible for an "abstracted close assault" to be thrown 25-30 meters, bounce, and then destroy a tank. Which is an absurd situation to have happen.

It does get a bit strange. I've seen an engineer throw a demo charge at a rampaging Sherman. It travelled at least 30m before detonating (mostly missed the tank; certainly didn't immobilise it, but the thing backed off smartish). In this case, the flight of the projectile looked a bit hinky, and my gut feeling is that the demo-charge-close-assault got resolved as the vehicle passed within the same AS as the plucky engineer, but the M4 was travelling so fast that by the time the animation of the attack had completed, the tank was 4AS away. I've never seen close assault initiate at more than 2AS range, which isn't a ridiculous distance to accurately throw a molotov.

[Tarquelne]

It's as if what we see during "abstracted" actions isn't an accurate, literal display of the game's reality.

[womble]

It's as if what we see during "abstracted" actions isn't an accurate, literal display of the game's reality.

Well, who'd'a thunk it?