Infantry useless?

[chuckdyke]

Snipers 95% spotting 5% shooting. Opportunity targets when they are spotting a 120mm mortar brews up BMP's. I don't really know how much sniping they do when they spot an HQ, I give them a cover-arc in the area. They do a stellar job supporting other FO's.   

[Ultradave]

10 hours ago, Artkin said:

If you try to assault anything with your infantry, you can pretty much walk right on top of the enemy and blow their faces off so long as you keep them suppressed from other formations. 

Suppress, and then attack. It's all about manuever. Someone had an excellent Churchill quote on here just on that. 

Key. When I was a FIST chief (Cold War game time frame) the infantry company commander I supported, when I first met him, told me, "If I turn around and don't bump into you, you are not close enough" He wanted me and my radio close enough so that all he had to do was reach out and touch to get the fire support he needed because he wasn't about to attack anything without suppression.

This was late 70s, but it applies at any period or theater. And being in the 82d we acted more like WW2 infantry probably. We walked a lot. We just arrived in style

Dave

Edited April 6, 2021 by Ultradave

[Bulletpoint]

It's my impression that infantry in CM has been made quite a lot weaker than in real life, whereas tanks are closer to their actual performance.

Mostly due to accuracy of fire - infantry accuracy is very low due to trying to simulate "combat conditions", whereas tanks have accuracy closer to that of a firing range.

Also, infantry is way less intelligent in the game than in reality and often unable to position itself wisely. You seee this when they run on the wrong side of a wall, refuse to jump into a foxhole but rather stand beside it, and when they do not go prone under incoming artillery before their suppression meter fills up, when they don't stop moving under fire while using the HUNT command, etc.

When it comes to tanks, it's the player making the important decisions about where exactly to go, and which way to face, so tanks are less vulnerable to "virtual stupidity".

[dbsapp]

How Fire and Rubble is technically different from Red Thunder?

It would be great to hear from the developers.

I bought Black Sea on Steam and was fascinated by the game. So far I completed 3 campaigns and several missions. It's not absolutely perfect, but definately do the job.

I expected something similar from Red Thunder, so I purchased it on Battlefront site. Frankly, I hoped that there will be more free from precise artillery infantry-oriented game:) As far as I understand it, it's more or less the same game with the same engine in different time setting, but I got much worse impressions.

I will definetely buy Cold War, although I'm not so excited about upcoming Fire and Rubble.

[benpark]

2 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

How Fire and Rubble is technically different from Red Thunder?

I'll try to answer that one, best I can (I'm BFC's content manager-type for FR, but I don't see the code guts of the beast)-

The code is updated to the latest version, as RT is behind the curve on updates. BFC don't really do code changes beyond weapon specific stuff for each game or module- but they update all the games to the current standard (eventually, for a really nominal fee) to the work that goes into that. I don't know of any company that keeps entire game systems going like this, otherwise people would mainly just be playing the latest one. So FR will be updated again with bug fixes (free), or any code changes that keep the entire game system current (generally 10 bucks?). That would be "Update 5.00", and who knows when or what that may hold- but FR will be the latest and greatest code (with all the joys and terrors that brings for developers).

Besides that, the differences are related to the period after RT, and are many- There are extra terrain elements, and new models (buildings, flavor objects, walls, etc) to add a more middle-European look. Lots of new maps and scenarios. Campaigns are generally more manageable unit counts. Vastly fewer swamps. More urban and town battles, but not confined to that. Additional branches of service (Volkssturm, Waffen SS, Partisans, and more). New gear, uniforms, vehicles.

It's quite big for a module, and more the size of a base game in its content.

[Aragorn2002]

43 minutes ago, benpark said:

I'll try to answer that one, best I can (I'm BFC's content manager-type for FR, but I don't see the code guts of the beast)-

The code is updated to the latest version, as RT is behind the curve on updates. BFC don't really do code changes beyond weapon specific stuff for each game or module- but they update all the games to the current standard (eventually, for a really nominal fee) to the work that goes into that. I don't know of any company that keeps entire game systems going like this, otherwise people would mainly just be playing the latest one. So FR will be updated again with bug fixes (free), or any code changes that keep the entire game system current (generally 10 bucks?). That would be "Update 5.00", and who knows when or what that may hold- but FR will be the latest and greatest code (with all the joys and terrors that brings for developers).

Besides that, the differences are related to the period after RT, and are many- There are extra terrain elements, and new models (buildings, flavor objects, walls, etc) to add a more middle-European look. Lots of new maps and scenarios. Campaigns are generally more manageable unit counts. Vastly fewer swamps. More urban and town battles, but not confined to that. Additional branches of service (Volkssturm, Waffen SS, Partisans, and more). New gear, uniforms, vehicles.

It's quite big for a module, and more the size of a base game in its content.

That is of course good to hear (again). And I don't want to be sarcastic, but the development took as long as a base game. Is it realistic to expect FR this month?

Edited April 6, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[Ultradave]

5 hours ago, benpark said:

The code is updated to the latest version, as RT is behind the curve on updates.

And that may alleviate some of the infantry comments. The update fixed several infantry behavior issues across titles, such as the charging toward the enemy when routed, behavior under suppressing fire, and finding cover. Those aren't in RT as it stands but are part of FR, and it shows.

Infantry come into their own in some of the vicious street fighting you'll see in FR where anything with wheels and tracks becomes a target without lots of block clearing infantry support. 

Dave

[MikeyD]

If you play multiple CM games you soon see a wide variation in infantry lethality. Infantry in CM Black Sea is far more lethal than any infantry in CM Final Blitzkrieg. American inf with M1 Garand are far more lethal than Russians with their bolt action Mosin Nagants. Russians with PPSh smgs go through German infantry like a buzz saw, but you've got to close with them first. A PPSh smg would easily outrange a Thompson smg. A bailed tanker with an automatic pistol is likely to shoot down a nearby Kar98k rifle wielder before he can get off a shot.

Usually if CM gameplay doesn't meet your expectation its more often the fault of the  expectation than the game mechanics. I recall back-in-the-day there being endless debates on the expected penetration stats of a particular Russian 45mm anti-tank gun. Some poster could not believe the gun would perform so poorly or so well (I forget which). They had a preconception that they couldn't shake.

[Anonymous_Jonze]

1 hour ago, Ultradave said:

And that may alleviate some of the infantry comments. The update fixed several infantry behavior issues across titles, such as the charging toward the enemy when routed, behavior under suppressing fire, and finding cover. Those aren't in RT as it stands but are part of FR, and it shows.

Infantry come into their own in some of the vicious street fighting you'll see in FR where anything with wheels and tracks becomes a target without lots of block clearing infantry support. 

Dave

Yeah. I, for one, can't even play RT in its current form. Having infantry abandon foxholes under heavy arty fire is just too much. On the bright side, CMBN is really enjoyable now with the latest patch. Hedgerow battles are pretty brutal.

[Artkin]

19 hours ago, MikeyD said:

CM Cold War. Tank heavy and US infantry don't have a single sniper weapon. This is going to be interesting.

 It will feel strange coming from CMRT. 

[Artkin]

2 hours ago, Anonymous_Jonze said:

Yeah. I, for one, can't even play RT in its current form. Having infantry abandon foxholes under heavy arty fire is just too much. On the bright side, CMBN is really enjoyable now with the latest patch. Hedgerow battles are pretty brutal.

Honestly I havent even noticed this behavior in cmrt 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Artkin

[dbsapp]

7 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Usually if CM gameplay doesn't meet your expectation its more often the fault of the  expectation than the game mechanics. 

It's not reality, it's not the game that perfectly captures reality (even if we suppose that we know what's reality and how to translate it into game).

It's just a game.

[Ithikial_AU]

2 hours ago, dbsapp said:

It's not reality, it's not the game that perfectly captures reality (even if we suppose that we know what's reality and how to translate it into game).

It's just a game.

I'm assuming you are new to the series? The best way I've tried to explain Combat Mission as a strategy title is it's more equivalent to ARMA or DCS than say Call of Duty. If you are coming off something like the Men of War or the Steel Division series there's still going to be a huge learning curve. (That's not to say those titles are inferior in any way - just aiming for a different audience). CM has always placed realism / history > gameiness. Don't expect everything you face to have a natural counter or for everything to be perfectly balanced - it wasn't, and the games reflect this and embrace these differences. Sometimes there simply isn't a counter at all and you need to think of adhoc ways to get around the problem to achieve your objective.

MikeyD's examples about different small arms is a great example. Terrain plays a huge role in the effectiveness of infantry. You may have a company of Soviet SMG's at your disposal and feel invincible, but if your battlefield is open farmland and fields with clear LOS/LOF and I'm backing my riflemen and LMG totting Germans. Urban warfare... I'd probably back you in a straight up fight between the exact same forces.

9 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Russians with PPSh smgs go through German infantry like a buzz saw, but you've got to close with them first.

Or visually...

[Freyberg]

It's the rage, frustration and infuriation that keep you coming back for more

[Chibot Mk IX]

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2021 at 10:42 PM, dbsapp said:

Infantry in Red Thunder seems to be completely impotent.

It doesn't shoot back, it's too vulnerable and it stops to implement order after the first shots from the enemy. Moving slow make soldiers exausted in 2 minutes after they crouched 10 meters.

The single machine gunner can wipe out the squad in a matter of seconds. Soldiers can't assault buildings or fortifications or woods no matter what type of order you give them. 

It requiers a lot of micromanagement, including orders to shoot particular area or units, to make them do something except of dying.

Like in some ancient games, e.g.Sudden Strike, the infantry single role is to observe and find the enemy positions. It is the tanks that do the killing.

Actually, it's quite frustrating and unrealistic. Graviteam's games made much better use of infantry with substantially less micromanagement and  greater survivability of the infantry.

Burning bunkers mission is the great example of infantry negligible role in the game. You have hundreds of soldiers, but the only things you need are the tanks with flametowers, which you have to direct manually, because they don't see German machine guns firing under their nose. Infantry can't make it even close to German positions. For the whole time playing the game I saw my men firing at the enemy maybe twice, despite I tried to place them at the locations with line of sight on their foe.

Would Fire and Rubble make improvements to TacAI and infantry behavior or it would be repackaging of the same Red Thunder with new units and maps?

I can understand your frustration. My wargame buddy and I had a conversation couple days ago. He is more connected to John Tiller’s Squad Battle series. In that game he understands he is in charge of Battalion , sending the instruction and guideline to Company COs and Platoon leaders to get their job done, he don’t get the Combat mission series because he is confused about his role here.  Is he a Battalion CO? Yes, he has a whole Bn of Panzer + PzG under his command, But he has to make decision for every squad? Crap.

CM is full of details . Sending your squad stand behind a fence in a gunfight with MG-42 will get everyone killed in 3 MG bursts. Request your squad stand behind a short stone wall, they will stand and shoot back, they could probably suppress then destroy the MG-42.  This is where CM shines. At the same time this is where it is causing confusion and uncomfortable.  Where the squad should hide is a decision of SL. If the player has to make the decision for every squad , then we are playing as a Bn./Co. commander , a platoon leader and a squad leader.  That requires a lot of micromanagement to help each squad to find the correct position, at the same time player still have to keep a big picture of the whole battlefield, it is not an easy task. 

I won’t comment on  Graviteam's games. I like some of its feature , dislike others. Overall I didn’t play too much Graviteam’s game. But I agree with others. Infantry is not correctly modeled in that game. They make infantry as superman.

 

 

I can share how I frustrated when I change from CMBB/CMAK to CMX2 games. In CM1 the infantry battle is relatively easy. You bring up enough squad to achieve at least 3:1 odds.  Check the terrain description, then depends on terrain you may have to slightly adjust the number of squad you need, or chose a different approaching route . 2/3 of your force function as a fire base, 1/3 advance . Relatively easy.   In CMX2 the basic concept is still the same , but how you execute the plan does matter. As people saying the devil is in the detail. The relative spotting system and information sharing changed the game. In CM1 you have the 2/3 of your attacking force shooting at the spotted enemy instantly, in CMX2 you may have only one squad fire, while others sitting behind do nothing. And more natural feeling terrain with up and downs slop makes reverse slop defense an important doctrine in CMX2 . It is a good habit that you create a Way point , then use target command from the way point to find out what you can see and what you cannot see from that point.  Again, that means it will requires a lot of micromanagement and the understanding of the game mechanism  

Edited April 7, 2021 by Chibot Mk IX

[Freyberg]

Combat Mission is a game, with its tricks and quirks (which are part of playing and learning any game); but it is also a realistic game.

If you are playing WWII, and you can advance a mainly infantry force 500m in one hour, against a fairly well-equipped enemy in good cover, without huge casualties, that's a pretty impressive achievement for that period.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

5 hours ago, Freyberg said:

Combat Mission is a game, with its tricks and quirks (which are part of playing and learning any game); but it is also a realistic game.

If you are playing WWII, and you can advance a mainly infantry force 500m in one hour, against a fairly well-equipped enemy in good cover, without huge casualties, that's a pretty impressive achievement for that period.

Damn skippy!

[MikeyD]

There was an interesting Youtube video by Usually Hapless where he compares American/British/German infantry squads (and I think mentions the Russians too). He highlighted the type of weapon you're fielding makes all the difference. Germans have their bolt action Kar98k rifle but they're supported by the murderous MG42. Americans are just supported by B.A.R. but they make up for it with everybody fielding the M1 Garand semi-auto, plus there's a lot more bodies in an American squad. Brits more resemble the Germans with their bolt-action rifles except their LMG isn't on par with MG42.

Russians seem to be roughly equivalent to Brits. A small-ish squad with bolt action rifles and a lackluster lmg embedded,  plus the platoon leader with his LMG. This is all a generalization of course. It doesn't account for the scattering of assault rifles within units or  attached forces within a company structure like hmg squads, mortar and sniper teams and smg squads which are murderous at close range.

In Fire and Rubble there's the new volkssturm and partisans. a veritable hodge-podge of weapon types that makes it difficult to grade their relative effectiveness.

[DLaurier]

On 4/4/2021 at 10:42 PM, dbsapp said:

Infantry in Red Thunder seems to be completely impotent.

It doesn't shoot back, it's too vulnerable and it stops to implement order after the first shots from the enemy. Moving slow make soldiers exausted in 2 minutes after they crouched 10 meters.

The single machine gunner can wipe out the squad in a matter of seconds. Soldiers can't assault buildings or fortifications or woods no matter what type of order you give them. 

It requiers a lot of micromanagement, including orders to shoot particular area or units, to make them do something except of dying.

Like in some ancient games, e.g.Sudden Strike, the infantry single role is to observe and find the enemy positions. It is the tanks that do the killing.

Actually, it's quite frustrating and unrealistic. Graviteam's games made much better use of infantry with substantially less micromanagement and  greater survivability of the infantry.

Burning bunkers mission is the great example of infantry negligible role in the game. You have hundreds of soldiers, but the only things you need are the tanks with flametowers, which you have to direct manually, because they don't see German machine guns firing under their nose. Infantry can't make it even close to German positions. For the whole time playing the game I saw my men firing at the enemy maybe twice, despite I tried to place them at the locations with line of sight on their foe.

Would Fire and Rubble make improvements to TacAI and infantry behavior or it would be repackaging of the same Red Thunder with new units and maps?

I dont have any problem getting them to do reasonable things.

[chuckdyke]

6 minutes ago, DLaurier said:

Would Fire and Rubble make improvements to TacAI and infantry behavior or it would be repackaging of the same Red Thunder with new units and maps?

I don't find any problems with Soviet infantry in RT. They are anything but impotent, just share some screenshots of the tactics you employed. 

[DLaurier]

9 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

I don't find any problems with Soviet infantry in RT. They are anything but impotent, just share some screenshots of the tactics you employed. 

you quoted me as saying what the other guy said.

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, DLaurier said:

you quoted me as saying what the other guy said.

We both quoted it 9 hours ago. I just quote my experience and not anybody else's. I played CM close to 20 years now and found infantry of all nationalities well reflected. 

[DLaurier]

5 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

We both quoted it 9 hours ago. I just quote my experience and not anybody else's. I played CM close to 20 years now and found infantry of all nationalities well reflected. 

My words were "I dont have any problem getting them to do reasonable things.".
You quoted me as saying "Would Fire and Rubble make improvements to TacAI and infantry behavior or it would be repackaging of the same Red Thunder with new units and maps".
... which is actualy what the OP said. Not me.
I'm sure this is just a bizzare glitch, and not a deliberate attempt to roll me into the OP. But it is deeply jarring and disturbing to see someone else's words attributed to me.
I just want you to please go back and correct the attribution.

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, DLaurier said:

I just want you to please go back and correct the attribution.

I tried to edit and delete it. I just reported it to be deleted. No offense intended. 

[BornGinger]

Who cares what faults we make while writing our posts. We're all friends here.

Edited April 16, 2021 by BornGinger