Jeff Duquette Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Originally posted by Wildwolf45: I ended up having to order another squad in and they managed to catch it on the flank. Perhaps this was the tactic you should have used in the first place rather than the extremely creative frontal assault. Out of curiosity, how many casualties do you personally think is a reasonable number when conducting a screaming stand-up and sprint frontal assault against an AT gun blasting away with HE? Zero, one, two, three, four, six, eight? Or are any one of these casualty rates a statistical possibility? However, to be fair to the tactically impaired, I have only been testing this from the perspective of me playing the ATG\ATGs rather than the AI playing the ATG\ATGs. I suppose the AI may be "cheating" with respect to ATG fire. The question would than be is the AI cheating more so with ATGs accuracy than with other weapons. All the more reason to look under the hood and see what the games engine is doing with respect to shot dispersion and hit probability. Regards JD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnN Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 If I understand correctly, his initial attack was in the flank and the gun crew had to rotate the gun (ie entire piece). This matches my experience as well - it doesn't happen always but it does happen. I've had my tank crews do the same against enemy infantry, so I'm not sure it's an AI cheat issue (in fact, if we exclude scripted artillery attacks and the like I haven't seen any evidence of AI cheating at all, which is a refreshing change). I've read that the closer you are as an infantryman to a tank the safer it is, I don't find that to be the case in ToW. I suspect the same would be true for AT guns, otherwise why was it standard practice to shield them from infantry using infantry, and for the gunners to use machine guns and small arms for defence close up? Have fun Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 "Cheating" in the sense that the AI is given some advantage in final hit probability over the same hit probability for the Human player... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildwolf45 Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wildwolf45: I ended up having to order another squad in and they managed to catch it on the flank. Perhaps this was the tactic you should have used in the first place rather than the extremely creative frontal assault. Out of curiosity, how many casualties do you personally think is a reasonable number when conducting a screaming stand-up and sprint frontal assault against an AT gun blasting away with HE? Zero, one, two, three, four, six, eight? Or are any one of these casualty rates a statistical possibility?</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Originally posted by Wildwolf45: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wildwolf45: I ended up having to order another squad in and they managed to catch it on the flank. Perhaps this was the tactic you should have used in the first place rather than the extremely creative frontal assault. Out of curiosity, how many casualties do you personally think is a reasonable number when conducting a screaming stand-up and sprint frontal assault against an AT gun blasting away with HE? Zero, one, two, three, four, six, eight? Or are any one of these casualty rates a statistical possibility?</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildwolf45 Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Yes, it is a game. Which is why I took more than a little offense when you felt you needed to sarcastically call my tactics "extremely creative" and then go on to imply that I was "tactically impaired". It ticked me off so I replied in kind. Alright? Can we get back on topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts