British Pioneers under-armored?

[c3k]

Gents,

A quick question due to some observations gained whilst playing CMBF.

My pioneers seem to die. Okay, a LOT of my men die. But, the pioneers seem to die VERY easily. I do not use them as storm troops, but rather to breach obstacles. That does put them at the front of the assault on occasion. A BREACH through a wall puts them on the enemy side of the wall. (Please, please, change the BREACH command so my men don't have to run through the hole.)

Anyway, the pioneers SEEM to take more casualties then normal infantry would. It almost seems as if they are not wearing any kind of body armor. One AK-74 burst results in all pioneers red or brown. This has happened repeatedly.

This is a purely non-scientific, non-tested, anecdotal, "feeling", about the vulnerability of pioneers. Has anyone else noted something like this?

Thanks,

Ken

[Apocal]

I do not use them as storm troops, but rather to breach obstacles. That does put them at the front of the assault on occasion. A BREACH through a wall puts them on the enemy side of the wall. (Please, please, change the BREACH command so my men don't have to run through the hole.)

They shouldn't have to. Breach command works when at the waypoint selected, you can breach a wall and have them run the opposite way.

This is a purely non-scientific, non-tested, anecdotal, "feeling", about the vulnerability of pioneers. Has anyone else noted something like this?

Not especially so. They occassionally get hosed down by a lucky burst or an RPG, but so does everyone else. What kind of circumstances are we talking about here? Maybe it's just the nature of the situation.

[c3k]

Hmmm, it's nice to know there's a way to breach a wall or building and NOT have to enter. I guess I need to practice that a bit to see how it works. I've always thought the BREACH movement had to go through the obstacle. Thanks.

As to the circumstances, there've been several (probably half a dozen or more). A single burst from a defending Syrian cuts down ALL the pioneers in range. The ranges have been from point blank, in which case many casualties are expected, to a range of approximately 100 meters. One burst from the far end of a football field resulting in 4 red/brown could just be an outlier, but in conjunction with all the other circumstances I noted, just adds to the weight of my "feel" that pioneers may be too vulnerable.

Time to create a few tests to breach things. And then I may need to use the just-volunteered pioneers to brave a bit of incoming fire.

Thanks,

Ken

[Chainsaw]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=88766

[c3k]

Chainsaw, thanks!

Embarrassingly enough, I'm sure I read that when it was posted. Oops.

Regards,

Ken

[MikeyD]

I had missed that thread, I'm happy you supplied the link! That's a clever solution that I had not hit on. I (apparently like most people) had mistakenly assumed the Breach waypoint needed to be on the far side of the wall. Live and learn

[Pvt. Ryan]

I find that if I put the blast waypoint on the near side of the wall the engineers often sit there and do nothing. If I put it on the far side of the wall they always blast through. I just cancel the fast command before they start running.

[TheVulture]

I find that if I put the blast waypoint on the near side of the wall the engineers often sit there and do nothing. If I put it on the far side of the wall they always blast through. I just cancel the fast command before they start running.

How close are you putting the start of the blast move to the wall? ISTR from my testing that when they get to the start of the blast move, they will blow up the first wall within about 12-15 meters of their position in the direction of the blast move (or of their current position if there is no move prior to the blast command). Then they do the fast move for the length of the blast move.

It doesn't depend on where you put the end of the blast move (the one you actually place with the blast command hotkey waypoint) - it's where the waypoint (or start position) before that is that matters.

[Pvt. Ryan]

The squad is usually right next to the wall when I give the command.

[MikeyD]

Yeh, there's a couple threads out there complaining about placing waypoints with associated target or face commands close together, and the AI assuming "we're already there!" and cancelling the whole string of commands.

[c3k]

Yes, but has ANYONE else noticed an increased vulnerability to small arms by the pioneers? (Note that this vulnerability has NOTHING to do with BLAST all. )

Thanks,

Ken

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

Yes, but has ANYONE else noticed an increased vulnerability to small arms by the pioneers? (Note that this vulnerability has NOTHING to do with BLAST all. )

Thanks,

Ken

Nope, but I also didn´t experience your problem with post blast vulnerability. The dust wall caused by the blast is wonderful cover (Have to add than when possible I put a rifle squad behind blasting pioneers as additional fire power) . I played Picadilly Circus PBEM (iron) and the only losses to my pioneers were by suffered when darting between buildings and once when they ignored the blast command and went in through the door

[DaveDash]

Gents,

A quick question due to some observations gained whilst playing CMBF.

My pioneers seem to die. Okay, a LOT of my men die. But, the pioneers seem to die VERY easily. I do not use them as storm troops, but rather to breach obstacles. That does put them at the front of the assault on occasion. A BREACH through a wall puts them on the enemy side of the wall. (Please, please, change the BREACH command so my men don't have to run through the hole.)

Anyway, the pioneers SEEM to take more casualties then normal infantry would. It almost seems as if they are not wearing any kind of body armor. One AK-74 burst results in all pioneers red or brown. This has happened repeatedly.

This is a purely non-scientific, non-tested, anecdotal, "feeling", about the vulnerability of pioneers. Has anyone else noted something like this?

Thanks,

Ken

I've noticed this as well and started a topic about it a while back. Not sure whether it was Pioneers or regular British infantry, but looking back now it may have been Pioneers. I lost an entire squad of Pioneers in a matter of seconds, running through rubble adjacent to a building that housed a Syrian regular infantry squad. I immediately went and did some testing with U.S. forces and it seemed business as usual there.

[c3k]

DaveDash,

Thanks for the corroboration.

My initial post was based on more than one observation of this perceived vulnerability. I have not done any test. (A bit busy with life and playing the game!)

My idea for a test would be to set up a firing lane, perhaps 100m long, sealed in by tall walls and paved so there is minimal cover/concealment, and set various units in it. The enemy would occupy a raised structure at the firing end. Several runs with different "target" units should provide some reliable data. Anyone have a better suggestion? (I won't do this for at least several days.)

Thanks,

Ken

[Chops]

Here is the link to the previous discussion regarding this issue -

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=88256

[DaveDash]

I have a suspicion that lethality of small arms is a lot higher at close ranges that before. Pioneers of course probably end up at close range quite a bit compared to other types of infantry. Maybe this is the case for the perceived lack of armour.

I think your testing plan would work c3k, but I'd test at various ranges as well (say 20m, 50m, 100m).

[c3k]

DaveDash,

Having read through the link Chops provided, I now remember your thread quite well. It seemed to get sidetracked a bit. Regardless, there seems to be a lot of "feel" that the Brits die too easily.

BF.C?

Ken

[c3k]

Okay, starting a couple of tests. I'm being a bit ruthless here, placing units like targets on a firing range. Good for the Syrians, bad for the Brits. I still need to tweak my setup a bit, but so far, Marines kick ass. Despite being targets, they're wiping out the shooters. The Brits are not. (HE weapons make a difference. Rapid firing 40mm back at the Syrians pins them.)

These are not even worthy of being labelled initial results. The test is not apples to apples yet.

More when I get it...

Ken

[dan/california]

Can you do some runs by fire-teams instead of squads, please? A marine squad just throws a phenomenal amount of suppression back the other way.

[hcrof]

Supress them with a tank MG, the squad won't be able to respond to that!

[c3k]

dan/california; yes, fireteams would work (or just taking out the 5 man squad leader team from the USMC squad). I like the 8 man British engineer section; 8 man British rifle section. So, I think I can get 8 men of other types (US) as well.

From the shooter side, I'd like nothing but AK-47/AK-74 shooters. Right now I've got grenade launchers and RPGs.

More later....

Ken

[c3k]

It's later...

I've run several iterations of my test at 100 meters. Marines, Brit Riflemen, and Brit Engineers all seem to have similar characteristics. These are initial results only... More later.

(Something I noted during the tests and then had to tweak to keep it from affecting the results: Fire superiority is KEY in winning the battle/suppressing the enemy. One of the most important aspects of that seems to be automatic support weapons and, more importantly, High Explosives. Engineers have none of either. The USMC M32 is a winner if it gets into the fight. The first few seconds are the key...)

Oh, did I mention how much more impressed I get the closer I look at this game?

Ken

[c3k]

Okay, lots of tests...

All units were targeted by AK-74 and RPK (7.62) small arms only. (2 x 5 man uncon fighter groups, elite, fanatic, full ammo. Each group had 3 x AK-74 and 2 x RPK.)

The ranges varied to a maximum of only 100 meters. All Brit Rifle, Brit Engineer, and USMC squads had 8 men. All were placed on open ground pavement and hemmed in by walls. The uncons were elevated and inside a building. At no point, in ANY test, did any uncon get wounded; in fact, I do not think a single blue force even fired a single round. Pure targets. (They started out under HIDE; this gave the red an immediate and unassailable advantage, especially when coupled with the terrain they were in.)

The results: there is NO difference in how rapidly one group sustained casualties when compared to any other group.

In game, obviously, red would not have such a consistent advantage. It took a LOT of tweaking to get all the blue forces to just sit there and get shot. If the Marines were not PINNED immediately, or had a full squad (13), they would shred the red forces, even with all the advantages red started with.

I think the different "feel" for how long British forces last, or how they "take" fire, has to do more with how they dish it out. They do not produce the immediate "in your face" firepower advantage over an enemy that the USMC are able to produce. This is what results in more casualties to the British; they don't win the firepower battle as rapidly as USMC.

Regards,

Ken

[Chops]

I ran some tests yesterday as well. I had Army, Marine, Brit Rifle, and Brit Pioneer squads entering a single story building with a Red Mech Inf. Squad positioned across the street in a two story building. I had a high wall set up on the Blue side, so that the units would not see each other until Blue units were in the one story building.

I ran each test separately for each Blue unit. Each Blue unit had the same exact modifiers and experience levels, and entered the building using the Quick command.

The first round of tests involved the Red Unit on the first floor of the two-story building across the street. The second test involved a Red HQ unit on the second floor, as well as the original unit on the first floor.

The test results indicate that there is very little difference in casualties suffered among the various Blue units. In fact, the Brits experienced slightly less casualties.

Very interesting, since I was under the impression that the Brits were taking more casualties.