What's Wrong With Infantry-Accented Battles?

[KG Erwin]

I think the obsession with tank fleets blasting it out like some sort of land-battleships is vastly overrated. I prefer a more balanced slugfest, with the poor bloody infantry playing the primary role, as they did in the "real" war.

This is part of my attraction to the "up-close and personal" battles of the Pacific Theater, in which armor was primarily used as infantry support.

This is also why I believe that "Screaming Eagles" is the best of the Megas. One of my favorite scenes from "Band of Brothers" is from the Bastogne episode. An officer informs Winters and his men that the Germans have surrounded the town. Winters simply replies, "We're paratroopers. We are supposed to be surrounded."

[Five_of_Swords]

well its best to use both of course, but the nice thing about tanks in my opinion is the greater range of movement they have and the effect of direction, terrain as well as the greater accuracy and range etc. allows for more subtle tactics than im ever able to get with simply moving infantry into range and shooting until stuff dies. For me, it seems liek infantry is the backbone that sorta declare what territory you hold while the tanks are the primary things that effect real change. If you are lacking in armor or transport, and the enemy has a fair amount of artillery, I really dont understand how you could ever gain ground.
infantry are supposed to be good at advancing in low visibility, like forest or urban areas, but ive found this to be sorta untrue, you lose a LOT of units from the adjacent opfire. I get much better luck just bombarding with artillery and then rushing in with tanks, flame tanks especially. Very rare to lose any units this way.
The 2 infantry i really love and focus the most on are special forces and snipers. Paratroopers would be neat, and ive tried to use them, but its just so obnoxious when the other guy happens to have some AA and it destroys a large part of your force on turn 1. The asymmetric risk is simply too lame.

[m10bob]

I love to have armor, but I always use them in a support role, even on a major armoured offensive.

[vahauser]

This thread is just re-hashing an old issue that has been discussed many times before.
 
The title of the game is Steel Panthers.  The whole original design intent by Gary Grigsby was based on tactical tank combat.  Everything else was originally subordinated to tank combat.
 
When Matrix took over, they mutated (or hijacked) the game away from Grigsby's original design intent.  This is old history.  Today, tank combat has been subordinated to infantry/artillery combat.  This is exactly opposite to what was originally designed.  Might as well call today's game Foot Sloggers: World at War.
 
The only good news is that today's game has better graphics and it still has tanks in it, so that I can still attempt to play Steel Panthers as it was originally intended.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

The title of the game is Steel Panthers.  The whole original design intent by Gary Grigsby was based on tactical tank combat.  Everything else was originally subordinated to tank combat.

I've played the original game, and I still have it. There are two scenarios from Finland front, and neither has any armor for Finns. Same goes for Cold Will scenario disk.

When Matrix took over, they mutated (or hijacked) the game away from Grigsby's original design intent.  This is old history.  Today, tank combat has been subordinated to infantry/artillery combat.  This is exactly opposite to what was originally designed.  Might as well call today's game Foot Sloggers: World at War.

The only good news is that today's game has better graphics and it still has tanks in it, so that I can still attempt to play Steel Panthers as it was originally intended.

Aw heck! Classic BattleTech still has BattleMechs on it, but it can also be played with swordsmen, archers, and steamboats... Seriously!

[edit]
Hmm... what might come out of BattleMech with tech A rating steam engine on it... requires some liberties with the rules

[vahauser]

Matti,
 
All I'm saying is that this thread is just an old debate that has been done many times in earlier threads.  There is nothing more to say in this thread that hasn't already been said before in earlier threads.  That's all I'm saying.