Infantry in Panzer Command?

[kipanderson]

Erik,

The heart of any tactical wargame, and of real world combat, is the infantry battle. It is fine to have lots of tanks around for fun, if you wish, but it would be a huge mistake and adversely affect the entire game play and realism, the lot in fact, if the infantry modelling were not of an equally high quality to the armour modelling.

A high quality infantry game is the base from which quality armour games are built.

Those games that skimp on the infantry modelling and put all their energy into the armour side of development fail, without exception.

Hoping you have not ignored the infantry in favour of the armour.

All the best,
Kip.

[Becket]

Erik has some interesting comments on this in the Soviet gameplay thread.

(Speaking of that thread...how did I manage to convince myself that the Soviet force involved wasn't Guards when that's stated in the text entering this forum....)

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: kipanderson

A high quality infantry game is the base from which quality armour games are built.

Those games that skimp on the infantry modelling and put all their energy into the armour side of development fail, without exception.

The original M-1 Tank Platoon was an exception to this. Times have changed since a 386 was a suitable gaming platform though.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: kipanderson

Erik,

The heart of any tactical wargame, and of real world combat, is the infantry battle. It is fine to have lots of tanks around for fun, if you wish, but it would be a huge mistake and adversely affect the entire game play and realism, the lot in fact, if the infantry modelling were not of an equally high quality to the armour modelling.

A high quality infantry game is the base from which quality armour games are built.

Those games that skimp on the infantry modelling and put all their energy into the armour side of development fail, without exception.

Hoping you have not ignored the infantry in favour of the armour.

All the best,
Kip.

Well said.

[Yoozername]

Combat Mission certainly dropped the ball on its first game CMBO as far as infantry modeling. It was very apparent that testing on small unit actions was not done.

To really have a good infantry model, tests must be done with certain criteria as a goal. Something as simple as having a german infantry platoon stop a soviet infantry company, charging in the open that has no support, 9 out of 10 times lets say.

CMBB and CMAK never really got it right because of the effected units always crawling for cover and self-exhausting themselves.

The game should be built in layers and the infantry model is the foundation. Artillery, Armor, etc should be built on top of that.

[gunny]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Combat Mission certainly dropped the ball on its first game CMBO as far as infantry modeling. It was very apparent that testing on small unit actions was not done.

To really have a good infantry model, tests must be done with certain criteria as a goal. Something as simple as having a german infantry platoon stop a soviet infantry company, charging in the open that has no support, 9 out of 10 times lets say.

CMBB and CMAK never really got it right because of the effected units always crawling for cover and self-exhausting themselves.

The game should be built in layers and the infantry model is the foundation. Artillery, Armor, etc should be built on top of that.

Totally agree, as somebody who has first hand contemporary knowledge of infantry, and a little buff historical knowlege on the subject I would be very interested how infantry is implemented here.

Yes the CM series got it wrong IMO. Too many modes of infantry movement. Exausted infantry that stops moving? They always move, their velocity may slow with exaustion but one foot goes infront of the other.....I could go on but the question remains

I am enthusiastic, great looking game btw

[Erik Rutins]

We're still working on some parts of the infantry modeling and balance, but I'll plan to post some detail for you all on how infantry works once we feel we've got it finalized.

Regards,

- Erik

[Yoozername]

What I would like to see is infantry units that get pinned in the open and stay in the open.

That is, they are in 'good-order' (but pinned) and the game does not auto-move them to a bunch of bushes 250 meters away. This was the major flaw with CMBB/CMAK.

If reasonable cover/concealment is close enough, then I would want the game to model infantry auto-crawling towards it. If its just concealment (bushes, tall grass, etc.), I would expect the unit to crawl and stay there and attempt to hide and recover from pinned status (depending on if they continue to recieve fire, morale, leadership, etc.). If they crawl to cover (house, trench, gully, etc), I would expect them to recover sooner. Recovering from pinned status should factor in if they continue to recieve fire, if the unit that caused them to be pinned is taken under fire, etc.

PC will have infantry operating in open areas with small amounts of cover and concealment. Its important that they behave realistically. Lying prone on the ground, and finding small differences in the lay of the ground to protect oneself, gives decent protection from most forms of direct fire. Proximity to the enmy should also be factored in.

IRL, moving and recieving fire (unless one is conducting some mass assault) usually results in infantry going to ground. The drill is then for your covering elements to take the firing unit under its own fire. Once the threat has been neutralized, movement can pick up again.

[gunny]

So many things to consider, without wanting to over complicate. Keep the movement modes to 3 and let the programming sort out suppresion and initiative. For example:

1. Trained units with High morale attacking, advancing to an objective, contact or charging. Whatever you call it will be killed before they are suppressed or pinned. I know it sounds counter intuitive but thats the fact. They simply aren't completely aware of which of their mates have been dropped. They are bounding from cover to cover directly attacking. They have the initiative. Thats the drill they practice.

2. Trained units patrolling, or moving at normal speed using tactical methods don't have the initative if they were spotted first, can certainly be suppressed and go to ground, look for cover. They may gain the initative with superior firepower then attack. Or become further suppressed and break.

I think every unit should have a dynamic initiative rating based what is happening. The unit attacking or defending with higher initative cannot be suppressed by the targeted unit. If a 3rd unit enters to help the underdog then same rule applies relatively.

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: gunny

So many things to consider, without wanting to over complicate. Keep the movement modes to 3 and let the programming sort out suppresion and initiative. For example:

1. Trained units with High morale attacking, advancing to an objective, contact or charging. Whatever you call it will be killed before they are suppressed or pinned. I know it sounds counter intuitive but thats the fact. They simply aren't completely aware of which of their mates have been dropped. They are bounding from cover to cover directly attacking. They have the initiative. Thats the drill they practice.

2. Trained units patrolling, or moving at normal speed using tactical methods don't have the initative if they were spotted first, can certainly be suppressed and go to ground, look for cover. They may gain the initative with superior firepower then attack. Or become further suppressed and break.

I think every unit should have a dynamic initiative rating based what is happening. The unit attacking or defending with higher initative cannot be suppressed by the targeted unit. If a 3rd unit enters to help the underdog then same rule applies relatively.

I would like to see movement be restricted to cautious, rapid and assault.

Cautious means they will move at a speed they deem needed for the situation. At first, if there is no enemy percieved firepower, it may actually be at a medium speed (bounding groups covering each other). If enemy fire opens up at anyone near them, it may temporarily halt and then resume at a slower pace. If the firepower is directed at them (and they do not pin but most likely will) they revert to crawling/halting and returning fire if they feel they can damage the enemy.

Rapid is a risk the player takes to move units quickly in the game. The units will move out with the basis on getting to the move to point as quickly as possible. If the enemy opens up, there is a very good chance they will pin and or break. If there is enemy fire but not directed at them, they will slow down and even halt and take up positions. They are now in a fire mode and if the next reaction phase comes, they can not be given a move order. A very good unit might actually revert to cautious but not typically.

Assault means assigning a move-to order into a position that contains an enemy unit or an objective. The distance is limited by the units initiative or rating. Giving an Assault order to a russian conscript to assault a German HMG 400 meters away is not allowed. A German panzergrenadier veteran squad that has a HQ close by may assault up to 150 meters for example. Assaulting units move in small bounds and can deliver effective moving fire onto the objective. They sustain more casualties before pinning. They typically will take casualties and 'halt' longer between bounds. If too many casualties are taken, they almost cease to move forward. When the game determines they are within final assault distance (grenading and coordinating the final rush), it determines what state they are in and decides how it plays out from there. Units in an assault mode can not be given any orders during the orders phase or reaction phase. This models the committment that the player has made to a plan.

Each of these movement modes is vulnerable to firepower in different ways. Rapid is especially vulnerable to direct firepower coming from the direction it is moving in. This models the group being somewhat in column as they hustle forward. Assault is modeling a unit that is spread out parallel to the objective. It would alos be somewhat vulnerable to fire from its flanks but not nearly as bad as a rapid moving unit that happens upon a SMG unit firing down its column. Cautious movement is the best protected in most situations sine there are not that many men upright and moving at once.

I want to throw out the idea of player assigned objectives. These are locations that the player wants to attack. A German player may get to assign more of these or edit them as the game unfolds. This models Command&Control&Leadership.

I also want to say that I would want the game to handle the actual movement taken by the units. I do not think the player should give all those micromovement orders that are in CM.

[Tommi]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
{snip} but I'll plan to post some detail for you all on how infantry works once we feel we've got it finalized.

How about it, Erik? Could you give us some more info on how the infantry works (you must've finalized it by now, if you're approx. a month from relase).

Also, I'd like to know how you're handling command & control. It seems you do have HQ units, as the center box on the interface panel has some units marked with stars. Unfortunately, it seems that infantry platoon HQs have been abstracted into the first squad of the platoon and are not separate HQ units (or?). This is a bit of a disappointment for me, but not a "game-killer".

With regards to movement orders, I would like it to be kept tight. That is, keep the number of movement orders relatively short. In Combat Mission the list of orders is a bit too crowded for my taste. Close Combat had just about the right mix of movement orders (and right-sized order list in general). IMHO, four movement orders is all you need -- Move Fast/Run (which becomes Assault if you place it on an enemy unit), Move ("regular move" at walking speed, a compromise between speed and caution), Cautious Move (slow advance, using maximum cover), and Crawl.

[Yoozername]

Screenshots, or even better a movie, of infantry combat would be nice.

[Erik Rutins]

Ok, sorry for the delay in posting on my side. Suffice it to say I've had a lot going on personally, but things are settling down now.

I'll post more info on infantry as well as screenshots and a movie this week.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

Ok, as promised, some additional info on Infantry in Panzer Command: Operation Winter Storm. Please note that this campaign historically was pretty armor-focused and that has been our emphasis, but the given the realities of time and budget, for this campaign we generally chose to add another tank before adding more infantry. In future campaigns, I'm pretty sure that focus will be reversed.

The main campaign focuses on armor-heavy battles, although there are two battles that include quite a lot of infantry as well. There is also a skirmish "quick battle" scenario that is very heavily infantry-oriented, to provide some balance for PBEM choices.

With all that said, the main formations involved on each side are a Panzer Korps for the Germans, with focus on the 6th, 17th and 23rd Panzer Divisions and some Mech and Tank units as well as some Rifle units on the Soviet side. The German campaign focuses on the 6th Panzer, the Soviet on the 7th Tank Corps.

As with all unit data in Panzer Command, infantry unit data is in easily editable XML files that allow you to adjust firepower, accuracy, morale, etc. to your liking.

For the German side, we have PanzerGrenadier Squads, regular Infantry Squads, Anti-Tank Rifle Teams, Anti-Tank Guns , MG-42 Teams and Pioneers. For the Soviet side, we have Rifle Squads, Guards Rifle Squads, Anti-Tank Rifle Teams, Anti-Tank Guns, Maxim MMG Teams and SMG Squads. Mortars are modeled off-map at present, though we plan to bring the smaller size mortars on-map in future expansions.

We initially were only showing three figures per squad. We've removed that limit. By default, you can show 3 or 5. However, the XML files can very easily be modded to allow more than five. I plan to include an alternate set of files with the historical number of infantry per squad for folks with systems that can handle it.

In this release, infantry units are treated as an inseparable whole unit. As a result, we don't support individual casualties, though that's something we definitely plan to add for the first infantry-oriented expansion we do. Future plans are obviously dependent on the success of the first release of this engine, so if you'd like to see what we've done and what we can do, please support us when Panzer Command is available for sale.

Each infantry unit is rated on the accuracy, range, rate of fire and firepower and penetration of its weapons. Accuracy, firepower and penetration are defined for each range band and weapons are aggregated for the squad or team. When an infantry unit fires at another infantry unit, first it rolls accuracy for each shot to see if it "hit" the opposing unit. The accuracy roll is influenced by cover and other modifiers. If it "hit", then the firepower is the most important statistic. Firepower can be reduced by cover as well and infantry that is stationary, whether in cover or in the open, reduces firepower directed against it. Conversely, infantry running in the open or riding exposed on a vehicle is penalized, with firepower that hits it increased in magnitude. The result is that a squad can hug the ground and hang on for a while (as long as it doesn't break in terms of morale) while a squad next to it that's sprinting around gets shot to pieces.

When firing, you can direct your fire against a single enemy unit or fire at a point on the map (area fire). The latter is most likely to just suppress what's in the area (whether you see it or not), whereas the former is the best way to actually cause casualties.

In terms of conditions, infantry can be unsuppressed, suppressed or broken. Each infantry unit is rated for its initial morale, which determines how likely it is to break, it's ability to rally, which determines how likely it is to recover from being broken and the number of turns it can remain broken before it is considered effectively dispersed and removed from the field.

When infantry takes fire, it's possible for the cover and other modifiers to reduce firepower to the point where an infantry squad can only be suppressed or broken, rather than destroyed. Similarly, with positive modifiers a low firepower unit can end up with a good chance to destroy an enemy. In general, the best "roll" will result in destruction, the next best in breaking the enemy infantry, then suppression and finally no effect.

Whenever a unit sustains a roll that would destroy it, we conduct another check to see if it was destroyed or only suffered casualties. If it makes this roll, a message stating "[unit] suffered casualties" is displayed and the unit is suppressed rather than being destroyed. This is generally a good indicator to the player that it's too hot where the unit currently is and that it will need help or it will soon be destroyed.

For the most part, you want to use infantry in cover and not expose them to machine gun or HE fire in the open. With the amount of armor in this campaign and the fact that the terrain was mostly open ground, infantry can have a tough time of it. Most of these battles were also fairly dynamic and the situation in the front was pretty fluid so only in a few instances were entrenchments really of any effect. For this reason, we've included limited fortifications and plan to expand on that in future expansions.

That's a basic summary of what we have in the game in terms of infantry. I realize infantry fans will want more. We can do it, but it didn't make sense to over-emphasize infantry for this release since the campaign itself was focused on armor and largely in "tank country" historically. I think tank-lovers will find a lot to like in the initial release and infantry afficionados will not be disappointed, but future expansions should make infantry fans much happier.

Regards,

- Erik

[Yoozername]

Is firepower decreased once casualties are taken? Or rate of fire reduced?

[ravinhood]

We initially were only showing three figures per squad. We've removed that limit. By default, you can show 3 or 5. However, the XML files can very easily be modded to allow more than five. I plan to include an alternate set of files with the historical number of infantry per squad for folks with systems that can handle it.

Woohoo thank you thank you thank you.... 12 infantry per squad, "quick battles" skirmish mode....I am in heaven.

Only one thing left what about difficulty levels will they be like Combat Mission where I can set % +/- to myself and/or the AI??? Also an experience modifier of up to +3 would be great also. I usually set the AI experience to +2 and give them +10% more points or minus 10% to myself for excellent battles even "meeting engagements" are fun now.

Just played a 2000pt quick battles of CMETO with german infantry crack/veteran partroopers vs all British green/regular infantry(me). What a battle, what fun, I barely won a minor victory and that because of once again the kamakazie/banzai last 10 turns play of the AI trying to keep me from having the last objective even when it was winning. ....grrrrrr.

EDIT: [[In this release, infantry units are treated as an inseparable whole unit. As a result, we don't support individual casualties, ]]

Do this mean what I think it do? If an infantry unit is shot is not a little figure of a man not going to disappear from the unit (say I'm using 12 men per unit)???? Combat Mission abstracts this based on 3 men per unit, once a number of men in the unit have been killed then one of the animated men disappear. So if I'm using a 12 man unit and one dies is it going to disappear or not???

[wodin]

"In this release, infantry units are treated as an inseparable whole unit. As a result, we don't support individual casualties"

Oh............Hmmm.......looks like I will wait for Lock n Load.

[kipanderson]

Erik, hi,

I am much relieved by most of what I read and I do understand that this is a first release of a series that will build with each game. No problem there. I think you will find that most fans of CMX1 will jump at the chance of having even more fun with your new series alongside the new CMX2 Battlefront engine. There is room for both.

The fact that infantry units live or die as one unit, in the first release anyway, is fine. Life is not perfect [;)] With the modding potential of PzC it will be possible to mitigate this to some degree.

However, I do see one potential problem that you may be able to put me to rights over.

Do infantry units have the ability to be armed with both anti-armour and anti-personal weapons or do they just fire universal “attack points”? Allow me to explain.

In your screen shots of unit details for armour units, a Mark IV, a KV1 and so on… it looks as though armour units come equipped with different types of ammunition that will have very different effects on infantry and armour, as in CM. Is this the same for infantry units?

The particular reason for my concern is that during this period the major anti-armour weapons of infantry on both sides were variations on hand-held/thrown anti-armour close assault weapons. This could be modelled by giving infantry a small supply of “very short” range, fairly inaccurate but reasonably high penetration anti-armour weapons. Plus their usual small arms for anti-personal use.

Another example would be the Soviet 14.5mm anti-tank rifle with 35mm of penetration at 100m but very low anti-personal fire power.

Anyway… I will not labour the point any more [;)] you will have got my drift. Infantry units require the same split between anti-personal weapons and anti-armour weapons as armour unit have in PzC.

This is quite a big one, in my very prejudiced view [:)]. Simply giving infantry universal “attack points” would not wash with even the most fun loving, most moderate of grogs [:)].

A written answer will do fine, but maybe later, when you have time, a screenshot of the unit details of an infantry unit would be great.

Looking forward to the game,
All the best,
Kip.
PS. Do not forget Tank Hunter infantry units in the style of CMBB. For this time period they need to be there for both sides. Small squads of infantry armed with anti-armour close assault weapons. You cannot have infantry entirely and unrealistically toothless. If they did manage to get close and personal with tanks infantry of the period could be dangerous. So I am read.

[Erik Rutins]

Hi everyone,

I understand that we all want infantry to be perfectly modeled - that's a goal of ours as well, but there comes a point where you have to decide on your focus and make some trade-offs to get a first release out. I assure you that our long-term goal for infantry is not to leave them as single units for detail purposes.

I'll post a bit more detail later this week and I will try to get a movie together of primarily infantry combat for those who are not as excited about lots of armor. [;)]

To comment on Kip's question, yes you can model an infantry squad to have both it's normal anti-personnel firepower as well as a separate AT weapon of some kind (this could be an anti-tank rifle, a panzerfaust, etc.). Each weapon is modeled for penetration at various range bands, so even a squad with a LMG is a danger to a light vehicle like a truck and may even get a lucky shot on a halftrack as well. There are quite a few Soviet 14.5mm anti-tank rifles in the scenarios that come with the game as well.

Closer-in weapons are modeled in the close assault rules, which kick in when a vehicle gets within 30m of an infantry squad. I assure you they are not toothless.

Regards,

- Erik

[kipanderson]

Erik,

“yes you can model an infantry squad to have both it's normal anti-personnel firepower as well as a separate AT weapon of some kind (this could be an anti-tank rifle, a panzerfaust, etc.).”

Great… sounds perfect, just what I hoped for.

The more I hear about PC the better I like it but have been disappointed so many times by games that have potential but do not deliver on it that am inclined towards paranoia in always think the worse if things are not perfect [;)].


All the best,
Kip.