The Queen of Battle: The Infantry

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: Orzel Bialy

Glenn, got to agree with Bernie and Eric.

The manner in which you worded that opening statement looks like an intentional poke in the eye at the "old crowd" members who don't hang around here any more or as much...on the basis that they may have "ran away" because the infantry had suddenly become a force to be reckoned with over the vaunted tank.

As Bernie and Eric mentioned the factors surrounding the real reasons why some of the old crowd doesn't frequent this forum run the range of the rainbow...from just plain "moving on" to finding new forums to post on. I too doubt it has very little to do with the game itself.

I meant nothing of the sort, Ken. You guys are reading too much into this. If you're thinking that you aren't welcome here, then let me disabuse you of that notion. THIS forum is open to every player. Let's not start 2007 on the wrong foot.

Somehow the Gunny has become a whipping boy for his loyalty to Matrix. This seems odd to me, as I don't tow the party line. I maintain my independence, and this confuses some people.

My loyalty is for the integrity of the game itself. That's it, no more and no less.

Yeah, I have my own agenda, and I think this is what p*sses off some people. Nevertheless, I hope I've done my part to make the game better for everyone.

I'll keep at it as long as it maintains my interest.

[Orzel Bialy]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
I meant nothing of the sort, Ken. You guys are reading too much into this. If you're thinking that you aren't welcome here, then let me disabuse you of that notion. THIS forum is open to every player. Let's not start 2007 on the wrong foot.

Somehow the Gunny has become a whipping boy for his loyalty to Matrix. This seems odd to me, as I don't tow the party line. I maintain my independence, and this confuses some people.

My loyalty is for the integrity of the game itself. That's it, no more and no less.

Yeah, I have my own agenda, and I think this is what p*sses off some people. Nevertheless, I hope I've done my part to make the game better for everyone.

I'll keep at it as long as it maintains my interest.

I don't doubt (and I don't think anyone else does either) your loyalty to the game Glenn...but I also don't see you as a whipping boy for MG either.

The matter at hand has nothing what so ever to do with MG at all...it had to do solely with the impression left by the post you made. It just seemed like you were trying to elude to the fact that now that the infantry units had some bite there was a host of people who had "fled into the hills" sort of speak.

Believe me...I would be posting a reply to this thread regardless of who it's author was. [;)]

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

They will blindly advance, get isolated, and be destroyed one by one .

Are you referring to following part of game manual?

Vehicles that move adjacent to infantry may be close assaulted by the foot soldiers (who are
climbing on top of the tank, dropping grenades down its hatches, etc.) The minimum chance for
close assault uses a formula that uses the number of men assaulting. So, for example, a 10-man
squad has a base 10% chance.

If there are 10 groups of infantry with average number of 10 per group, only one of them will succeed by even damaging tank! And before said 10 infantry groups get even shot at it, tank has killed, suppressed and routed many other infantry groups. So one infantry company isn't going to take out tank company. Even with sufficient amount of infantry running towards tanks shouting URAA might not be good idea either, not without decent antitank weapons.

On the other hand, manual seems to be older than newest version of game and thus this information may be outdated. If this is case, what is % used right now?

[Goblin]

Matti,
 
The manual is still mostly correct. The problem is, for unspotted infantry, the assault can be, and likely will be, 90% - with the tank being either destroyed or immobilized. The chance of assaulting an immobilized tank on the next turn goes up for other attacking infantry (again, a max of 90%). Since vehicles spot worse than infantry, tanks moving alone into a group of hidden enemy infantry are not likely to survive, since they won't see the infantry. In woods, jungle, or a blind corner (city, etc), where the infantry cannot be spotted regardless, it is almost a guaranteed tank loss if they have no infantry to support them also.
 
 
Goblin

[Riun T]

The manual is suffering some need of update,, but the general system is the same,, I have found that the odds of the infantry doing a successful close assault have alot of varying factors. the first being what the speed and direction of intent are of the tank being assaulted,I've had lots of times where the vehicle has managed to drive passed imminent destruction simplely because I sellected a further than 3-6 hex move, I had an M15 in the LAE fight that I clicked for a 15 hex drive up the side of a lightly covered hillside,it drove 4 hexes,was close assaulted{which actually damaged the susspention slightly} and then clicked the rally button once rather than firing,and proceeded to drive the remaining 8 hexes to were I wanted him. he litterally outdrove the assaulters. also it depends on the field conditions around the assaulting squad! in the most recent DAR's that I'll convert to J-pegs today,,, I had a canadian engineer squad that was depleted to only 4 men retreat in the same travel direction of a couple of elephants that had breached my lines for the CASSINO delay I'm playing. Managed to get some smoke and heavyly forested area to hide in, and wait for those buggers and close assaulted them with ease because the engineers could see the approaching beasts for 3 full turns before they assaulted them,,It ment some repositioning before they got there,and the heat of battle was extreme around the engineers but they pulled it off and I'd like to believe its because they could watch how rushed the elephants were to get to the rear victory hexes,, and moving their maximum  speed couldn't see my engineers for all the action around them.

[FlashfyreSP]

If there are 10 groups of infantry with average number of 10 per group, only one of them will succeed by even damaging tank! And before said 10 infantry groups get even shot at it, tank has killed, suppressed and routed many other infantry groups. So one infantry company isn't going to take out tank company. Even with sufficient amount of infantry running towards tanks shouting URAA might not be good idea either, not without decent antitank weapons.

And if that one successful infantry unit is the first one the tank comes across? Then the other 9 units have an equal chance of defeating other tanks that come along.

This is an example of the 'flawed' thinking that permeates the wargaming world: that infantry are incapable of defeating tanks unless armed with specific anti-tank weapons. One does not need to destroy the vehicle to render it incapable of operating. Knock a track off with a well-placed grenade and the tank is immobile, and easier to defeat. If the crew inside can't see the infantry sneaking up on it, they won't be able to prevent them from attacking the tank. That's why tanks operate in teams, or as platoons, so they can "watch each others' backs"; one can use its MGs to "hose off" infantry attempting to attack its buddy.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

This is an example of the 'flawed' thinking that permeates the wargaming world: that infantry are incapable of defeating tanks unless armed with specific anti-tank weapons. One does not need to destroy the vehicle to render it incapable of operating.

In 1939 Finnish Defense Force didn't even have many decent AT weapons: 40 mm Bofors (AA cannons) were used instead where available and AT rifles (where available). Satchel charges and glass bottles filled with pitch and gasoline (called Molotov's coctail) were used instead. But they were usually thrown from trenches and fox holes. Not always tank came even close of trench line.

Oh well... that is history now and not every game come even close of that.

[Bernie]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

ORIGINAL: Orzel Bialy

Glenn, got to agree with Bernie and Eric.

The manner in which you worded that opening statement looks like an intentional poke in the eye at the "old crowd" members who don't hang around here any more or as much...on the basis that they may have "ran away" because the infantry had suddenly become a force to be reckoned with over the vaunted tank.

I meant nothing of the sort, Ken. You guys are reading too much into this. If you're thinking that you aren't welcome here, then let me disabuse you of that notion. THIS forum is open to every player. Let's not start 2007 on the wrong foot.

Ah yes... We're reading too much into this very plain, very simple statement you made, which opened this thread:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

One of the reasons I think that the "old" SPWaW crowd doesn't hang around here much anymore is because the game NOW recognizes the true "queen" : the infantry.

If you "meant nothing of the sort" then I ask again, why did you make that statement?

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Somehow the Gunny has become a whipping boy for his loyalty to Matrix.

Seems to me that it is a self-appointed position.

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

This seems odd to me, as I don't tow the party line. I maintain my independence, and this confuses some people.

No, what confuses people is when you make statements that seem designed to "stir the waters" and create a difficult situation, then you deny any such attempt, even to saying that you've been misunderstood, or that we "read too much" into your words. The confusion then comes from trying to decide if you really believe what you write, or if...

Perhaps a quotation by one of my favorite authors, Mark Twain, might better illustrate the point? Mr. Twain once wrote:

Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Yeah, I have my own agenda, and I think this is what p*sses off some people. Nevertheless, I hope I've done my part to make the game better for everyone.

I'll keep at it as long as it maintains my interest.

And here we come to, what I believe, is the crux of the matter. You do have your own agenda, and that is what ticks most people off about you, because that "agenda" seems to be little more than trying to place yourself at the center of attention. And, if you can't do that on personality, intelligence and positive contributions to the community, then you seem to have no compunctions against doing so by stirring up controversy and old issues long since laid to rest. Anything that gets the spotlight of community attention focused on "Gunny" seems to be just fine and dandy with you. And that, indeed, ticks people off.

[Goblin]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

One of the reasons I think that the "old" SPWaW crowd doesn't hang around here much anymore is because the game NOW recognizes the true "queen" : the infantry.

In truth, the riflemen dominated each and every battlefield of the war, no matter the terrain or the weather.

It took a while for the game code to recognize this basic truth, but now the lessons of combined-arms warfare are accounted for.

Glenn, I initially took offense because I read this and took it literally. If you meant to say (as you explained to me):

"Do not underestimate infantry in this game. They can, and will, kill unescorted tanks!", you probably should have said that, instead of bringing up the 'old crowd', and why they do not hang out at this forum as much (though quite a bit of the 'old crowd' do still hang here, as evidenced by the umbrage taken by the posters in this thread). Posts in a forum are not conducive to reading a person's actual intentions behind them.



Goblin

[Orzel Bialy]

Hey...should I be considering myself part of the "Old Crowd"? [:D]

I know from previous conversations here a while back that I am considered part of the "Old Guard" which should not to be confused with the "Very Old Guard" but, in turn, is not be confused with the "Young Guard", who I guess don't have the same perks and priviledges as either of the "Older Guards"...ie their own private keys to the executive bathrooms. [:D] [:'(]

[Zap]

I would like to take a look at that bathroom I'll bet you its nice.[:D]

[Alby]

I joined in 2000
I think I am part of the VERY old crowd..
[;)]

[Mau Fox]

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

If there are 10 groups of infantry with average number of 10 per group, only one of them will succeed by even damaging tank! And before said 10 infantry groups get even shot at it, tank has killed, suppressed and routed many other infantry groups. So one infantry company isn't going to take out tank company. Even with sufficient amount of infantry running towards tanks shouting URAA might not be good idea either, not without decent antitank weapons.

On the other hand, manual seems to be older than newest version of game and thus this information may be outdated. If this is case, what is % used right now?

Matti Kuokkanen, you could be very surprised and scared to learn how much damage a half platoon of bare infantry men can do to ANY tank BEFORE getting at close range assults ... [;)]

There are so MANY ways to play this game other than levelling the battlefield with dozens and dozens of iron toys. Believe me it is even funnier than that.

Of course no one with a healthy mind would face up a company of tanks with a company of infantry without adequate AT support.
But this is written in EVERY battle manuals. Even the real ones. [;)]

Mau Fox.

[tracer]

ORIGINAL: Orzel Bialy

Hey...should I be considering myself part of the "Old Crowd"? [:D]

I know from previous conversations here a while back that I am considered part of the "Old Guard" which should not to be confused with the "Very Old Guard" but, in turn, is not be confused with the "Young Guard", who I guess don't have the same perks and priviledges as either of the "Older Guards"...ie their own private keys to the executive bathrooms. [:D] [:'(]

...now if only you could remember to use Right Guard [:'(]

[FlashfyreSP]

ORIGINAL: tracer

ORIGINAL: Orzel Bialy

Hey...should I be considering myself part of the "Old Crowd"? [:D]

I know from previous conversations here a while back that I am considered part of the "Old Guard" which should not to be confused with the "Very Old Guard" but, in turn, is not be confused with the "Young Guard", who I guess don't have the same perks and priviledges as either of the "Older Guards"...ie their own private keys to the executive bathrooms. [:D] [:'(]

...now if only you could remember to use Right Guard [:'(]

Left Guard is a better position; fewer running plays to that side of the line.

[Orzel Bialy]

ORIGINAL: Zap

I would like to take a look at that bathroom I'll bet you its nice.[:D]

It's really is very nice...except if you go in there behind Tracer after one of his lunch time visits to Taco-Bell! [X(]

[Orzel Bialy]

ORIGINAL: tracer
...now if only you could remember to use Right Guard [:'(]

I use Arrid...[:'(]

An Orzel can, however, be considered Avant-Garde. [:D]

(notice cheap rip off of Goblin tag line method)

[tracer]

ORIGINAL: Alby

I joined in 2000
I think I am part of the VERY old crowd..
[;)]

IIRC, this place opened in 3/2000; before then the 'SP crowd' hung out at the Raiders forum (and I'm pretty sure I used to see your name there).


Hmmm...I just noticed that they no longer display your 'member-#' here. At one time each person's member-number appeared beneath their 'joined'-date, and since they were sequential a 2- or 3-digit member-# meant 'old-timer' ('course back then that could mean they pre-dated you by a couple months!).

[Orzel Bialy]

So that would make you guys part of the "Very Old Fart Guard"? [:'(]

[tracer]

ORIGINAL: Orzel Bialy

ORIGINAL: Zap

I would like to take a look at that bathroom I'll bet you its nice.[:D]

It's really is very nice...except if you go in there behind Tracer after one of his lunch time visits to Taco-Bell! [X(]

So no one bought my "it was the dog" alibi? [&:]