When would you use the infantery gun?

[Awac835]

I cant say how Tank Destroyers are in offense since i havent tried them. But i fougt against them on some random maps where i was building alot of armor and they do extremly well against tank in the defensive. and i mean really well.

[Xenomath]

ORIGINAL: Willburn

Ac has 10 attacks with 65. Demodded thats 32.5. The IG does a clean shot 150 (100*1.5) but only 2 attacks. Rifle has 100 hp. Default entrenchment in city is 100 so rifle is 200hp. chance for ac to hit once = 32.5/200 16.25% chance for IG to hit 75%. (150/200) on average with ac 10 attacks it would hit 1.6 times and the ig would hit 1.5 times.

With my understanding of the combat system it should be 8.125% and 37.5% but the ratio is still the same, so...

[Willburn]

Ah, could you show how you calculated that? Im still figuring out how combat works. (you can see what my thinking about combat system is in another thread) And as you say the ratio is still the same.. hmm.

[Xenomath]

I can't find it in the manual any more but I guess it works like the example of blowing a bridge I found on p.34
"Example: An engineer unit with 40 engineers has 800 blow points (40 * 20). It tries to blow a bridge over a major river with 1000 structural points. The code then throws a random number between 1 and 800 vs. a random number between 1 and 1000. If the random (800) number is higher, then the attempt succeeds, otherwise it fails."

Substitute blow points with attack points and structural points with hit points. Maybe someone can confirm this?

So when both values are the same it's 50% to hit.
If I calculate corretly it would be AP/HP *0.50 when AP is lower than HP,
and 1 - HP/AP * 0.50 when AP is higher than HP.

[Willburn]

Brilliant gotcha. Yes its probably like that since the manual states "
When a soldier attacks another soldier, there is an Attack Points vs. Hit Points chance that it hits. " I will update my combat detail thread with this information too. I will make sure to update my combat thread witth your formula. The problem is the only way to validate what approach  is right is to run a lot of statistics and see if the units fall into the % range the theory suggests. But I think your way is the correct one as it matches more what the manual states.

[Xenomath]

After running some (not very representative, since simulated combat does not work with 1.01) tests. A formation of AC and rifles seems to perform better or at least not worse against defenders in a town than a formation of IGs with rifles, as Willburn's calculations suggest.

I would like like to hear some more voices on this matter.
Vic, can you confirm that Willburn's calculation is right?

[Willburn]

Well you had two other arguments but I think one of them is void:
"My last argument is that they probably survive longer and thus build up more XP."
One word: Divebombers
 
but this one still stands:
"And it's still not every way: you can't move over mountains and through swamps with an AC "
This is true, so it seems this is the domain of the Infantery gun.

But i think a slight increase of IG effectiveness during urban combat would be in order, as it seems wrong that the ac is slightly better than the IG at this. (depending on if my calculations are right as you correctly are asking VIC about.)

[Xenomath]

Still no comment on this one?
Does anyone use IGs in ladder games?

[Herode_2]

I do. I tried IG but I did not check the stats about this point. One word about your dispute : IG has better entrenchment values than AC since vehicles are bad diggers... This could mean it may have (despite divebombers) a better chance to survive when defending.

[Westheim]

I don't use infantry guns at all right now. I feel like machineguns are better when defending, while attacking ... well, what are tanks for?

But of course I may be completely wrong and that's why I suck at this game.

[Willburn]

Herode2 on defence I would rather have an Antitank gun, its prett good vs infantery too and just as costly. (and much more deadly vs tanks.) But yeah I guess thats somewhat an argument for it.

[seille]

IG´s are a great weapon when you attack cities or fortifications.
Their weak point is the need of trucks to keep them mobile and
the vulnerability against air attacks. But hey, armored cars are also
easy targets for these planes.
When i plan to attack a city/fortification i would always prefer the IG above
the armored car. Against entrenched infantry in bigger numbers the AC will take losses
mostly. And you can easily lose a lot of them depending on the situation.
 
@Westheim
Tanks are for destroying other tanks, but also very good against infantry in the open.
I use them often as infantry support weapon.

[Willburn]

ORIGINAL: seille

IG´s are a great weapon when you attack cities or fortifications.
Their weak point is the need of trucks to keep them mobile and
the vulnerability against air attacks. But hey, armored cars are also
easy targets for these planes.
When i plan to attack a city/fortification i would always prefer the IG above
the armored car. Against entrenched infantry in bigger numbers the AC will take losses
mostly. And you can easily lose a lot of them depending on the situation.

to repeat myself:
Ac has 10 attacks with 65. Demodded thats 32.5. The IG does a clean shot 150 (100*1.5) but only 2 attacks. Rifle has 100 hp. Default entrenchment in city is 100 so rifle is 200hp. chance for ac to hit once = 32.5/200*0.5 8.125% chance for IG to hit 37.5%. (150/200*0.5) on average with ac 10 attacks it would hit 0.8125 times and the ig would hit 0.75 times. Not to mention the fact the ac is drawing away 10 attacks from other units due to the counterfire it produces, that it can pretty easy fend off with its high hitpoint value. Add to that the recon bonus and carry bonus and I still think the AC is superior in every way.

The AC is still superior to the IG even in the terrain the IG has the highest bonus in compared with the AC.

[Vic]

@willburn,

but the infantry gun will not be shot at very often if you attack with enough supporting infantry. its a rear area subformation that makes it a more durable investment.

especially facing a counterattack the armoured cars might be easy victims.

[IRONCROM]

 Interesting point Vic... I ussually build my inf. divisions with one or two AC's attached and do seem to be replacing them at pretty regular rate. And when I face armor I might as well kiss them good bye. They aren't cheap either. I think I'll test out the IG and AC in different formations and see what I prefer using.
Thanx

[maxfra]

Probably IG are better than AC if the enemy infantry is full of anti tank units (bazookas and AT Guns).
In this case the AC would live much less (being in the frontline and being targeted a lot) than IG....

[IRONCROM]

 Well I've done a bit of testing with my units and The IG is a durable piece of equiptment. I do seem to take more infantry losses without an AC though. I've also built formations with both...Kinda like those.
 Now i've done a bit of testing with AT's also and those baby's kick butt. Enemy armor doesn't seem so intimdating anymore with an AT attached to my infantry. Done a little testing with an AT and IG attached without the AC and found I like the results there as well...
 

[Willburn]

Okay so I think we have finaly pieced together the use for the infantery gun. Its when you are expecting enemy stacks with anti tank stuff (AT gun or bazooka guys). Thats the most convincing argument I have heard so far. I still think they are meh but thats my own oppinion. I do see that the situation described above is a valid use for them. I just feel i get more value for the bucks with armored cars (the added values of Recon and carry) And to attack the last argument (together with bazooka) wouldnt the infantery kill bazooka guys easily? Then how about together with at gun? At gun is good defensive..IG is not..

[IRONCROM]

 For me i would say the AC is a better performer in battle hands down. I can see the difference in game without having to simulate hundreds of battles and I've also seen how much more I am replacing them compared to the IG. The AC is costing me more because of the heavy fall out rate they have compared to the IG. But... They do seem to cause fewer losses for my infantry when they are attached compared to the IG.
 So is the decreased loss of infantry enough to pay for the increased cost of the AC. And does the fact that the AC performs better in battle make the first argument irrelevant. WHEW!!!
 I am so confused now... I think i'll just start attaching one of each to all my infantry formations. LOL
Besides I don't think I could bring myself to stop using the AC in favor of the IG. Rather I think I may consider adding IG's to my formations to get that extra punch and only because the rarely need replacing.

[jeffreysutro@jeffreysutro.com]

Wilburn:

Very good thread. This is just the sort of detailed analysis that I find interesting and useful. I think you make a good case that the Armored Car is overpowered in Advanced Tactics, though I recognise that your original point was that the Infanrty Gun is underpowered, and that may well also be true. However, in World War 2 the armored car was not used in great numbers, presumably because the combatants did not find it to be all that effective. In Advanced Tactics it is quite powerful and effective (as you have clearly demonstrated) and seems to be used frequently, which is somewhat ahistoric, in my opinion.

I do think, however, that you overlook one of the strengths of the Infantry Gun, mainly that by firing early in the combat it contributes to the "snowball effect" that you mentioned in one of your posts. It is a "force multiplier" that fires from it's relatively safe position behind the front lines and acts to soften up the defenses so that other units (such as armored cars, infantry or tanks) will be more effective. This is especially true against fortified opposition, and in terrain where armored cars, tanks and other armored vehicles are less effective. This strikes me as a good example of how Advanced Tactics effectively models complicated concepts like combined arms, while still being very playable. It sounds like a little rebalancing may be in order (unless it has already been done), but the basic concept is handled really well.