Going into the OOB editor and reducing grenade HE penetration from 38 to 8 seems to produce a (in my humble opinion) realistic effect. I can't see how a tiny little grenade has the power to blast through an inch and a half of hardened armour plate. Still a great game though.
------------------
The old world is dead... as are the buried...
Infantry Assaults
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
Larry Holt
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA 30068
Paul V. has mentioned the abnormalities that can happen at close range due to distortions imposed by a hex grid.Originally posted by orc4hire:
Kluckenbill,
I suspect the angle has something to do with it.... When you're 1 hex away you only have 6 different angles of fire at the bad guy, and he may be positioned in such a way that none of those options are good; they all give his armor a greater relative slope to you. If you're 2-3 hexes away, you have a lot more options for lining up a shot.
It may be too late for SPWAW but perhaps a look up table(s) could be used to generate angles, etc. at close range instead of trying the routine that is used at longer ranges. This would give consistent results and not the sometimes weird results.
------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.
Never take counsel of your fears.
I spoke to the brother of my grandma, who was a Oberleutnant in the 100.Jägerdivision.
He was wounded in Stalingrad and flown out, so he could help train soldiers in attacking tanks with so called infantry weapons (i.e. carabine, handgrenades, mines and Klappspaten (I don´t know the English word, I mean the part you use to dig a hole and hide in). He was really good in destroying tanks (he destroyed about 15 or so).
He told me that:
a) German infantrists combined some handgrenades to a "Geballte Ladung". The power of the geballte Ladung was enough to destroy the turret of a tank (it destroys the move-mechanism, and lifts the whole turret up).
b) The main problem of destroying tanks was to keep cool while sitting in a hole and waiting till the tank was behind the frontline. Many soldiers paniced, jumped up and were killed by the machineguns of the tank.
c) The soldiers didn´t try to kill the tank but to make it stop, so jump on the tank and destroy the optics or the MGs with their Spaten.
d) At last he told me it was no problem to get on a tank, the problem was getting near the tank. In a circle about 20-30m around the tank it is absolutely defenseless.
This tells me, that a good trained force could destroy a lot of tanks!
He was wounded in Stalingrad and flown out, so he could help train soldiers in attacking tanks with so called infantry weapons (i.e. carabine, handgrenades, mines and Klappspaten (I don´t know the English word, I mean the part you use to dig a hole and hide in). He was really good in destroying tanks (he destroyed about 15 or so).
He told me that:
a) German infantrists combined some handgrenades to a "Geballte Ladung". The power of the geballte Ladung was enough to destroy the turret of a tank (it destroys the move-mechanism, and lifts the whole turret up).
b) The main problem of destroying tanks was to keep cool while sitting in a hole and waiting till the tank was behind the frontline. Many soldiers paniced, jumped up and were killed by the machineguns of the tank.
c) The soldiers didn´t try to kill the tank but to make it stop, so jump on the tank and destroy the optics or the MGs with their Spaten.
d) At last he told me it was no problem to get on a tank, the problem was getting near the tank. In a circle about 20-30m around the tank it is absolutely defenseless.
This tells me, that a good trained force could destroy a lot of tanks!
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
Frank,
Interesting post. Yes, good infantry, well prepared, can chew up tanks. There was also a trick with wedging a landmine under a T-34's turret overhang....
But the same post tells me that less well trained or prepared infantry gets cut down a lot. Ask your great-uncle how he would have felt about leading an infantry platoon in a counter-attack against a company of KV-1s. I'd bet he'd think the idea insane, and he'd be right. But not only have I seen it happen in SPWAW, it's a fairly standard tactic of mine for the Germans before they get effective tanks.
Interesting post. Yes, good infantry, well prepared, can chew up tanks. There was also a trick with wedging a landmine under a T-34's turret overhang....
But the same post tells me that less well trained or prepared infantry gets cut down a lot. Ask your great-uncle how he would have felt about leading an infantry platoon in a counter-attack against a company of KV-1s. I'd bet he'd think the idea insane, and he'd be right. But not only have I seen it happen in SPWAW, it's a fairly standard tactic of mine for the Germans before they get effective tanks.
-
Kluckenbill
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Lancaster, PA, USA
There are a couple of interesting books out on Armor in Viet Nam. Also I had several NCO's in my unit (back int the 70s) who fought in tanks there. They all have lots of accounts of the VC and NVA trying to take out M48s with a wide variety of close assault methods. Basically, nothing worked too well (except real anti tank mines and, of course, RPG's) as long as the tanks moved and fought as units so one tank could use its machine guns to cover the other.
In an unrealated issue. I had a Plt Sgt who was in an M42 Duster Unit in Viet Nam. He thought that they were fabulous at fighting enemy infantry, probably quite a bit better than similar weapons are represented in SPWAW.
------------------
Target, Cease Fire !
In an unrealated issue. I had a Plt Sgt who was in an M42 Duster Unit in Viet Nam. He thought that they were fabulous at fighting enemy infantry, probably quite a bit better than similar weapons are represented in SPWAW.
------------------
Target, Cease Fire !
Target, Cease Fire !
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
Again there are two problems here, one is the poor ability of the AI to protect tanks form infantry and the ability of the infantry to kill tanks too easily.
THey do not becaome a real broblem except together. I guarantee no plat of infantry will to jack squat against a human controlled company of tanks. And a human controlled company of tanks will wipe out a company of infnatry with virtually no losses if it tries to advance against it.
The AI in SPWaW is what it is. My advice is to play agianst humans
THey do not becaome a real broblem except together. I guarantee no plat of infantry will to jack squat against a human controlled company of tanks. And a human controlled company of tanks will wipe out a company of infnatry with virtually no losses if it tries to advance against it.
The AI in SPWaW is what it is. My advice is to play agianst humans
-
troopie
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Just done a battle, British vs Italians, East Africa, 1940, Summer. The 2 pounders ate up the Italian armour, as I expected. The Italian tanks outmatched the Rolls Royce ACs. also as I expected. But the KAR (with standard infantry weapons, Mills bombs and few AT weapons) and Armed Settlers, (with rifles and petrol bombs) feasted on tanks in the thick bush. In open ground the infantry gave way before the Italian armour.
What kind of terrain is the infantry fighting in? I remember being trained in fighting armour in thick veld. In open ground the best advice was "Stay down, don't move and hope the tank doesn't see you" Also, tanks in groups are, not nearly as vulnerable as solo tanks. These might as well have "Destroy Me" written in large letters on the turrets.
troopie
------------------
Pamwe Chete
What kind of terrain is the infantry fighting in? I remember being trained in fighting armour in thick veld. In open ground the best advice was "Stay down, don't move and hope the tank doesn't see you" Also, tanks in groups are, not nearly as vulnerable as solo tanks. These might as well have "Destroy Me" written in large letters on the turrets.
troopie
------------------
Pamwe Chete
Pamwe Chete
Paul,
Well, sure, humans can adapt to things faster than the AI, but saying, "Play against humans" is so... Talonsoft. :}
I'm curious what the new games are going to look like... I'm sure trying to work around the limits of the SP engine has given you guys a lot of ideas on how you'd build things from the ground up....
Well, sure, humans can adapt to things faster than the AI, but saying, "Play against humans" is so... Talonsoft. :}
I'm curious what the new games are going to look like... I'm sure trying to work around the limits of the SP engine has given you guys a lot of ideas on how you'd build things from the ground up....
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
How is it "talonsoft" to point out the fact that a human can give you a much better game than the AI?? The "programmed opponent" has no capacity to adapt. A cockraoch adapts better than any wargame AI out there. The best you can do is present the player with a challange. One that he will crack sooner or later...
Ask any SP1 vet if the current system is better than the old "Flying monkey engineers" in SP1! YEs, vs the Ai if you know the tricks, you can do LOTs of totally unrealistic things...that has always been the case and is better now, if only slightly. At least against a human real tactics work now...as opposed to the old days
We can't rewrite the AI for SP:WaW, we are making a new game that will address the general problem (ie fairly unsophisticated AI).
Check out the Combat Leader forum...back to work
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited January 06, 2001).]
Ask any SP1 vet if the current system is better than the old "Flying monkey engineers" in SP1! YEs, vs the Ai if you know the tricks, you can do LOTs of totally unrealistic things...that has always been the case and is better now, if only slightly. At least against a human real tactics work now...as opposed to the old days
We can't rewrite the AI for SP:WaW, we are making a new game that will address the general problem (ie fairly unsophisticated AI).
Check out the Combat Leader forum...back to work
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited January 06, 2001).]
It's a Talonsoft sort of thing to say, "Don't do those things that might expose the flaws in our game," at least in my experience of Talonsoft's customer support.... As much as I may give you guys a hard time sometimes, I have a higher opinion of your capabilities than that, so I'm really curious to see what you guys come up with starting from a clean slate.
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
Point taken, although I think that limitations of AI vs a human opponant are necessarily flaws as much as limitations...
Suggesting that proper tactics mitigates much of a problem (tactics that take a human to implement in the game) didn't deserve quite that big a slam
We will do our utmost to see that your faith is not misplaced
Suggesting that proper tactics mitigates much of a problem (tactics that take a human to implement in the game) didn't deserve quite that big a slam
We will do our utmost to see that your faith is not misplaced
I asked my great uncle about the attacking of KV1 with bad trained boys.
He told me that in the beginning of the war all methods of tankfighting with infantry were new. Until Russia the Wehrmacht fought enemy tanks with their Paks or with 88s. In Russia the frontlines were too long to give every unit 88s and the Pak did not work at all (ok, it worked but it didn´t knock out enemy tanks but just knocked on the armour).
The first weeks the troop paniced, then the soldiers attacked the tanks with infantry weapons. They had losses but they got the experience they needed to effective kill enemy tanks.
My great uncle told me that he was fighting the most time in forests or swamps. In this areas tanks were rare and the surrounding was good for infantry: the tanks moved slowly and the tankers could not see too much. The "Panzerbekämpfer"(=tankfighters) climbed up trees or hid in trenches then jumped and attacked the tanks. He told me it was a defence measure and rarely used in attacks,(" We weren´t silly, it wasn´t the infantry´s job to attack enemy tank formations, that was the job of the Panzer units or the Luftwaffe").
The "Panzerbekämpfer" were organized in small troops (2 or 3 men), who were specialiced on fighting tanks. A company had about 2 or 3 troops of those tankfighters (this means about 9 men out of 150 ) they were handpicked soldiers, fast good trained, very fit and clever. My great uncle told me you had a good chance to survive the attack on a SINGLE tank, even in open area. But attacking more than one in the open was very dangerous and was only done in nightfights or when the tankfighters could use lots of smoke ammo.
He also told me that one man was lost at almost every attack (per troop).
The type of tank was not so important, he told me. The slower and greater the better he says (Maybe the dead circle around a tank depends on the size of a tank?? I don´t know it and my great uncle didn´t explain it).
Summary:
He would in no case have attacked attack any tanks (more than one) in the open, no T34, no KV1, no BT7, not with green boys and not with elite soldiers.
[This message has been edited by Frank (edited January 08, 2001).]
He told me that in the beginning of the war all methods of tankfighting with infantry were new. Until Russia the Wehrmacht fought enemy tanks with their Paks or with 88s. In Russia the frontlines were too long to give every unit 88s and the Pak did not work at all (ok, it worked but it didn´t knock out enemy tanks but just knocked on the armour).
The first weeks the troop paniced, then the soldiers attacked the tanks with infantry weapons. They had losses but they got the experience they needed to effective kill enemy tanks.
My great uncle told me that he was fighting the most time in forests or swamps. In this areas tanks were rare and the surrounding was good for infantry: the tanks moved slowly and the tankers could not see too much. The "Panzerbekämpfer"(=tankfighters) climbed up trees or hid in trenches then jumped and attacked the tanks. He told me it was a defence measure and rarely used in attacks,(" We weren´t silly, it wasn´t the infantry´s job to attack enemy tank formations, that was the job of the Panzer units or the Luftwaffe").
The "Panzerbekämpfer" were organized in small troops (2 or 3 men), who were specialiced on fighting tanks. A company had about 2 or 3 troops of those tankfighters (this means about 9 men out of 150 ) they were handpicked soldiers, fast good trained, very fit and clever. My great uncle told me you had a good chance to survive the attack on a SINGLE tank, even in open area. But attacking more than one in the open was very dangerous and was only done in nightfights or when the tankfighters could use lots of smoke ammo.
He also told me that one man was lost at almost every attack (per troop).
The type of tank was not so important, he told me. The slower and greater the better he says (Maybe the dead circle around a tank depends on the size of a tank?? I don´t know it and my great uncle didn´t explain it).
Summary:
He would in no case have attacked attack any tanks (more than one) in the open, no T34, no KV1, no BT7, not with green boys and not with elite soldiers.
[This message has been edited by Frank (edited January 08, 2001).]
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
-
Larry Holt
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA 30068
If I may continue to harp on the AIP, not intending to minimize the work Matrix is doing... I just see "simple" things that might make better tactics for the AI.Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Point taken, although I think that limitations of AI vs a human opponant are necessarily flaws as much as limitations...
Suggesting that proper tactics mitigates much of a problem (tactics that take a human to implement in the game) didn't deserve quite that big a slam
We will do our utmost to see that your faith is not misplaced
Now I'm working on a mail gateway and the addressing logic is basicly a rules based AI so I look at the SPWAW AIP from this perspective. Things like if a hex has units killed in it in the last turns, don't go there unless its a victory hex could be implemented based on rules and would help the AIP to be less brain dead.
Please take this as constructive critism and not a slam against all the hard work Matrix has done. I'm still ready to order you first commercial game, whether or not its a subject I like, just to support you all. By the way, when can I order a Matrix hat or T-shirt? That would generate income and be appreciated by the your gaming supporters.
------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.
Never take counsel of your fears.
Hmm....
Paul, if you guys don't have a 'buy Matrix crap' infrastructure already in place, the kids at http://www.cafepress.com/ do it for free. Supply them with a logo (or logos) and they setup an online store where people can buy mugs, mousepads, and tee-shirts (in a few different styles). You set the price the items sell for; they take a fixed cut ($10.99 for a tee-shirt, $9.99 for a 12 ounce mug, etc), you get everything above that.
I'm not affiliated with them, etc., etc., Larry just reminded me of them and it does look like a good way to maybe turn a few bucks while you're finishing those new games....
Paul, if you guys don't have a 'buy Matrix crap' infrastructure already in place, the kids at http://www.cafepress.com/ do it for free. Supply them with a logo (or logos) and they setup an online store where people can buy mugs, mousepads, and tee-shirts (in a few different styles). You set the price the items sell for; they take a fixed cut ($10.99 for a tee-shirt, $9.99 for a 12 ounce mug, etc), you get everything above that.
I'm not affiliated with them, etc., etc., Larry just reminded me of them and it does look like a good way to maybe turn a few bucks while you're finishing those new games....
-
Scipio Africanus
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Somerville, Ma, USA
I can attest that in the game, against a real opponent (read human), an infantry company will not succeed unassisted against a tank platoon in open ground- in fact you will lose every single time as the infantry if you are required to cross any distance (say 200 yards).
Infantry assisted by halftracks, smoke, and artillery will do much better in open ground when facing tanks- but the tanks will also do much better if assisted by the same...
Of course this assumes a human opponent and full realism (no non C&C wussies need complain about any realism issues- "my platoon are avatars of Vishnu, they see all and hear my command")- Any tank platoon that can't stop an infantry company in open ground is commanded poorly- So the AI falls into this category for sure- but if your tanks can't stop an infantry charge, you need to check to see if suppression is turned on or something- I've played dozens of email games, usually taking a lot of infantry against tanks-
unassisted infantry will not do well in open ground against tanks under full realism and against a human opponent with any skill. Combined arms with a large percentage of infantry, applied properly, will do quite well against tank heavy formations.
Cheers,
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Infantry assisted by halftracks, smoke, and artillery will do much better in open ground when facing tanks- but the tanks will also do much better if assisted by the same...
Of course this assumes a human opponent and full realism (no non C&C wussies need complain about any realism issues- "my platoon are avatars of Vishnu, they see all and hear my command")- Any tank platoon that can't stop an infantry company in open ground is commanded poorly- So the AI falls into this category for sure- but if your tanks can't stop an infantry charge, you need to check to see if suppression is turned on or something- I've played dozens of email games, usually taking a lot of infantry against tanks-
unassisted infantry will not do well in open ground against tanks under full realism and against a human opponent with any skill. Combined arms with a large percentage of infantry, applied properly, will do quite well against tank heavy formations.
Cheers,
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
-
Scipio Africanus
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Somerville, Ma, USA
I also want to mention that the comment I just made about the AI was not meant to be disparaging to Matrix- the current state of the art is that AI is pretty bad in all games. I know, I've modified the AI of several games and it takes a tremendous amount of time even to see marginal improvements.
Complaining about AI is often done by those who know absolutely nothing about it- any idiot can say "that's not what a real person would do..."- congratulations on your 60 I.Q. and 7th percentile analytic skill in recognizing that.
But actually getting the AI to respond to the variety of situations that may arise in a game is extremely difficult- sports games, which have very limited scope and have massive production budgets, still routinely fail in terms of AI (generally falling back on brute force cheating rather than anything more interesting and challenging).
AI does goofy things, that's the way it is and that's the way it'll be for a while- so what? so play other people, who cares if you beat the computer anyway?
Cheers,
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Complaining about AI is often done by those who know absolutely nothing about it- any idiot can say "that's not what a real person would do..."- congratulations on your 60 I.Q. and 7th percentile analytic skill in recognizing that.
But actually getting the AI to respond to the variety of situations that may arise in a game is extremely difficult- sports games, which have very limited scope and have massive production budgets, still routinely fail in terms of AI (generally falling back on brute force cheating rather than anything more interesting and challenging).
AI does goofy things, that's the way it is and that's the way it'll be for a while- so what? so play other people, who cares if you beat the computer anyway?
Cheers,
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
We don't take any barbs at the AI personally...We have just as much trouble as any of you
But if we are going to develop a new AI - we have to be able to recover teh investment, so it will be used in Combat Leader. There is just no way to do what we want to do in SP...
That was a big reason we went to online play, so it was easier to play a human...
But if we are going to develop a new AI - we have to be able to recover teh investment, so it will be used in Combat Leader. There is just no way to do what we want to do in SP...
That was a big reason we went to online play, so it was easier to play a human...-
Larry Holt
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA 30068
Scipio Africanus, I would agree if the infantry has to advance. However, if the infantry is dug in, using reverse slope defense, with some AT sited for good cross fire and killing zones, I'd take the infantry. Tanks would be popped open by unseen infantry/engineers unless the armor has heavy artillery to supress them first. IRL an armor force just can not lay a carpet of HE in front of its every move.Originally posted by Scipio Africanus:
I can attest that in the game, against a real opponent (read human), an infantry company will not succeed unassisted against a tank platoon in open ground- in fact you will lose every single time as the infantry if you are required to cross any distance (say 200 yards).
...
Cheers,
------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.
Never take counsel of your fears.