5.3 almost perfect except .. Small Units

[Alby]

Wild Bill
Matrix General Staff
Member # 62
posted June 30, 2001 08:01 PM

"I see some good and a little bad in 5.3. What concerns me the most is how difficult it is to kill units of 3 or less.

I have expended hundreds of rounds of ammunition, tank fire and anything else I can find. Alas, they seem impervious.

As a general rule I'm very pleased because I think it is more realistic dealing with infantry BUT, being unable to take out small units is frustrating and somewhat unrealistic.

Example: I had a German Pzschrk unit hidden in some trees. I surrounded it with two Shermans and an engineer squad. I fired at it a total of 14 times, including HE, MG (repeatedly) Flamethrower, satchel charge and small arms fire.

He was not even suppressed, I don't think because he kept firing back (and killed a Sherman in the process).

That is extreme.

But that is part of the ongoing perfecting process. Don't give up. Keep us abreast of what you find in the game. That to a large degree is why we have made the progress that we have."
Wild Bill


I have to agree with Wild Bill on this one.
The infranty combat is damn near perfect now, if you fire at a unit in the open they take casualities mostly with first shot, then they "duck and cover" and the casualties are reduced, Very realistic, Now,
If something could be done about the last man or 2 of of a squad or a crew, taking 10 turns to destroy, I know you dont need to destroy evrything, Saw on another post, someone said "why would you worry about them" Because, these guys SPOT EVERYTHING!!, and are very annoying trying to kill off.
They dont even retreat as easily as "regular" infrantry. I think Crews should be made a nonfactor in the game, sure there were probably some crewman heros, but for the most part, They proably didnt do alot after their vehicle was destroyed.
Is there anyway to make the crews More susceptable(spelled right??) to Fire than "regular" infrantry? Maybe have more of them die when the vehicle is destroyed?? Only have crews survive when their vehicle is "damaged".Not have so many of then running around the battlefield. If so this game would be at perfection with Infrantry combat I feel IMHO.
I think 5.3 is the best ever!! so dont take this as complaining, just an observation, Thanks guys for your continued great work!

[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]

[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]

[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]

[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]

[MacCready]

Yes,5.03 is near perfect.

The only problem I have with the tank crew's is they let there tank get destroyed.
I am using them in the mega campaign to keep infantry pinned down,they have even dealt vital damage to to the british tanks now and then.
I think Alby hit an interesting idea though,if somehow the number of men exiting the tank could be kept to a minimum.

Groups of five crewmen are not uncommon...

[Del]

Instead of reducing the number of crew that survive or eliminating crews why not just give them a -10 or more moral and effectiveness? Players could do this on their own without waiting for a patch couldn't they? In this way they become less of a factor. Down side would be, they would be less likely to get back into their vehicle right?

[Wild Bill]

This is the kind of feedback and reinforcement we need, fellas! It can only make the game better. Thanks!

Wild Bill

[Alby]

Keepin this up to get some more input from people.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

We are currently trying to fix the problem of the invincibility of small units. What we originally had in mind was the notion that 4 or fewer men (had to make a cut off, somewhere) would be harder to see than 12 or 13 men. And, that one special man, the sniper, would be harder, still. We found, and some of you folk have observed, that with the new infantry combat formulas, the sizing routines need changing.

So, in the next release, small units will remain more difficult to spot, but once spotted, will be no more difficult to kill. Snipers will still be very difficult to see or hit. The nature of the beast.

Others changes include greater durability of buildings and bridges and enhanced vehicle penetration routines.

Hope this encourages...

Michael Wood

[troopie]

Is there a way to make crews and depleted units who are in danger of being encircled have a greater chance of retreating? Except when ordered, men don't stay and die to hold onto pieces of ground whose possession has become meaningless. They retreat to positions near their buddies so as to fight more effectively. Occasionally a man pinned by fear, or fanaticism will hold on in an untenable position, or a man will stay and cover his comrade's retreat. But whole sections and platoons will not, unless they have been ordered to. Sometimes they are, but usually not.

And it is probably not possible with the SP engine, but could CA/CL have a 'fighting retreat'. Units don't always retreat pell-mell. Sometimes they retreat slowly, each man covering the others.

troopie

[Alby]

Just wanted to restate this...See what others think...
"Maybe Only have crews survive when their vehicle is "damaged", Not "destroyed" , Then you wont have so many of then running around the battlefield."
If so this game would be at perfection with Infrantry combat I feel IMHO.



[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]

[sinner]

This thread is going to set good combat-realism in the game! Great!

My ideas:

-Tank damaged and crew bails out result: crew exits, suppressed, but the gamer/AI can use them as they wish.

-Tank destroyed and crew bails out: the crew, unless elite, will be very freaked-out and will run non-stop to the "retreat" zone in their rear.

Yes, crews are more valuable than a tank. So (Tankers from the world: correct me here if I wrong) they have been trained that, in case of vehicle destruction, they must run to the nearestbase to get a new vehicle, instead of dying as underarmed infantry.

-A routine that puts a "run for your lives" permanent morale on a crew unit that bails out from a destroyed vehicle?

-If a vehicle's crew is in "retreating" mode, it should never be able to get to a "better morale" status.

I guess that if you start to run AND you have no infantry combat training, you will try to keep running to get a new tank and fight tomorrow.

-Also, give the crew units, a "light infantry speed" when retreating: they carry no backpack, only (limited) pistol ammo, no LMGs, no GL...

This way, they can run faster home... AND they will spend less time as "invincible spotters" in the battlefield.

What do you all think?

[General Mayhem]

Originally posted by Mike Wood:
Hello...

We are currently trying to fix the problem of the invincibility of small units. What we originally had in mind was the notion that 4 or fewer men (had to make a cut off, somewhere) would be harder to see than 12 or 13 men. And, that one special man, the sniper, would be harder, still. We found, and some of you folk have observed, that with the new infantry combat formulas, the sizing routines need changing.

So, in the next release, small units will remain more difficult to spot, but once spotted, will be no more difficult to kill. Snipers will still be very difficult to see or hit. The nature of the beast.

Others changes include greater durability of buildings and bridges and enhanced vehicle penetration routines.

Hope this encourages...

Michael Wood

Not me. I agree killing the small units can
be hard, but tweaking the routine way that
makes them easier to kill, I do not like.

50 x 50 meters for few men can offer lot of cover and ability change posittions. Thus from distance 50 meters and up, it should be no wonder if 1 or 2 men are not easy to kill.

They're after all small targets, that can be hard to see from smoke by units who are under supression.
I understand why many wants the routine tweaked, but I think realistically, it should
not be every-man-gets-killed in the squad.

I'd prefer, if possible, a solution that would make units after decimated to certain size, to stop shooting altogher or to surrender. I'd think they would either a)
want to keep hidden so they don't get shot
when they notice they're overwhelmed b)
surrender if they see everybody else is dead
and they can't retreat anywhere safely.

By the way, why don't the units surrender anymore after they are decimated to really small?

In SP3, atleast 1/3 units who got pretty small, decidet to rise their hands to surrender or disperse. In SPAW, it seems even italians don't surrender or run away. Seems that one has to almost overrun infantry unit with tanks get either to happen.

[Alby]

I want some opinions on the crew thing, do we really need most of the tanks crews to survive? I notice sometimes they dont, Seems if a tank is destroyed, most likely the crew wouldnt survive, however i see alot of "tank damaged" This is a different matter, and they probably do survive. Less crews on the battlefield, less use of them using up your shots by junking IMHO
Cmon guys input input!

[General Mayhem]

Originally posted by Alby:
I want some opinions on the crew thing, do we really need most of the tanks crews to survive? I notice sometimes they dont, Seems if a tank is destroyed, most likely the crew wouldnt survive, however i see alot of "tank damaged" This is a different matter, and they probably do survive. Less crews on the battlefield, less use of them using up your shots by junking IMHO
Cmon guys input input!

Atleast I don't put lot of fight against any excuses why my Sherman crews wouldn't survive and gain experience despite their tank is blown away under them.

I'm all for realism, but here I draw the line as experienced troops don't grow in the trees in the game. Especially if one plays with not-so-good tanks and armored vehicles.
They can anyway be killed enemy fire despite
they got out of tank.

I can atleast live with my and enemy crews 'littering' the battlefield with
their existence.

[Panzer Capta]

Just and observation based upon limited play with 5.3:

I have definitely encountered the "tough to eliminate" small units. However, i have also found (again, with limited play), that implementing the melee option takes care of them quickly.

Panzer Captain

[Rhodan]

We might want to consider that a tank crew that just narrowly avoided being reduced to liquid in their burning tank, is probably suffering from wobbly knees and has thin substance running down their trousers. Who would blame them, they might have just escaped a blazing inferno or witnessed one of their crewmembers cut in half by an ap round.

I just have my doubts about the combat effectivesness of dismounted cavalry. They may have some small arms with them for deterence sake but if they encounter a seasoned dedicated infantry unit, their chances for survival should be very slim.

They miss the training regular infantry has, a proper mindset, there is no speed as a bonus, no several cm of steel to hide behind, no big cannon to take care of your enemy. Instead there is some grass...maybe some trees...maybe just sand, they just fell out of a burning wreck ( how many seconds does game represent?) with some luck grabbed their weapons and all of the sudden the safety of steel and armor has disappeared. Meanwhile in that handfull of trees ahead is Sarge Tom Jones or Feldwebel Helmut Lotti, seasoned by weeks, months, maybe years? of combat fighting...who suddenly sees a very interesting target show up ..a target HE can deal with, instead of that AT gun or tank.

Anyway I can go on and on ...in the end I agree with Alby...crew members that bail from a damaged vehicle..fine, but with HIGH suppression ( which is the case I believe, I never really spent much attention to it) but no crews from vehicles that have been taken out , should they have survived the initial onslaught then I would say their combat effectiveness vs reg inf units is nihil.

No disrespect meant ot those vehiclecrews that did manage to put up a stiff fight, but I think that relative wise those are a very low percentage of the amount of crewmembers shot on the field.

[panda124c]

Originally posted by Rhodan:
We might want to consider that a tank crew that just narrowly avoided being reduced to liquid in their burning tank, is probably suffering from wobbly knees and has thin substance running down their trousers. Who would blame them, they might have just escaped a blazing inferno or witnessed one of their crewmembers cut in half by an ap round.

I just have my doubts about the combat effectivesness of dismounted cavalry. They may have some small arms with them for deterence sake but if they encounter a seasoned dedicated infantry unit, their chances for survival should be very slim.

They miss the training regular infantry has, a proper mindset, there is no speed as a bonus, no several cm of steel to hide behind, no big cannon to take care of your enemy. Instead there is some grass...maybe some trees...maybe just sand, they just fell out of a burning wreck ( how many seconds does game represent?) with some luck grabbed their weapons and all of the sudden the safety of steel and armor has disappeared. Meanwhile in that handfull of trees ahead is Sarge Tom Jones or Feldwebel Helmut Lotti, seasoned by weeks, months, maybe years? of combat fighting...who suddenly sees a very interesting target show up ..a target HE can deal with, instead of that AT gun or tank.

Anyway I can go on and on ...in the end I agree with Alby...crew members that bail from a damaged vehicle..fine, but with HIGH suppression ( which is the case I believe, I never really spent much attention to it) but no crews from vehicles that have been taken out , should they have survived the initial onslaught then I would say their combat effectiveness vs reg inf units is nihil.

No disrespect meant ot those vehiclecrews that did manage to put up a stiff fight, but I think that relative wise those are a very low percentage of the amount of crewmembers shot on the field.

Ah yes, 'Discretion is the better part of valor.'

Perhaps it would be possible to make a crews prime objective to be, exit the map. Through the use of disruption perhaps, but leave their 'toughness' intact. This would allow your experinced crews to survive after losing their vehical and signicantly reduce their threat to other units.

[General Mayhem]

Originally posted by pbear:


Ah yes, 'Discretion is the better part of valor.'

Perhaps it would be possible to make a crews prime objective to be, exit the map. Through the use of disruption perhaps, but leave their 'toughness' intact. This would allow your experinced crews to survive after losing their vehical and signicantly reduce their threat to other units.

I atleast support this.

[D A Sharp]

former light infantryman (US Army,86-96) we were taught that once your team/squad had been reduced to 80% you were combat ineffective (Time to call the boss for some help). This was a planning figure, sure there are times and places were you would have to keep going. We were also taught that its often better to severely wound than kill an enemy as his buddies would stop fighting to assist their wounded friend and the wounded would also stress their support services. What if the game could model could at a certain point of degradation disallow an infantry/crew unit from taking any offensive action. Allow it to make opportunity fire as a self defense mechanism. Even allow it to advance. It should still be able to reduce suppression but at a reduced rate, perhaps reducing the leaders rally # proportionally to the damage done once it has passed its combat ineffective threshold. I’m not suggesting that the threshold should be at 80%, but at a level that would keep squads reduced to two men from abandoning their wounded friends and sprinting toward the enemy with vengence in their hearts. Just my 2 cents.

[Paul Vebber]

Back to the future...in earlier game there was a "permanant pinned" status severly depleted units got into, but players did not like it becasue the units would never retreat and would just sit there and get killed.

This and things like threatening flanks requires data in teh game so units 'know" its happening. That does not exist in SP, but we are taking notres on a lot of this stuff so it wil eventually be incorporated into Combat Leader...

[WeyBug]

I remember the "permenant pin" from old SP1. I did not like that. Lost a lot of exerienced guys that way.

I do not think that crews should be placed on "retreat-only" status. Players should have the option to use them as emergency infantry if they feel the need. I run mine away to preserve exp, but that should be a player choice.

WeyBug

[sven]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Back to the future...in earlier game there was a "permanant pinned" status severly depleted units got into, but players did not like it becasue the units would never retreat and would just sit there and get killed.

This and things like threatening flanks requires data in teh game so units 'know" its happening. That does not exist in SP, but we are taking notres on a lot of this stuff so it wil eventually be incorporated into Combat Leader...

Paul I think the way Matrix represents crew is fine. They have a chance of being unarmed. They do not survive overrun or melee.

I retreat them to save their exp. also. Choice is seldom a bad thing. I hope the 'permanent pin' does not make a return.

regards,
sven