Issue with Mech Infantry

[Joel Billings]

When you say underperform, do you mean they fire/hit less? Gary has made a change to make them be treated like normal infantry under 500 yards (no armor). The net effect I'm seeing is they get shot at a lot more. This gets them in the mix so they are hitting more, but they are also losing more. In a few individual test battles they take much higher losses. In longer term tests, the net effect is minor, but this may have to do more with the limited number of these mech squads. You can't lose them if you don't have them. This may be a case of be careful what you wish for. If they are treated as normal infantry under 500 yards they certainly mix it up more, but at what cost? Is their any doctrinal reason to treat them differently?

[jubjub]

From what I saw in my tests, the mechanized infantry were only being shot at by AT guns. They were losing 50% or more every battle to PTRD's, AT, AA etc. Most of those losses came at ranges under 100 meters. It's hard for me to see how they are taking heavier casualties when they are treated as infantry, since normal infantry squads experience much lower casualties. I would expect a lot more of the mech infantry becoming disrupted, but that's different than casualties (destroyed/damaged)

I wonder about the composition of the enemy force in the test you are running. What happens if you include a healthy dose of PTRD's, 45mm AT guns, 37mm AA, etc.? These are found in abundance in Soviet units from late '41 onwards.

As far as justification for why they'd be different, I'd expect the light armor would make them more resistant to small arms fire and artillery. They should also close with the enemy much faster.

[jubjub]

In a few individual test battles they take much higher losses. In longer term tests, the net effect is minor, but this may have to do more with the limited number of these mech squads. You can't lose them if you don't have them.

If the loss rate is higher than the replacement rate, then losses will eventually equal production.

[Denniss]

Are the losses similar for offensive and defensive battles or do they tend to lose more in one battle type?

[Joel Billings]

I've only tried some attacks. Basically, the theory is ok to have them be treated like any dismounted infantry once closer in (unless someone can come up with a reason they shouldn't). In addition, Gary already added code that allowed them to evade an AP shot at over 500 meters if they make an experience check (basically avoiding being in the halftrack when threatened. But having them fight like infantry at closer ranges makes them susceptible to all the things that normally kills soft targets.

[Sly]

the idea of ​​treating mechanized infantry as a hard target, i.e. an armored personnel carrier with a crew at a distance of more than 500m, and a traditional infantry, i.e. a soft target at a distance of less than 500m, is flexible and interesting, but one thing has probably escaped attention.
If we accept the rule that at a distance of more than 500 meters, AT wepons shoot at an APC, then to simulate such a fire, we should use the statistics of the vehicle instead of infantry.
Currently, the mech inf sqad armor is 1 and the speed is 6.
It is the weakest and slowest "armored vehicle" in the game. I suppose that is why it suffers heavy losses from AT fire.

Only when we change these stats to the stats of the vehicle, i.e. sdkfz 251/1, we can get a result similar to the behavior of other vehicles in combat.

[Joel Billings]

The new code that allows the units to avoid an AP shot at over 500 yards if they make an experience check likely more than makes up for the lack of speed, if in fact that is how it is being resolved. In my tests of the new code, it's not the losses at long range that are the problem, it's the fact that the units are now being fired at by rifle squads and machine guns at closer ranges.

[Sly]

Then the only thing that still puzzles me is the speed of the mechanized infantry.
The game engine applies increased speed to cavalry units and motorcycles. from a tactical point of view, mechanized infantry also have this advantage in speed. Therefore, I have an idea: if we increase the speed of mechanized infantry and they shorten the distance in firefight faster, then they will suffer statistically lower losses??
I don't know for sure but it could be a possible solution

[OberstVonWitz]

When you speak of underperforming, what exactly do you mean? Are they taking higher losses than other infantry? Are they hitting less when they fire?

This what worries me, that this game can just put " anything it likes" in whatever performance and if the designer does not
even know what is reasonable then the game becomes technically ridiculous.

[Wiedrock]

Currently, the mech inf sqad armor is 1 and the speed is 6.
It is the weakest and slowest "armored vehicle" in the game. I suppose that is why it suffers heavy losses from AT fire.

Only when we change these stats to the stats of the vehicle, i.e. sdkfz 251/1, we can get a result similar to the behavior of other vehicles in combat.

+1
Those sdkfz's mostly followed/worked together with Panzers (like in modern days IFVs and Tanks work together), therefore the speed should be about the same as for the tanks they are assigned to (so, more than 6!).

...but, the overall "Armored Infantry" is a solely German Topic, I'd suggest approaching this whole thing from a more general point of view looking at stats of "special" units in general in comparison to regular Squads (...read on...).

The game engine applies increased speed to cavalry units and motorcycles. from a tactical point of view, mechanized infantry also have this advantage in speed. Therefore, I have an idea: if we increase the speed of mechanized infantry and they shorten the distance in firefight faster, then they will suffer statistically lower losses??

I don't see Cav/Motorcycles/Motorized having higher speed than basic Infantry dudes, all having 6km/h ....or am i missing something? For all of those "speacial" units (both Soviets/Axis) I'd suggest increasing the Speed so the actual battle performance (whatever impact Speed might have) might increase.
Additional I'd actually lower the speed for regular Squads to like 4-5.

So far only thing I see is Mechanized Infantry having 4 CV instead of the 3 CV all other Infantry Squads/moto/cav have. Meanwhile the "special" units need way more "Support".

[Joel Billings]

This change was made last October and I think was in response to this thread:

• Adjusted combat so that various Mech ground elements will be considered dismounted when shot at under 500 yards. Made it less likely they would be fired at by armored piercing direct fire at ranges over 500 yards.

[Wiedrock]

Yes their performance/survivability appears to be good from what I see, I just wanted to point out the issue with speed for all "mobile" Infantry elements and the "1" armor value.