Matrix Games Forums

I'd like to see infantry a little tougher in defence also! It's a little subjective, but I feel that Infantry should have a little more advantage vs. AFV's in cover terrain ... I'm not really an authourity on this, but I think infantry squads are spotted a little too easily by vehicles ... and then too easily dealt with. It's just my gut feeling though .. anyone else feel the same way?
P.S. this game is still the greatest thing since ... (well maybe not!)

Personnaly,

my only regret is in the change of the picture for the mines.

I was much more prefering the new icon (with skulls and bones) than the old one.

I can probably reverse it myself if you explain me how...

Cat

I'd like to see infantry a little tougher in defence also! It's a little subjective, but I feel that Infantry should have a little more advantage vs. AFV's in cover terrain ... I'm not really an authourity on this, but I think infantry squads are spotted a little too easily by vehicles ... and then too easily dealt with. It's just my gut feeling though .. anyone else feel the same way?

Many feel the same way and my current testing is heading the same way...results up to now are very promising...
The wanted change is: making the infantry harder to spot (will be done by a preference adjustment) and giving it higher assault chances against armor and breaking less often from their positions (mainly noticed in entrenched status), without disrupting the current infantry casualty behaviour (meaning that they still die the same under MG fire, e.g.)

The cost issue:

Svennemir hit the nail on the head...I cannot change nation pricings, as these are not the cause of the imbalance that is felt...working on the exp levels seems also not promising, as the -10/+10 modifiers cause jumps over the magical 65/70 mark all the time...it might be, that this is a basic error in the cost calculation routine, we have to live with...

The individual pricing:

The whole SPWAW cost system suffers from a very simple thing: costs only go from 0-255...
It is very impractical to compare weapons pricings, if they do not belong to the same category.
In the case of the MG42, it has to fit in the cost line of infantry weapons, especially rifle caliber MGs

M1919A4 19
M1917A1 25
M32-33 30
MG42 Laf 36

These are four quite different machine guns in increasing effectivity listed. Let's assume, the weakest MG has to stay at the 19 (to compare it to other infantry weapons) and the MG42 would be lowered to 30...then the other two would be around 23 and 26. But if you compare the battlefiled effectiveness of a M32-33 and a M1919A4, you can almost go rather with one M32-33 then with two M1919A4, and the difference in pricing is only 7 pts...

I hope, I can show were this is going: if I don't have a span to put the great differences in effectiveness into, it will cause an automatic imbalance...

So it is almost impossible, to compare a top notch MG on the one side to a standard transport on the other...sure, in many situations a Halftrack is more usefull, then a 4 men MG team, but on the other hand you wouldn't put it into an entrenchement to defend against an onstorming horde, or ?

So this kind of pricing overlaps will happen all the time (take a four barreled AA gun...it is the top notch of small AA guns and costs more then many light tanks...makes no sense in terms of material, costs, how usefull it is a.s.o. - but there's no other way to work within the 255 limit)...
So if there's no solution for an overall revolution in the pricing system, it makes no sense to alter a few specific ones...
An across the board lowering of all infantry related units is such a radical way...and a pretty complex one...have to think it over...

Well, and Redleg...so many detailed wishes...puh...
I'll see what I can do...but the ammo canister - commonly available or for design purposes ? Commonly available wouldn't be possible due to realism concerns...

The mine icon is an easy fix, just replace the icon with the original 7.1 ... I have to look it up...forgot which one it was... maybe Warhorse knows from the top of his head :rolleyes:

My question is how are you editing the exe file to make the changes?

Originally posted by Don Doom
My question is how are you editing the exe file to make the changes?

The only things I can change, as I don't have the code, are the tables with preset values. In case of the infantry, I will try to use a simple trick...morale has the highest effect on infantry, as these unit types have to pass the most checks...being this for assaults or for determining if they break and flee with popping smoke or stay in their position...so if you raise the morale to a higher level in general, the infantry will benefit the most. Right now I'm testing for unwanted sideeffects and how a higher morale influences e.g., tanks with a raised base level of 15...no unrealistic effects appeared with other units up to now and infantry behaves very much the desired way: tougher in some situations without becoming more resistent to the main enemies, the machine gun or artillery...
Elite units do put up a pretty good fight now and it is not unlikely, that the last three men of US Airborne squad will stay in the trenches to continue fighting, e.g. ... but don't worry, I'm not creating Frankensteins Monsters here...there will be no Sergeant Slaughters all around

This all sounds very good to me. I'll be looking forward to this.

Leo,
Here's something I mentioned to you a few months back: change the ammo for the Soviet P-Mol from HE to AP (like it was in v7.1). With HE they can be used against non-vehicular targets, becoming flamethrowers with up to 10 shots and a 3-hex range

Originally posted by Panzer Leo

So it is almost impossible, to compare a top notch MG on the one side to a standard transport on the other...sure, in many situations a Halftrack is more usefull, then a 4 men MG team, but on the other hand you wouldn't put it into an entrenchement to defend against an onstorming horde, or ?

The halftrack has two machineguns (one an M2HB!!!), armor, speed, and carries an infantry squad! The MG42 has 4 men that die easily, and is useless against armor (unlike the halftrack).

Anyways, thanks again for listening to everyone, Leo! Have a Merry Christmas!

Goblin

Originally posted by Goblin
The halftrack has two machineguns (one an M2HB!!!), armor, speed, and carries an infantry squad! The MG42 has 4 men that die easily, and is useless against armor (unlike the halftrack).

Anyways, thanks again for listening to everyone, Leo! Have a Merry Christmas!

Goblin

G,
Two things to consider about MGs: their fire control is better than HTs and their 'zero' size makes them very hard to spot.

Understood. But once spotted, they are goners. Also, they really are not that effective. I will take two MG's, armor, speed, and infantry carry ability over any MG in the game, especially when they cost less! It's not Leo's fault, but he did ask. I was shooting for a little price shifting. The German stuff is all so darn expensive. I know one point here or there doesn't seem like much, but it is. I know it was all superior stuff in real life, but that is not reflected well in the game, so lowering the prices on some things, even a little bit, might help. Sorry, Leo, won't muck up your thread any more, LOL!

Goblin:)

What happened to the casualties that infantry units took when the vehicle they were riding on or in took a hit? I notice they end up really surpressed now, but they used to be (rightfully) pounded hard.

M3 Halftrack HIT! M3 Halftrack Destroyed! 5 casualties to Army Infantry Squad!

T34 raked with MG fire! 3 casualties to Tankodesantniki!

Not anymore. Now its blow the halftrack to kingdom come, and the infantry are just a little scared.

Was it 4.5, 6, or 7 that had the casualties? Don't remember. It changed before H2H.

Could you reinstitute them? It was much more realistic, and people took care with infantry on tanks. Now they just load every tank with anything it will carry, because they are safer from everything while on the tank!

Goblin

Hey Leo, I was playing Imperial Japanese in H2H, and noticed that one of their onboard arty pieces (some 70mm+/- towed guns) has a carry cost of 6 and a carry capacity of 108. I think that may be a bit buggered... it can carry a bigger gun?

When I get home I'll tell ya' which one. Don't have SPWAW here.

HtH doesn´t work with MC lost victories?

or any other camps created for the "normal"
SPWAW ??

i consider trying HtH out, but i have 2 or 3 camps
and lost victories not playd yet...

All tanks should be able to carry at least 10 infantrymen.

Originally posted by REMF
All tanks should be able to carry at least 10 infantrymen.

Have you been to a tank museum and seen how small some tanks really were? There simply isn't enough room for 10 men on many tanks.

The OB error of Japanese 70mm Type 92 gun is likely a carry-over from an error in the 7.1 OOBs. It is present in 7.1.

70mm Type 92 FG
Carry Cost: 7
Carry Capacity: 108

Oddly enough, it's Cost 4, Cap 108 in 7.1... ??? This is--by the images--a towed gun. ?_?

I've only time for a short note...I will be gone to Italy for a week now, so don't worry if I don't reply immediately...I will comment your posts then...

I wish you all a happy New Year and keep up posting your ideas...

Leo

Maybe you could lessen the effect of small arms fire on a tank? I am sick of my elite tanks being suppressed by crewmen from a destroyed tank, and then being blown to hell by an enemy tank that he doesn't even get to shoot at (I guess pistol fire on your 40 ton tank will do that). I know this isn't just an H2H thing, but now we have a chance to fix this.

Goblin

now WHERE did you ever see pistol fire surpress a 25+ ton tank to the point that it got blown to.....oopppsss, that's right! I remember now!!! My bad!