Infantry Assaults
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
I guess nobody wants to consider what I was saying as being true. Yes, Kluckenbill didn't say that precisely, but I was trying to blend his problem with what I read, which is why I mentioned that "if" Klucken bill is anything like me. I must add, that not only are things different as far as unspotted units go, because very few of us play the Soviets regularly (maybe our second or third choice in campaigning), therefore we can't carry infantry units, but also because there are MORE small units out there. There were no foot recon, no crews, and no snipers in the SP series to run into. Now the battlefield can run amok with crews at times.
Charles, maybe we're not considering what you've said, because what you've said isn't the problem we're complaining about. You're talking about people being upset because they lose tanks at what they feel is an unreasonable rate to unsuppoprted infantry. What we're talking about is being annoyed because our unsupported infantry are destroying tanks at an unreasonable rate.
I would like to be excited if I saw one of my squads assault an oncoming tank, gun down the supporting infantry, knock out the tank, then move forward through the smoke and knock out 2 more tanks. That would be an awesome performance, and it would be nice if it were viewed as such. But it's normal; I'm a _lot_ more surprised to see a squad fail to destroy a tank than to succeed.
I would like to be excited if I saw one of my squads assault an oncoming tank, gun down the supporting infantry, knock out the tank, then move forward through the smoke and knock out 2 more tanks. That would be an awesome performance, and it would be nice if it were viewed as such. But it's normal; I'm a _lot_ more surprised to see a squad fail to destroy a tank than to succeed.
Sorry, but I can't believe this as this simply couldn't be(*) - unless you have fiddled with either the preferences or the unit stats, but than it's not the games fault but yours.Originally posted by orc4hire:
I would like to be excited if I saw one of my squads assault an oncoming tank, gun down the supporting infantry, knock out the tank, then move forward through the smoke and knock out 2 more tanks. That would be an awesome performance, and it would be nice if it were viewed as such. But it's normal; I'm a _lot_ more surprised to see a squad fail to destroy a tank than to succeed.
(*) Simply make a "test battle" using the battle creator - I have done this various times to test things like "OPfire chances"," Close assault chances" etc., and from what I have seen there, and what I'm seeing in the battles I'm in at the moment to test OOBs, inf. squads are rather easily spottet when assaulting tanks in the open, and machinegunned to pieces immidatly ?!
Arralen
AMD FX-4300
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Kingston SV300 120 GB
Windows 8.1
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Kingston SV300 120 GB
Windows 8.1
**Sorry, but I can't believe this as this simply couldn't be(*) - unless you have fiddled wit either the preferences or the unit stats, but than it's not the games fault but yours.**
I see this happen all the time. SPWAW is--God love it--such a complicated and fantastic piece of work that things may not repeat themselves to one person as they do to another, but it's my general feeling that infantry assaults are too strong.
It just doesn't feel "real" to me that infantry squads have such assault power vs. afvs. I don't think in reality they'd pass their assault checks so easily.
Paul, I wonder what would be the result if that 10 percent base assault chance was not
based on each man in a squad but rather based
on "two man initiative", which would start out at 5%.
I still think there are too many assaults permitted per squad. If there are potentially ten assaults in a ten-man squad, that's 40 assaults per platoon. Not counting whatever AT weapons they have available.
Also, how can a crew assault? Shouldn't they be heading for their own edge of the battlefield in order to save their skins (much like emptied trucks)?
Snipers. Assault? No.
The game has mixed up snipers with "heroes".
My take on a sniper is a sharpshooter trained to move slowly, stealthily, and shoot at long distances. Not to advance with a fast movement rate and take out AFVs singlehandedly.
I see this happen all the time. SPWAW is--God love it--such a complicated and fantastic piece of work that things may not repeat themselves to one person as they do to another, but it's my general feeling that infantry assaults are too strong.
It just doesn't feel "real" to me that infantry squads have such assault power vs. afvs. I don't think in reality they'd pass their assault checks so easily.
Paul, I wonder what would be the result if that 10 percent base assault chance was not
based on each man in a squad but rather based
on "two man initiative", which would start out at 5%.
I still think there are too many assaults permitted per squad. If there are potentially ten assaults in a ten-man squad, that's 40 assaults per platoon. Not counting whatever AT weapons they have available.
Also, how can a crew assault? Shouldn't they be heading for their own edge of the battlefield in order to save their skins (much like emptied trucks)?
Snipers. Assault? No.
The game has mixed up snipers with "heroes".
My take on a sniper is a sharpshooter trained to move slowly, stealthily, and shoot at long distances. Not to advance with a fast movement rate and take out AFVs singlehandedly.
Arralen
Well, I'm sorry; I can't help what you believe. But I've seen it dozens of times.
I wonder if there's a level of skill or experience above which infantry units' AT deadliness jumps up dramatically. From what I understand of the SPWAW combat system it's certainly possible; a lot of factors go into the CA calculation and experience affects most of them. I can picture a situation where at 1 point an infantry unit may be easy to spot, have a poor chance of making its pre-AFV attack morale check, less likely to have all of its members participate in the attack, and poor odds on the attack iteslf. But then it crosses a certain threshold of experience and all of a sudden it's hard to spot, rarely fails a morale check, everyone attacks, and with a higher chance of doing damage, and the cumulative affect is a 10 man tank-grinding machine.
It would be nice if that sudden upward curve in lethality, if that is indeed what's going on, were flattened out a little bit.... perhaps a geometric increase instead of logarithmic.
Well, I'm sorry; I can't help what you believe. But I've seen it dozens of times.
I wonder if there's a level of skill or experience above which infantry units' AT deadliness jumps up dramatically. From what I understand of the SPWAW combat system it's certainly possible; a lot of factors go into the CA calculation and experience affects most of them. I can picture a situation where at 1 point an infantry unit may be easy to spot, have a poor chance of making its pre-AFV attack morale check, less likely to have all of its members participate in the attack, and poor odds on the attack iteslf. But then it crosses a certain threshold of experience and all of a sudden it's hard to spot, rarely fails a morale check, everyone attacks, and with a higher chance of doing damage, and the cumulative affect is a 10 man tank-grinding machine.
It would be nice if that sudden upward curve in lethality, if that is indeed what's going on, were flattened out a little bit.... perhaps a geometric increase instead of logarithmic.
So you are talking about campaigns here, where your inf has gone through multiple battles, gaining exp. etc., and where you have changed units during the "repair phase" ?
Could be that you are partly right - in fact, experience has a geometric effect on unit performance, as not only the exp. rating goes up, but the leaders skills as well.
But -and that's worse- there's still a bug in the "unit upgrade routine" - you can oberve it by units gaining "recon ability" when formations up in the list get new equipment - it doesn't matter if you change heavy for medium tank or stay with medium, just hit the "change" button, and things get awful.
Maybe there's not only the recon ability flag screwed up but some other values as well, who knows? (And only the programmers could tell, if anyone
)
Arralen
Could be that you are partly right - in fact, experience has a geometric effect on unit performance, as not only the exp. rating goes up, but the leaders skills as well.
But -and that's worse- there's still a bug in the "unit upgrade routine" - you can oberve it by units gaining "recon ability" when formations up in the list get new equipment - it doesn't matter if you change heavy for medium tank or stay with medium, just hit the "change" button, and things get awful.
Maybe there's not only the recon ability flag screwed up but some other values as well, who knows? (And only the programmers could tell, if anyone
)Arralen
AMD FX-4300
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Kingston SV300 120 GB
Windows 8.1
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Kingston SV300 120 GB
Windows 8.1
I've seen it most in campaigns, but I noticed it as early as the 1st battle... of course, this was German troops, who start out at a fairly high experience level (and by the end of the campaign, the 1 infantry platoon that had never lost a squad, and had maybe 500 total kills and experience levels around 130, strode across the battlefield like gods, crushing everything that came against them....)
So, depending on what the hypothetical magic experience threshold is, it may be something that some nationalities start out start out above or below, and it may also depend on the year, since I think most nationalities troop quality varies by year. This could somewhat account for people's varying experiences in this area.
So, depending on what the hypothetical magic experience threshold is, it may be something that some nationalities start out start out above or below, and it may also depend on the year, since I think most nationalities troop quality varies by year. This could somewhat account for people's varying experiences in this area.
Yes, the infantry is too good in assaults. But what about this: I was attacking with soviet PTRD some weak Rumunian tank and when targeting it said about 30%. But as it was next to tank it assaulted him, and it said chance 8%!?! Ofcourse it missed... I would rather that they didn't assault so they would have better chances (at least they'd damage him).
ord4hire: Clearly you've been exaggerating to a great degree here. 500 kills? You can't be serious. Try dividing that into 4 years straight of war and you would need such a unit to achieve around 10 1/2 kills a game. I've never seen anyone claim a 100 kills for a unit much less 500 (100 is entirely possible though) for ANY unit. How many battles have you fought where you had a unit with 10 kills? And if you did, just how frequently did that occur? You can get an experience of 130 without even a 100 kills, rest assured.
One thing further, you spoke of this in relation to campaigning, but I play campaigns, and I guarantee you'll NEVER get 10 1/2 kills a game with one infantry unit, and probably not with engineers either, no matter their experience, and you sure wouldn't storm around with them as you think you can (unless the opponent is silly enough to cut all his unit's ranges to zero, and the AI, since you mentioned "campaigns", doesn't do that), but at best get the majority of their kills in mop-ups. The AI is much too opfire happy for that to happen. I think I had a German commando unit get 12 kills, ONE TIME (and 1/2 of those were mop-ups), and I've yet to see any unit I've played top that with which I've played in one battle.
One thing further, you spoke of this in relation to campaigning, but I play campaigns, and I guarantee you'll NEVER get 10 1/2 kills a game with one infantry unit, and probably not with engineers either, no matter their experience, and you sure wouldn't storm around with them as you think you can (unless the opponent is silly enough to cut all his unit's ranges to zero, and the AI, since you mentioned "campaigns", doesn't do that), but at best get the majority of their kills in mop-ups. The AI is much too opfire happy for that to happen. I think I had a German commando unit get 12 kills, ONE TIME (and 1/2 of those were mop-ups), and I've yet to see any unit I've played top that with which I've played in one battle.
orc4hire: As you know, and admit, I misunderstood you. Firstly I didn't call you a liar and if I did, it would only be relevant if you said what I thought you did. Now you've said you are trying to be polite, but maybe next time you will succeed, for this is what trying to be polite and accomplishing it looks like. I wish you well, sorry I just misunderstood you that's all; really.
Charles,
If you had said something like, "500 kills per squad? That's an awful lot." then you would have been polite. And I would have replied something very like, "No, sorry; I must not have been clear enough. That was for the platoon as a whole. The rifle squads had something like 130 kills each."
The difference, you see, between that and what you actually said is that in this example there is an assumption of miscommunication and a request for clarification. The assumption in your actual post was that I was making a deliberate counter-factual statement, about which you proceded to lecture me at length.
Furthermore, what I said was that I try to be polite, but that given your tone I was making an exception for you. In other words, I was _not_ trying to be polite to you. If you expect politeness from someone, sir, I would suggest that you be more circumspect with your accusations in the future. Now, if you have anything further to say to me, kindly do so via email; I do not wish to clutter up this forum with this sort of conversation and will not reply to you here on this topic again.
If you had said something like, "500 kills per squad? That's an awful lot." then you would have been polite. And I would have replied something very like, "No, sorry; I must not have been clear enough. That was for the platoon as a whole. The rifle squads had something like 130 kills each."
The difference, you see, between that and what you actually said is that in this example there is an assumption of miscommunication and a request for clarification. The assumption in your actual post was that I was making a deliberate counter-factual statement, about which you proceded to lecture me at length.
Furthermore, what I said was that I try to be polite, but that given your tone I was making an exception for you. In other words, I was _not_ trying to be polite to you. If you expect politeness from someone, sir, I would suggest that you be more circumspect with your accusations in the future. Now, if you have anything further to say to me, kindly do so via email; I do not wish to clutter up this forum with this sort of conversation and will not reply to you here on this topic again.
Whoa back up a minute ..10 asaults based on a 10 man squad ??? where does this come from ...i am not getting anything like these results at default settings even with experienced troops ..are ya'll using default settings ... what setting do ya have on your AI ?? How many games in your campaign ..1 platoon taking out 20 tanks ?in how many turns.surely not 1 turn ??
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
AmmoSgt:
I'm saying that--based on what I understand and my experiences in the game--there is no limit on a squad's number of assaults if you can "make" the suppression rolls.
So, theoretically you could have ten assaults from a single ten man squad.
I have had squads that performed six and seven assaults. These squads had no AT weapons or intrinsic HE Pen, AP Pen or HEAT. Not all were successful, but the mere fact that they could perform this number of assaults is unbelieveable.
The assault computations do not--as far as I can see--model the expenditure of energy and ammunition/grenades/improvised assault weapons. In other words, squads don't run out of "assault potential" until they are destroyed.
I'm saying that--based on what I understand and my experiences in the game--there is no limit on a squad's number of assaults if you can "make" the suppression rolls.
So, theoretically you could have ten assaults from a single ten man squad.
I have had squads that performed six and seven assaults. These squads had no AT weapons or intrinsic HE Pen, AP Pen or HEAT. Not all were successful, but the mere fact that they could perform this number of assaults is unbelieveable.
The assault computations do not--as far as I can see--model the expenditure of energy and ammunition/grenades/improvised assault weapons. In other words, squads don't run out of "assault potential" until they are destroyed.
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
There are no 10 assaults per 10 man squad, but a minimun 1% chance PER MAN (additive) that the squad assault will be successful. Each squad has only one assualt at a time, but if the troops can rally and pass morale checks, they can continue attempts to assualt until they fail, A failure can be because of any number of things.
Experience can be a real killer in the game. 60-70 is supposed to be "OK" 70-80 is "experienced" 80-90 is veran and 90-100 are battle hardened. Over 100 things start to go "hollywood" A few elites can make a game interesting, but if you have significant forces up in the 120s to 130s, then you have a bunch of guys like John Wayne and Arnold Swarzenegger rolled into one - single handedly able to take out a platoon or two themselvers that may be able to take out a whole platoon of tanks single handed.
If you are good enough that you can routinely get a core up to the 130s, then you have to adjust the prefs to keep the game balanced. I would say turn the enemy infantry toughness up to 150 and turn your infantry toughness down to 65.
IF you think your troops are too effective against tanks, cut ther toughness down and they will once again die like mere mortals.
Experience can be a real killer in the game. 60-70 is supposed to be "OK" 70-80 is "experienced" 80-90 is veran and 90-100 are battle hardened. Over 100 things start to go "hollywood" A few elites can make a game interesting, but if you have significant forces up in the 120s to 130s, then you have a bunch of guys like John Wayne and Arnold Swarzenegger rolled into one - single handedly able to take out a platoon or two themselvers that may be able to take out a whole platoon of tanks single handed.
If you are good enough that you can routinely get a core up to the 130s, then you have to adjust the prefs to keep the game balanced. I would say turn the enemy infantry toughness up to 150 and turn your infantry toughness down to 65.
IF you think your troops are too effective against tanks, cut ther toughness down and they will once again die like mere mortals.
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
There are no 10 assaults per 10 man squad, but a minimun 1% chance PER MAN (additive) that the squad assault will be successful. Each squad has only one assualt at a time, but if the troops can rally and pass morale checks, they can continue attempts to assualt until they fail, A failure can be because of any number of things.
Experience can be a real killer in the game. 60-70 is supposed to be "OK" 70-80 is "experienced" 80-90 is veran and 90-100 are battle hardened. Over 100 things start to go "hollywood" A few elites can make a game interesting, but if you have significant forces up in the 120s to 130s, then you have a bunch of guys like John Wayne and Arnold Swarzenegger rolled into one - single handedly able to take out a platoon or two themselvers that may be able to take out a whole platoon of tanks single handed.
If you are good enough that you can routinely get a core up to the 130s, then you have to adjust the prefs to keep the game balanced. I would say turn the enemy infantry toughness up to 150 and turn your infantry toughness down to 65.
IF you think your troops are too effective against tanks, cut their toughness and rout/rally prefs down and they will once again die like mere mortals.
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited December 30, 2000).]
Experience can be a real killer in the game. 60-70 is supposed to be "OK" 70-80 is "experienced" 80-90 is veran and 90-100 are battle hardened. Over 100 things start to go "hollywood" A few elites can make a game interesting, but if you have significant forces up in the 120s to 130s, then you have a bunch of guys like John Wayne and Arnold Swarzenegger rolled into one - single handedly able to take out a platoon or two themselvers that may be able to take out a whole platoon of tanks single handed.
If you are good enough that you can routinely get a core up to the 130s, then you have to adjust the prefs to keep the game balanced. I would say turn the enemy infantry toughness up to 150 and turn your infantry toughness down to 65.
IF you think your troops are too effective against tanks, cut their toughness and rout/rally prefs down and they will once again die like mere mortals.
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited December 30, 2000).]
AmmoSgt,
Default settings. Unless I've missed something in 4.x (most of my playing has been under earlier versions) each assault takes 1 'shot', but I have had experienced squads make several assaults in 1 turn, especially if some are opfire.
Knocking out the 20 or so Russian tanks with 1 platoon was over the course of, hmm, maybe 4 turns, and some I think were immobilized and abandoned.
Were the veteran infantry is really deadly is in that they get several shots, and if they fail on 1 assault, they can easily rally back up and keep trying till they get it. If an assault took _all_ the units' shots, that would go a long way towards bringing things into balance, and be more realistic as well. (How many tanks can 1 squad attack with improvised weapons in a few minutes? I would think that 1 would be challenging enough...)
Default settings. Unless I've missed something in 4.x (most of my playing has been under earlier versions) each assault takes 1 'shot', but I have had experienced squads make several assaults in 1 turn, especially if some are opfire.
Knocking out the 20 or so Russian tanks with 1 platoon was over the course of, hmm, maybe 4 turns, and some I think were immobilized and abandoned.
Were the veteran infantry is really deadly is in that they get several shots, and if they fail on 1 assault, they can easily rally back up and keep trying till they get it. If an assault took _all_ the units' shots, that would go a long way towards bringing things into balance, and be more realistic as well. (How many tanks can 1 squad attack with improvised weapons in a few minutes? I would think that 1 would be challenging enough...)