Howdy.
I must say I really like the way the infantry can kick butt when facing tanks. Please keep it this way, afterall if you don't want to
lose tanks to infantry don't drive unescorted and don't get within six hexes of them either. Of course if ambushed -- retreat!
"Soon sad news arrived that the CO had fallen ... helping a wounded officer ... to a safer place ... the CO attracted ... a Russian tank, which fired a shot that hit him, on the return trip. The death of the CO depressed the men, ... enraged ...attacking tanks were destroyed ... no living enemy soldiers remained in their trenches ... Especially brave, was a small man ... He destroyed three tanks, but was badly shaken while blowing up the third one ... The unit entered the battle with 800 men, ... 1/3 were left ... the Red Army told a worse story, ... 7000 men lost...over 100 tanks half by the infantry"
Battle of Izjum (Estonian Battalion Narva)
[This message has been edited by MindSpy (edited January 16, 2001).]
Keep the infantry strong vs tanks ...
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
Captn_Jack
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Reedsville, WV, USA
- Contact:
My thoughts are that vehicle crews need to be toned down a bit. I have had a 2 man crew from a destroyed Greyhound, move 1 hex behind a Tiger and destroy it. Not just disable it, but turn it into a burning hulk. Now, I guess it would be possible for the crew to "surprise" a stationary, unbuttoned tank, jump on it and fire down into the open hatch killing the crew, but to blow it up with only small arms??Originally posted by MindSpy:
Howdy.
I must say I really like the way the infantry can kick butt when facing tanks. Please keep it this way, afterall if you don't want to
lose tanks to infantry don't drive unescorted and don't get within six hexes of them either. Of course if ambushed -- retreat!
I don't think that the regular infantry needs adjusted at all. There is a circle around every tank that is a "safe zone" for attacking troops. An area where they can stay out of the field of fire of any gun on the tank. If any tank moves close enough to infantry, especially ones with RPG's or bazookas, they are in trouble. It should stay that way.
CJ
M(1)&M(9)'s...they melt in your tank...not in your hand!
CJ,
This was discussed at some length a week or so back, and a bug in the infantry close assault routine was confirmed; the bug was tripling the infantry's chance of success.
As far as a tanks 'blind zone' goes, on modern tanks it varies from about 9-15 meters, depending on the tank and the facing. Interestingly enough, the minimum range of effective infantry anti-tank weapons is about 10 meters. So, when infantry is in the zone in which the tank can't hurt them, their ability to hurt the tank is dramatically curtailed. Keep in mind that SP hexes are 50 yards, and it has been established that for targetting purposes that everyone is in the middle of the hex, so infantry assaulting from an adjacent hex are crossing 50 yards of ground to attack a tank that is probably in motion, and may easily be going 20-30 mph.
In certain circumstances, skilled infantry who had had time to prepare and were willing to accept the casualties, could defeat a tank without the use of specialized anti-tank weapons. But in general, infantry is more afraid of tanks than the other way around, and that should be represented in the game.
And to those who say, "If you don't want to lose tanks to infantry who are 3 times as effective as they should be, don't let the infantry get within 100 yards of your tanks," I can only say, "If you want your infantry to be able to take out tanks without the benefit of anti-tank weapons, either accept the historical capabilities and learn how to use your infantry, or adjust the preferences to reduce tanks to the state of impotence that makes you happy."
This was discussed at some length a week or so back, and a bug in the infantry close assault routine was confirmed; the bug was tripling the infantry's chance of success.
As far as a tanks 'blind zone' goes, on modern tanks it varies from about 9-15 meters, depending on the tank and the facing. Interestingly enough, the minimum range of effective infantry anti-tank weapons is about 10 meters. So, when infantry is in the zone in which the tank can't hurt them, their ability to hurt the tank is dramatically curtailed. Keep in mind that SP hexes are 50 yards, and it has been established that for targetting purposes that everyone is in the middle of the hex, so infantry assaulting from an adjacent hex are crossing 50 yards of ground to attack a tank that is probably in motion, and may easily be going 20-30 mph.
In certain circumstances, skilled infantry who had had time to prepare and were willing to accept the casualties, could defeat a tank without the use of specialized anti-tank weapons. But in general, infantry is more afraid of tanks than the other way around, and that should be represented in the game.
And to those who say, "If you don't want to lose tanks to infantry who are 3 times as effective as they should be, don't let the infantry get within 100 yards of your tanks," I can only say, "If you want your infantry to be able to take out tanks without the benefit of anti-tank weapons, either accept the historical capabilities and learn how to use your infantry, or adjust the preferences to reduce tanks to the state of impotence that makes you happy."
I also found that in addition to the bug that was tripling the INF's close assault precentages that Rifle Grenades were all being given penetration averages based on the HEAT rating of the weapon vs. the HE rating since all RG's in the early war scenerios dont have any HEAT rounds.
I'd set up a few test scenerios and sure enough, all the nation's squads equipped with RG's when they got hits were documented as HEAT round hits and being given pen ratings based on that.....even for squads that started the battle with *zero* HEAT grenades!
I hope this gets addressed in time for 4.6 I like Infantry too that can kick butt and serve a purpose but historical accuracy must take precedence!
I'd set up a few test scenerios and sure enough, all the nation's squads equipped with RG's when they got hits were documented as HEAT round hits and being given pen ratings based on that.....even for squads that started the battle with *zero* HEAT grenades!
I hope this gets addressed in time for 4.6 I like Infantry too that can kick butt and serve a purpose but historical accuracy must take precedence!
-
Major_Johnson
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Beach Haven, NJ, USA
IMO, the settings are just fine. I think that the cases of crews destroying tanks are rare. I can't think of it happenning with me.
One of my strategies when putting infantry up against armour is too, when possible, let the armour come to me. There is a much higher chance of destruction when they come to you. Or that seems to be the case when i play.
------------------
MJ
We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves.
One of my strategies when putting infantry up against armour is too, when possible, let the armour come to me. There is a much higher chance of destruction when they come to you. Or that seems to be the case when i play.
------------------
MJ
We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves.
M.J.!
We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves.
We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves.
Nikademus,
I only played SP a little after 4.0 came out, then got back into it with 4.5, and I was astonished to see that every squad had been issued RPGs.... I mean, is this 1939 Poland, or 1969 Vietnam? If you're going to do that sort of thing you might as well go all the way and have 'powerups' on the map; when an infantry squad moves over one of them they start glowing and automatically destroy any tank in a 5 hex radius for the rest of the turn....
I only played SP a little after 4.0 came out, then got back into it with 4.5, and I was astonished to see that every squad had been issued RPGs.... I mean, is this 1939 Poland, or 1969 Vietnam? If you're going to do that sort of thing you might as well go all the way and have 'powerups' on the map; when an infantry squad moves over one of them they start glowing and automatically destroy any tank in a 5 hex radius for the rest of the turn....
Yes, i was a bit surprised as well, but in honesty, i did'nt really notice it until after i'd played several early war scenerios in a row and found that half the tank casualties were being caused by unsupported INF squads, some even out in the open, attacking and knocking out tanks (mediums included) head on at 100 and 150 yards out.
According to Paul, RG's were added to most basic INF units because of user comments about INF not being powerful enough against tanks. This disturbed me greatly, because up to that point i'd just automatically assumed that they were included because they were actually part of the TO&E. Guess thats what i get for not being around for a while
Historical accuracy is very important to me....my personal opinion is that RG's should be restricted to 'Heavy' Infantry squads or Heavy Weapons teams, same as with the dedicated AT rifles. Unless of course, RG's were part of everyone's TO&E, then its tough cookies i guess. I also found it odd that the British and Japanese were excluded from this upgrade. Japanese, well they always did have to improvise a bit when it came to fighting armor (strap that mine on my back babeeeeeee!) but the British, fighting German Panzers as is often the case, would put them at quite a disadvatage compared to other nations.
It was later that i discoverd the HEAT bug. I'd spent a whole damn hour!!!! modifying my personal OOB's halving the HE of the grenades in order to dampen their successes a tad only to find that the 'average' penetration figure was still hovering between 45-60mm of armor per hit, *and* that the message box was indicating that the tank was struck by a HEAT round, even though the RG had only HE ammo at the time.
According to Paul, RG's were added to most basic INF units because of user comments about INF not being powerful enough against tanks. This disturbed me greatly, because up to that point i'd just automatically assumed that they were included because they were actually part of the TO&E. Guess thats what i get for not being around for a while
Historical accuracy is very important to me....my personal opinion is that RG's should be restricted to 'Heavy' Infantry squads or Heavy Weapons teams, same as with the dedicated AT rifles. Unless of course, RG's were part of everyone's TO&E, then its tough cookies i guess. I also found it odd that the British and Japanese were excluded from this upgrade. Japanese, well they always did have to improvise a bit when it came to fighting armor (strap that mine on my back babeeeeeee!) but the British, fighting German Panzers as is often the case, would put them at quite a disadvatage compared to other nations.
It was later that i discoverd the HEAT bug. I'd spent a whole damn hour!!!! modifying my personal OOB's halving the HE of the grenades in order to dampen their successes a tad only to find that the 'average' penetration figure was still hovering between 45-60mm of armor per hit, *and* that the message box was indicating that the tank was struck by a HEAT round, even though the RG had only HE ammo at the time.
Yeah, I know what you mean; you go away for a few months, and the whole place goes to hell. :}
As far as I'm concerned, someone who complains that unsupported early WWII infantry has a hard time standing up to tanks and needs beefing up is playing the wrong game. Early war infantry _did_ have a hard time standing up to tanks, and that was a major part of tactical and operational decisions of the time.
As far as I'm concerned, someone who complains that unsupported early WWII infantry has a hard time standing up to tanks and needs beefing up is playing the wrong game. Early war infantry _did_ have a hard time standing up to tanks, and that was a major part of tactical and operational decisions of the time.
agreed.
It was the later debut of truely effective and portable HEAT based weapons such as the PIAT, Bazooka and Panzerfaust within the basic INF squad that made Combined Arms tactics not only the best method as opposed to the earlier and tank heavy Blitzkrieg of earlier days but essential!
Until that time INF had to rely either on supporting AT guns and artillery, or in absence of that the marginally effective RG and AT rifles or beyond that.....steel nerves with Molotov in hand and a prayer on your lips.
And just in case its misunderstood (yet again) this is not in reference to the close assault formula/discussion) Whole different ballpark there, as the Finns aptly showed us in 39-40 when they made tank-hunting a popular sport in the cold and desolate arctic forests!
It was the later debut of truely effective and portable HEAT based weapons such as the PIAT, Bazooka and Panzerfaust within the basic INF squad that made Combined Arms tactics not only the best method as opposed to the earlier and tank heavy Blitzkrieg of earlier days but essential!
Until that time INF had to rely either on supporting AT guns and artillery, or in absence of that the marginally effective RG and AT rifles or beyond that.....steel nerves with Molotov in hand and a prayer on your lips.
And just in case its misunderstood (yet again) this is not in reference to the close assault formula/discussion) Whole different ballpark there, as the Finns aptly showed us in 39-40 when they made tank-hunting a popular sport in the cold and desolate arctic forests!
-
Captn_Jack
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Reedsville, WV, USA
- Contact:
But tripling a 2 man crew with pistols chance of success should still be very close to 0% anyway wouldn't you say?Originally posted by orc4hire:
CJ,
This was discussed at some length a week or so back, and a bug in the infantry close assault routine was confirmed; the bug was tripling the infantry's chance of success.
This may be true for rifle grenades and bazookas, but what about satchel charges, molotovs and hand grenades? Are you saying once a person gets within this "safe zone" that they have no effective means of destroying a tank? I disagree with you here and say the chance of destroying the tank is greatly enhanced using these weapons. Tossing a satchel charge into an engine compartment is a whole lot better than throwing it at the tank from 50 meters away.As far as a tanks 'blind zone' goes, on modern tanks it varies from about 9-15 meters, depending on the tank and the facing. Interestingly enough, the minimum range of effective infantry anti-tank weapons is about 10 meters. So, when infantry is in the zone in which the tank can't hurt them, their ability to hurt the tank is dramatically curtailed.
Keep in mind that SP hexes are 50 yards, and it has been established that for targetting purposes that everyone is in the middle of the hex, so infantry assaulting from an adjacent hex are crossing 50 yards of ground to attack a tank that is probably in motion, and may easily be going 20-30 mph.
I have no problems with this either, but there are as many times when tanks are stationary or immobile not to mention suppressed. Then the infantry can move into the very hex the tank occupies. Or how about infantry moving into the same hex with a tank who has expended all it's op fire?
Tell me there is no fear in a tankers heart when he is told to drive his platoon of tanks through an un-scouted forest, which is occupied by infantry. Tanks can take out any infantry when they see them, and the greater the distance the better. Infantry can also take out any tank, and the closer the better. Infantry doesn't cower from armor. If that were the case, the world would be a whole lot different than it is now as the Panzers would have scared everybody out of their paths. Broken infantry will retreat from armor in the game, same as in real life. Casulties "are" suffered by the squads in the game when attacking armor. BTW, most of my tank kills come from bazooka equiped squads firing their weapons selectively. I think my kill ratio is higher this way then by "close assault" as I have seen many "CA"'s fail.In certain circumstances, skilled infantry who had had time to prepare and were willing to accept the casualties, could defeat a tank without the use of specialized anti-tank weapons. But in general, infantry is more afraid of tanks than the other way around, and that should be represented in the game.
And to those who say, "If you don't want to lose tanks to infantry who are 3 times as effective as they should be, don't let the infantry get within 100 yards of your tanks," I can only say, "If you want your infantry to be able to take out tanks without the benefit of anti-tank weapons, either accept the historical capabilities and learn how to use your infantry, or adjust the preferences to reduce tanks to the state of impotence that makes you happy."
That's really funny as I haven't made a statement that would in anyway imply what you quote. I feel that not only should the infantry perform as they did in real life, but all the weapons and units should. And, I rely on my tactics to render an enemy tank impotent, not a request for a programmer to change some code. Cheers and good hunting to you!
CJ
M(1)&M(9)'s...they melt in your tank...not in your hand!
Captn_Jack,
>But tripling a 2 man crew with pistols chance of success should still be very close to 0% anyway
>wouldn't you say?
I would. The game engine disagrees. And it's a bug in the game engine I was talking about.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as a tanks 'blind zone' goes, on modern tanks it varies from about 9-15 meters, depending on the tank and the facing. Interestingly enough, the minimum range of effective infantry anti-tank weapons is about 10 meters. So, when infantry is in the zone in which the tank can't hurt them, their ability to hurt the tank is dramatically curtailed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may be true for rifle grenades and bazookas, but what about satchel charges, molotovs and hand grenades? Are you saying once a person gets within this "safe zone" that they have no effective means of destroying a tank? I disagree with you here and say the chance of destroying the tank is greatly enhanced using these weapons. Tossing a satchel charge into an engine compartment is a whole lot better than throwing it at the tank from 50 meters away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, let's see, did I say that? "So, when infantry is in the zone in which the tank can't hurt them, their ability to hurt the tank is dramatically curtailed." Hmm. I would say, no, I didn't say that.
By the by, how many satchel charges did, oh, let's say, a 1940 vintage Belgian rifle squad carry around with them? The way people talk about infantry's awesome power of radiating death in close combat with tanks you would think every rifleman carried 3 or 4.
And I would have to disagree wtih you and say that the crowbars, grenades, and the old log between the tracks so often referred to in the other thread, are NOT more effective than a bazooka. After all, if those things were doing the job so well, why come up with the RPGs?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep in mind that SP hexes are 50 yards, and it has been established that for targetting purposes that everyone is in the middle of the hex, so infantry assaulting from an adjacent hex are crossing 50 yards of ground to attack a tank that is probably in motion, and may easily be going 20-30 mph.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problems with this either, but there are as many times when tanks are stationary or immobile not to mention suppressed. Then the infantry can move into the very hex the tank occupies. Or how about infantry moving into the same hex with a tank who has expended all it's op fire?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, sure, I read all the time about individual tanks driving out into a field and stopping to take a nap while their infantry support catches up.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In certain circumstances, skilled infantry who had had time to prepare and were willing to accept the casualties, could defeat a tank without the use of specialized anti-tank weapons. But in general, infantry is more afraid of tanks than the other way around, and that should be represented in the game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me there is no fear in a tankers heart when he is told to drive his platoon of tanks through an un-scouted forest, which is occupied by infantry. Tanks can take out any infantry when they see them, and the greater the distance the better. Infantry can also take out any tank, and the closer the better. Infantry doesn't cower from armor. If that were the case, the world would be a whole lot different than it is now as the Panzers would have scared everybody out of their paths. Broken infantry will retreat from armor in the game, same as in real life. Casulties "are" suffered by the squads in the game when attacking armor. BTW, most of my tank kills come from bazooka equiped squads firing their weapons selectively. I think my kill ratio is higher this way then by "close assault" as I have seen many "CA"'s fail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me there isn't more fear in the infantrymans heart when he hears the tank coming. Which is what I said.
Infantry _DID_ cower from armor, the panzers _DID_ scare most out of their paths in the early years.
I hate to break your heart and all, but it happened.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to those who say, "If you don't want to lose tanks to infantry who are 3 times as effective as they should be, don't let the infantry get within 100 yards of your tanks," I can only say, "If you want your infantry to be able to take out tanks without the benefit of anti-tank weapons, either accept the historical capabilities and learn how to use your infantry, or adjust the preferences to reduce tanks to the state of impotence that makes you happy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's really funny as I haven't made a statement that would in anyway imply what you quote. I feel that not only should the infantry perform as they did in real life, but all the weapons and units should. And, I rely on my tactics to render an enemy tank impotent, not a request for a programmer to change some code. Cheers and good hunting to you!
CJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, gee CJ, that's really funny 'cause I never said you did. However, Mindspy said, "afterall if you don't want to lose tanks to infantry don't drive unescorted and don't get within six hexes of them either."
If you're going to go through the trouble to quote me, I'd think you'd at least take the trouble to read what you're quoting.
>But tripling a 2 man crew with pistols chance of success should still be very close to 0% anyway
>wouldn't you say?
I would. The game engine disagrees. And it's a bug in the game engine I was talking about.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as a tanks 'blind zone' goes, on modern tanks it varies from about 9-15 meters, depending on the tank and the facing. Interestingly enough, the minimum range of effective infantry anti-tank weapons is about 10 meters. So, when infantry is in the zone in which the tank can't hurt them, their ability to hurt the tank is dramatically curtailed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This may be true for rifle grenades and bazookas, but what about satchel charges, molotovs and hand grenades? Are you saying once a person gets within this "safe zone" that they have no effective means of destroying a tank? I disagree with you here and say the chance of destroying the tank is greatly enhanced using these weapons. Tossing a satchel charge into an engine compartment is a whole lot better than throwing it at the tank from 50 meters away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, let's see, did I say that? "So, when infantry is in the zone in which the tank can't hurt them, their ability to hurt the tank is dramatically curtailed." Hmm. I would say, no, I didn't say that.
By the by, how many satchel charges did, oh, let's say, a 1940 vintage Belgian rifle squad carry around with them? The way people talk about infantry's awesome power of radiating death in close combat with tanks you would think every rifleman carried 3 or 4.
And I would have to disagree wtih you and say that the crowbars, grenades, and the old log between the tracks so often referred to in the other thread, are NOT more effective than a bazooka. After all, if those things were doing the job so well, why come up with the RPGs?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep in mind that SP hexes are 50 yards, and it has been established that for targetting purposes that everyone is in the middle of the hex, so infantry assaulting from an adjacent hex are crossing 50 yards of ground to attack a tank that is probably in motion, and may easily be going 20-30 mph.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have no problems with this either, but there are as many times when tanks are stationary or immobile not to mention suppressed. Then the infantry can move into the very hex the tank occupies. Or how about infantry moving into the same hex with a tank who has expended all it's op fire?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, sure, I read all the time about individual tanks driving out into a field and stopping to take a nap while their infantry support catches up.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In certain circumstances, skilled infantry who had had time to prepare and were willing to accept the casualties, could defeat a tank without the use of specialized anti-tank weapons. But in general, infantry is more afraid of tanks than the other way around, and that should be represented in the game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me there is no fear in a tankers heart when he is told to drive his platoon of tanks through an un-scouted forest, which is occupied by infantry. Tanks can take out any infantry when they see them, and the greater the distance the better. Infantry can also take out any tank, and the closer the better. Infantry doesn't cower from armor. If that were the case, the world would be a whole lot different than it is now as the Panzers would have scared everybody out of their paths. Broken infantry will retreat from armor in the game, same as in real life. Casulties "are" suffered by the squads in the game when attacking armor. BTW, most of my tank kills come from bazooka equiped squads firing their weapons selectively. I think my kill ratio is higher this way then by "close assault" as I have seen many "CA"'s fail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me there isn't more fear in the infantrymans heart when he hears the tank coming. Which is what I said.
Infantry _DID_ cower from armor, the panzers _DID_ scare most out of their paths in the early years.
I hate to break your heart and all, but it happened.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to those who say, "If you don't want to lose tanks to infantry who are 3 times as effective as they should be, don't let the infantry get within 100 yards of your tanks," I can only say, "If you want your infantry to be able to take out tanks without the benefit of anti-tank weapons, either accept the historical capabilities and learn how to use your infantry, or adjust the preferences to reduce tanks to the state of impotence that makes you happy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's really funny as I haven't made a statement that would in anyway imply what you quote. I feel that not only should the infantry perform as they did in real life, but all the weapons and units should. And, I rely on my tactics to render an enemy tank impotent, not a request for a programmer to change some code. Cheers and good hunting to you!
CJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, gee CJ, that's really funny 'cause I never said you did. However, Mindspy said, "afterall if you don't want to lose tanks to infantry don't drive unescorted and don't get within six hexes of them either."
If you're going to go through the trouble to quote me, I'd think you'd at least take the trouble to read what you're quoting.
-
Captn_Jack
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Reedsville, WV, USA
- Contact:
Hmmm....that's funny cause I thought your reply was to me, seeing as how it was addressed as such. And I didn't see anything in any of the post concerning timeframe or countries involved. I must be missing the whole point then as everything I quoted and replied to was from a message you addressed to me...or didn't you do that either? LOL
CJ
CJ
M(1)&M(9)'s...they melt in your tank...not in your hand!
CJ,
Read this again:
****
And to those who say, "If you don't want to lose tanks to infantry who are 3 times as effective as they should be, don't let the infantry get within 100 yards of your tanks," I can only say, "If you want your infantry to be able to take out tanks without the benefit of anti-tank weapons, either accept the historical capabilities and learn how to use your infantry, or adjust the preferences to reduce tanks to the state of impotence that makes you happy."
****
Catch that there at the beginning, "And to those who..." Think hard and see if you can figure if perhaps that part of my post to this forum, which you will note was not a private email to you, might have been more generally addressed.
Read this again:
****
And to those who say, "If you don't want to lose tanks to infantry who are 3 times as effective as they should be, don't let the infantry get within 100 yards of your tanks," I can only say, "If you want your infantry to be able to take out tanks without the benefit of anti-tank weapons, either accept the historical capabilities and learn how to use your infantry, or adjust the preferences to reduce tanks to the state of impotence that makes you happy."
****
Catch that there at the beginning, "And to those who..." Think hard and see if you can figure if perhaps that part of my post to this forum, which you will note was not a private email to you, might have been more generally addressed.
While i support making any fixes to bugs that cause the game not to reflect the considerable research Matrix has put into Ordnance performance and combat modeling ... i am asking PLEASE do not weaken the infantry so that folks who want to just play with tanks can safely run arround the battlefield .. as a minimum the various arms of combat should at least instill some caution in armor
"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
Yes!!! I agreeOriginally posted by AmmoSgt:
While i support making any fixes to bugs that cause the game not to reflect the considerable research Matrix has put into Ordnance performance and combat modeling ... i am asking PLEASE do not weaken the infantry so that folks who want to just play with tanks can safely run arround the battlefield .. as a minimum the various arms of combat should at least instill some caution in armor
alby
I have a ? what ever made ya think theres a safe zone around a tank? you ever seen one spin in a circle. or his buddy tank spray him with MG fire 
granted they maynot fire but I have seen in real combat other tanks spray em with Mg's to clear of some charlie's. And ya know i dont ever rember them guys complainng about friendly fire
granted they maynot fire but I have seen in real combat other tanks spray em with Mg's to clear of some charlie's. And ya know i dont ever rember them guys complainng about friendly fire Krull