Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

User avatar
Uncle_Joe
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu 18 Oct 2012 07:01
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Uncle_Joe » Fri 12 Jul 2013 20:12

Doeko wrote:
Gopblin wrote:
Doeko wrote:Every 10 seconds someone on the chat in-game is also talking about his military experiences. Oops, exagerated a little again. It's actually more like every 5 minutes.

Also I don't understand why anyone would care about the minute details of real life warfare. It's a game meant to be fun, not a sim meant to be realistic. It should feel authentic-ish to the layman, as I said, not to an actual marine. Very realistic entertainment products (movies, games, whatever) are generally boring because real life is very boring, slow and full of suck and fail.

The effectiveness of infantry against vehicles was (still isn't with the cheap inf effectiveness imo) not feeling authentic or fun to me because they slowed down the game tremendously by creating an almost impenetratable wall in towns (yes not totally impenetratable I am aware).


I dislike the heavy tank meta for two reasons:

1. It's unrealistic (tanks can do a lot of things, but they can't dislodge infantry from a decently defensible position by themselves)

2. It favors micro&Starcraft-style play over actual combined arms tactics

Unfortunately, heavy tanks were always overused in Wargame. Now that they are more uber-effective than ever, I shudder to think about the levels of mindless soul-crushing heavy spam we will see.

To explain this in another way, tanks in Wargame are like rocket launchers or shotguns in many military shooters: far more capable and used for tasks they don't perform IRL. Sure tank meta is "dynamic", same as a twitch shooter where everyone is spamming magical explodey RPG7 rounds at each other is "dynamic". It's still pretty dumb.

Best wishes,
Daniel


I agree that heavy tanks are OP. For good gameplay, I think the better infantry (20+ points) should retain their effectiveness or even be slightly more effective than pre bugfix while expendables (less tahn 20 points) would retain their current effectiveness. As a tanker you would avoid elite infantry that knows what it's doing like the plague, but I don't think the crew of an Abrams should care for a few rookies with RPGs at all really.

I simply hated the way a bunch of reservists would be able to take down a T80U before though and with a bit of luck they still can. Realistically I would expect them to maybe disable the tank (permanently detrack, spike its guns or whatever) if they are lucky, but to completely and utterly annihilate it... I don't see how you can do that with RPGs (and their equivalents). It would be acceptable to increase the critical hit chance of infantry for example (so the heavy tanki would be more likely to suffer a fuel leak or internal ammo combustion) to simulate this.

TL;DR I think it's silly idea a T80 or Abrams (or any tank with decent armor tbh, say 10 points) could be completely destroyed or even significantly damaged by reservists or any inf under 20 points (edit: but I think their chances at close range against a good infantry unit should be quite minimal also.).


Honestly, if you're driving MBTs into cover filled with ANY infantry, you should get hurt. And real life tankers don't have the wonderful advantage of seeing the enemy troops type so easily and of seeing the whole platoon at once to be slaughtered by tank guns.

But I do agree that poor infantry was too resilient just as good quality infantry was a bit easy to remove. The item in question here is not infantry cost, but their Experience level. I agree that Novice or even Trained infantry should panic fairly quickly from close range tank fire. But Hardened, Vets, and Elite certainly should not because they know that the best way to get dead IS to panic. And they know that the best way to get out of combat alive is to keep their heads clear.

And that's the reason I'd like to target the morale system first and possibly revisit the HE damage values from cannon fire if need be.

I think everyone clearly thinks that Panicked infantry should not be as effective as Calm infantry (ie, as they were before the bug fix). But I think it's also pretty clear that the current mechanics don't sufficiently model tank/infantry interaction in close terrain at all.
"Don't you know that in the Service one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?"

Quinte
Corporal
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri 14 Jun 2013 13:28
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Quinte » Fri 12 Jul 2013 20:17

Still, I'm surprised the word ATGM hasn't been written once in this thread.
Including ATGM teams in your infantry is still a better way to deal with tanks than hoping to kill them at close range.

User avatar
Uncle_Joe
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu 18 Oct 2012 07:01
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Uncle_Joe » Fri 12 Jul 2013 20:19

Quinte wrote:Still, I'm surprised the word ATGM hasn't been written once in this thread.
Including ATGM teams in your infantry is still a better way to deal with tanks than hoping to kill them at close range.


Agreed, and ATGM teams can now be properly suppressed. But that doesn't change the basic fact that in close terrain, infantry, not tanks, should be king.
"Don't you know that in the Service one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?"

Doeko
Master Sergeant
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed 15 May 2013 16:48
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Doeko » Fri 12 Jul 2013 20:20

Uncle_Joe wrote:Honestly, if you're driving MBTs into cover filled with ANY infantry, you should get hurt. And real life tankers don't have the wonderful advantage of seeing the enemy troops type so easily and of seeing the whole platoon at once to be slaughtered by tank guns.

But I do agree that poor infantry was too resilient just as good quality infantry was a bit easy to remove. The item in question here is not infantry cost, but their Experience level. I agree that Novice or even Trained infantry should panic fairly quickly from close range tank fire. But Hardened, Vets, and Elite certainly should not because they know that the best way to get dead IS to panic. And they know that the best way to get out of combat alive is to keep their heads clear.

And that's the reason I'd like to target the morale system first and possibly revisit the HE damage values from cannon fire if need be.

I think everyone clearly thinks that Panicked infantry should not be as effective as Calm infantry (ie, as they were before the bug fix). But I think it's also pretty clear that the current mechanics don't sufficiently model tank/infantry interaction in close terrain at all.


I agree. If they can make the poor infantry panic by the presence of a resilient tank within the range of their AT weapons (before it even fires a shot) so that they will almost never win against it, this would be a great mechanic. Also reducing the HE on heavy tanks while keeping it the same on specialized anti infantry tanks (starships, bmpt etc) would be fine by me. Considering you can't even get the crappy infantry as veteran or elite (still think hardened is not good enough to take down a real tank with great odds) it's a fair deal.

I never said (some) tanks weren't too effective against infantry, I just said most infantry is/was too effective against tanks. When a heavy tank like an Abrams meets a crappy infantry platoon it should result in a stalemate imo, where both are marginally damaged, with both players needing to get reinforcements there that can take out the enemy to save their units. The odds of detracking the Abrams could be high to make it more interesting. I don't like the fact that when two units meet each other on the battlefield it always results in one of the two units dieing if they stay near each other long enough. That's not how it works, some things just don't kill each other.

Gneckes
Warrant Officer
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 16:48
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Gneckes » Fri 12 Jul 2013 20:25

I like that suggestion.
Common sense shall thus be referred to as rare sense.

MENTORImage

User avatar
EliteSniper
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed 22 May 2013 07:28
Location: Stratis

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby EliteSniper » Fri 12 Jul 2013 20:46

Quinte wrote:Including ATGM teams in your infantry is still a better way to deal with tanks than hoping to kill them at close range.


Not really. All that needs to happen is 1 shot at them and they miss 10 times out of 10.

User avatar
DelroyMonjo
Colonel
Posts: 2604
Joined: Sun 6 May 2012 19:20
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby DelroyMonjo » Fri 12 Jul 2013 21:06

I thought you left....viewtopic.php?f=91&t=32778#p270815

Lied again, dint'cha?
Illegitimi non carborundum.

User avatar
Aikmofobi
Lieutenant
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu 12 Jul 2012 23:04
Location: Northern Sweden
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Aikmofobi » Fri 12 Jul 2013 21:07

EliteSniper wrote:Not really. All that needs to happen is 1 shot at them and they miss 10 times out of 10.


OT- didn't you go all GOODBYE4EVAR just earlier today?

User avatar
Hartmann
Lieutenant
Posts: 1163
Joined: Thu 30 May 2013 18:31
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Hartmann » Fri 12 Jul 2013 21:11

Does anyone here even use combined arms? Why on earth do you want (or even need) infantry to kill tanks? They take time to root out for armour, and if you micro them correctly they can even kill them. But the main value of infantry still exists. You use your tanks to take advantage of the enemy armour being pointed the wrong way/reloading/being damaged because of the infantry.

I don't understand what you expect unsupported infantry to do against an armoured force with just RPGs.

Honestly, if you were actually relying on infantry to do these things then you were just abusing a bug, learn to do it the proper way and stop crying when they take your broken toy away. There's some small changes that should be made to vetted infantry panick resistances, but now pure infantry actually stops working in the right situations.
Last edited by Hartmann on Fri 12 Jul 2013 21:14, edited 1 time in total.

Wolke
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed 12 Jun 2013 17:15
Contact:

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Wolke » Fri 12 Jul 2013 21:11

Edit: Dang this thread moves fast (:

Doeko wrote:I agree that heavy tanks are OP. For good gameplay, I think the better infantry (20+ points) should retain their effectiveness or even be slightly more effective than pre bugfix while expendables (less tahn 20 points) would retain their current effectiveness. As a tanker you would avoid elite infantry that knows what it's doing like the plague, but I don't think the crew of an Abrams should care for a few rookies with RPGs at all really.

I simply hated the way a bunch of reservists would be able to take down a T80U before though and with a bit of luck they still can. Realistically I would expect them to maybe disable the tank (permanently detrack, spike its guns or whatever) if they are lucky, but to completely and utterly annihilate it... I don't see how you can do that with RPGs (and their equivalents). It would be acceptable to increase the critical hit chance of infantry for example (so the heavy tanki would be more likely to suffer a fuel leak or internal ammo combustion) to simulate this.

TL;DR I think it's silly idea a T80 or Abrams (or any tank with decent armor tbh, say 10 points) could be completely destroyed or even significantly damaged by reservists or any inf under 20 points (edit: but I think their chances at close range against a good infantry unit should be quite minimal also.).


So E-Germany only should be able to damage heavy tanks with their FJB and Fernspäher Recons? I don't think the point value of a unit should decide about that.

If you want to say "Reservist units should not be able to efficiently engage heavy tanks" then okay, that is something that could be considered. But to some degree it already is, as they already use inferior AT weapons in many cases.

But regular infantry should have the tools to combat even the heaviest of tanks if they get within engagement range, especially if fought in terrain that can be used for an advantage by infantry, like cities, mountains, terrain with a lot of cover, etc.
Last edited by Wolke on Fri 12 Jul 2013 21:18, edited 2 times in total.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests