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.
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.