Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

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

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Gneckes » Fri 12 Jul 2013 23:04

Hidden Gunman wrote:I think it's worth pointing out that pre (the latest) patch, in the early days of that build the 'infantry die to tanks' lobby were screaming blue murder at that point as well.

As I said earlier (or on another thread where I think this was also raised), let it ride for a while and then worry later on...every game build needs time for players to settle in and learn how to work or live with it.

One thing that is apparent to me wading through this thread is that people who consistently use mech inf focussed builds and play using a more combined arms approach don't seem to be experiencing problems...I won't guess why, but I would suggest it's possibly because they accept the limitations of infantry, and they perhaps micro them more, and understand that they will lose them if they are unsupported/non monitored.

I know it isn't reflected in game, but there are a few things worth pointing out:

Armour is not as vulnerable to infantry weapons as may be commonly believed - the effective (accurate) engagement range is fairly short, relative to the speed of vehicles and the time it takes to either overrun infantry if the vehicle itself is used as a weapon, and it does happen...anyone who breached the Saddam Line in GW1 and witnessed troops being buried alive by dozers and M1's with dozer blades can tell you that, if they are up to it and their psychs will let them. The zone of engagement for even cavalry was a relatively short time zone over the critical charge distance, and that hasn't really changed much for section/squad based anti-armour weapons.

Armour can do quite a few things against infantry, moreso in vegetation, rather than urban environment. Certainly around the vietnam era it was fairly common for some forces to position claymore mines on the front and flanks of tanks/apc's in racks for anti-infantry may may the crew ears ring, and you fire them with no crew exposed, but it clears a lot of area around the vehicles extremely well. The other thing that can be done is a layered formation for the vehicles, where consecutive layers spray mg fire onto and around the forward vehicles - a tactic favoured in Korea and Vietnam.

Keep in mind that the game era armour, on the other hand, largely didn't have the modern optics or thermal imaging available now, either. So, for the most part, it's the good old eyeball mark 1 that is the main sighting instrument in the game.

Now, all of that said, there is one other factor that is relevant - the human element. Contrary to what we may like as gamers, where our troops do exactly as we want and things die according to a mathematically verifiable algorithm, reality is vastly different. People panic, get scared, or turn into bloody heroes in the real world, and consequently things happen that would otherwise not make sense. Maybe a little bit of that unexplainable element has crept into the inf/armour dynamic, possibly.

+1.. or 2... or however much I may give.
Common sense shall thus be referred to as rare sense.


User avatar
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu 11 Jul 2013 17:18
Location: Germany

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby SteinerGER » Fri 12 Jul 2013 23:21

it's the good old eyeball mark 1 that is the main sighting instrument in the game.

Good! I agree there. But then again: tell me how 1 Bradley(or a lot of of other IFV/AFVs) can wipe out 10 Veteran-VDV Infantrymen in a forest before the VDVs can shoot even one rocket? I mean how is it justified that tanks instaspot infantry as soon as the infantry sees the tank/aims at it? I feel there is a lot of difference in ten 2x1m targets with camouflaged clothings and a 3x3x6m big tank which has only small vision blocks.

ATM Infantry has a lot of disadvantages and no real advantages apart from being able to enter buildings...

User avatar
Posts: 1830
Joined: Sun 31 Jul 2011 20:12

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby triumph » Fri 12 Jul 2013 23:28

You can't amove. You really need to treat it like it's a game of Go and surround forces in forests. But vet is kinda messed up and doesn't feel like it's working correctly.
Transcend Excellence

User avatar
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby orcbuster » Fri 12 Jul 2013 23:28

Doeko wrote:
orcbuster wrote:Just stop talking please, Its painfully obvious you've no idea what you're talking about. I don't want to repeat myself however so:


Yeah whatever, everybody on this forum pretends to be a real life military. Pretty silly if you ask me (for lack of the word I really mean to use).

Post pics of you holding a W:AB sign or whatever and pics of you at the exercise otherwise you're just another e-peen marine.

OK so

here I am ... 5817_n.jpg

heres my 2bn beret ... 3125_n.jpg

and here are my 2bn uniform tags ... 8554_n.jpg

bunch of photos I've already posted


poser pic :p


our end of service video, you can see me at 1:19, only guy standing in all white camo and no combat vest.

and just for showing off, sabaton tribute version of panzer battalion made especially for us

only guy in our year who became famous
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu 18 Oct 2012 07:01

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Uncle_Joe » Sat 13 Jul 2013 00:01

Hartmann wrote:
Uncle_Joe wrote:
Hartmann wrote: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.

You clearly have no grasp of what combined arms means. :/

You don't expect unsupported infantry to stop an armored force but you expect unsupported armor to be able to clear forests and even towns? Because they sure can now...

I don't think anyone is asking for infantry to function as well Panicked as they do when Calm (ie, the bug), but they DO have to be able to function for the role in which they are suited and currently they can't do that.

Tanks cost many times what infantry cost, even the highest tier of infantry has costs that are effectively negligible unless you're throwing them away en masse. Let alone the low tier which has pretty much no impact on your economy whatsoever. If infantry squads costed between 50/100 points you'd have a point, but they don't and they perform according to their cost right now.

I have yet to see unsupported armour do well against my mixed infantry/armour. Especially when you employ the infantry in chokes and other positions to draw fire. It's just not easy mode anymore, you have to micro them in forests, and not just A-move quadstacks anymore. You have to agree that the previous meta was idiotic, where outside of spets/engies dirt infantry would just dominate woods due to negligible cost.

15 points? 20 points? 25 points? All of those tanks are more than capable of killing infantry IN HEAVY COVER, cost effectively now. With micro and a little recon, you might even be able to do it without loss. The 'micro' argument works both ways with well micro'ed tanks dominating well micro'ed infantry IN HEAVY COVER.

Not all tanks are M1A1s or T80Us. They don't all cost 100+ points.

The previous meta's MECHANIC was idiotic, but the RESULT was fine (Infantry in cover are hard to dig out).

Now infantry function correctly in terms of suppression affecting accuracy and RoF etc. Now they also have to be tweaked to allow them to have SOME time of firing before being fully Panicked, especially Hardened+ troops.

But if you think it's fun watching monkeys drive masses of tanks around flaming everything in sight without regard, then by all means, let's keep this meta. Or we could just go play World of Tanks where there isn't even a pretext of combined arms or realism. :roll:
"Don't you know that in the Service one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?"

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

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Hartmann » Sat 13 Jul 2013 01:13

Cheap tanks are pretty bad in the current meta, a higher tier tank can put a stop to a huge amount of these with minimal risk. I don't really see a problem with them being capable in this scenario. Especially if a player doesn't bother bringing out armour/ATGMs/helis to support a defense, why do you feel that this defense should still be effective?

I don't understand what you mean by microing infantry in heavy cover, we're talking about infantry occupying house blocks right? How is there micro involved?

I also don't see how being able to slow progress to a grind simply by dumping infantry in buildings is a good thing. You can stil slow down someone by doing that, but at least it's not easy mode defending anymore. You can still slow your enemies attack, but can't really expect making kills unless your enemy is careless. The game is way more fluid when JUST using infantry is not effective at seriously hampering an armoured attack.

What I'm understanding from this is that you want unsupported infantry to win against unsupported tanks. They are both unsupported, why don't you bring armour to help defend? What do you have against using armour/infantry in conjunction? Is it so terrible that you have to unit mix to achieve the best results?

It might be helpful to illustrate your points with ingame examples, post a replay where we can see what exactly you have issues with.

I agree btw about the veterancy not doing enough, but overall the game feels much more dynamic with attacking being easier. And if anything, the game has huge issues with attacking being hard. Making attacking easier is a good thing right now.

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

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby EliteSniper » Sat 13 Jul 2013 01:40

DelroyMonjo wrote:I thought you left.... ... 78#p270815

Lied again, dint'cha?

OPEN YOUR EYES. Not once in that thread did I say I was leaving the forums. I said I was leaving ALB, not the forums, so go troll someplace else.

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

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby EliteSniper » Sat 13 Jul 2013 01:46

Played 3 matches with my friend, an hour ago and you won't believe this one. 2 BMPTs marched through 16 infantry on that Gavie ridge facing foxtrot. They wiped out all 16 without taking a loss. Another match I played, I was defending the same ridge and 4 T-64s strolled through the forest destroying all 14 infantry I housed there. Yeah infantry needs to be reverted or have crazy bonuses in forest and towns. My friend I was playing with got steamrolled in the center by 3 squads of T-55As and 2 tanks of T-80BVs. But good thing he had support from tanks and artillery with planes or we would've lost the center. It shouldn't be so easy to take a city with 3 squads of t-55s vs. 40 units of infantry.

Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Gopblin » Sat 13 Jul 2013 01:51

Hartmann wrote:...
I agree btw about the veterancy not doing enough, but overall the game feels much more dynamic with attacking being easier. And if anything, the game has huge issues with attacking being hard. Making attacking easier is a good thing right now.

Now that we got rid of infantry slowing things down, maybe if we could just get rid of helos and AA, the game would be even MORE dynamic!! Think about it - no AA, things need to be constantly moving, defense becomes harder! And helos are such a huge impediment to the game because now they're pretty much the only thing left that can stop heavy tanks!!! NERF helos and we can have a true realistic combined arms game with nothing but heavy tank spam and noobhawks!!


... So yeah. As I've said above, lack of dynamics is the gamemode fault, not game mechanics. Infantry in cover should be pretty hard to dislodge with armor. Trying to fix the gamemode by making heavy tanks the only combat arm worth a damn is really not the answer.

IMO a lot of the players I meet would be a lot happier playing World Of Tanks than this strange ALB business where things other than tanks dare to challenge the heavy tank's rightful place as the one&only unit to be used for any occasion.

Best wishes,
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

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

Re: Infantry vs Tanks - What Happened?

Postby Doeko » Sat 13 Jul 2013 02:01

orcbuster wrote:Pics

Cool, I guess you actually were in the military. Regardless I still don't think you can tell people to not share their views on how they think the game should work, even if you know much more about how actual combat works.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests