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 defence...it 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.