Bastables wrote:QT3.14159 wrote:dimabernat wrote:Ok so I been able to play the game yesterday and checked out the new "nerf" how you call it and I don't see any problem with infentry use on the counteriery. Now that unite get acc penelity it's more realistic and my tactics work even better. Currently number 5 and 8 point from 4.
Played vs a high ranked turtale yestrday diismental him with my usual. Ow if you turtale and think I will atk so you get easy points and win. Then I just atk and get double the points then you and win work like a charm vs all top and low grade turtale in game.
So this hule cry baby topic is not needed game is fine about inf maybe small change to inf moral higher.
You nauseate me.
1. Infantry morale is too low.
2. Their accuracy drop off is unrelatistcally huge. If they were civilians straight off the street maybe but even a standard trooper would know how to hit a tank 9 times out of 10 at maximum distance with a LAW or RPG whilst under fire.
3. You argument is biased. You benefit from this break in gameplay. You benefit from the loss of power that infantry now have.
4. You would suck at making video games. It doesn't matter if you enjoy crushing people, what is important is that they must enjoy trying not to be crushed. Winning is always fun, but losing should be fun also, fun in the sense that it is enjoyable trying to take advantage back. At the minute infantry's loss of strength has caused that not to be the case for many people. Desperately scrabbling to try and stop a steamroller isn't fun, changing your tactics and adapting, reforming your line, taking a different position, that's fun. Right now, that rarely happens because if infantry aren't in a town they get crushed, not only is this unrealistic but it means a whole section of your army is out of action until you can defend a town again.
So what you're saying is that every western military that has used suppressive fire since WW1 as a concept and something to achieve in infantry tactics (winning the fire fight) is a waste of time as infantry can just be trained to ignore bullets cracking past their heads?
Another person who can't help but put words in my mouth.
No I'm not saying they ignore them, I'm saying that they are taught to hit their target whilst being shot at; compensate for the effects of combat. Why else use weapons like the LAW or RPG if your troops aren't going to be able to shoot them whilst in a firefight or hit their targets consistently enough for them to be deemed effective.