Infantry Thoughness values ?

[Nightblade]

Hello,

After playing winSP:WW2 an extensive amount of time, i really appreciate how lethal infantry firefights can be at a reasonnable distance, as it forces me to be a bit more cautious in engaging the enemy.

I would like to see something like this in my winSP:MBT games, in which i feel sometime the infantry is way too resistant to bullets/explosives in short distances (or what i consider to be short distance).

In my last attempts, i tried to pull the infantry toughness for both opponents at 80%, but it is not very different from what i experienced with the original 100%

Anyone have already worked his preferences around this infantry thoughness setting ?
What do you think could be the good percentage to setup, in order to get the firefights being mostly as lethal as they were in winsp:ww2 , without being too much ?

[brummbaer]

I rounded it up to 120% because I felt it was too much of a slaughter every time, and probably it's still not enough for reality but I'm enjoying it though. Fortunately real battles are seldom bloody as a SP engagement. Think of Falkland battles: at Darwin/Goose Green british had 17 casualties and 37 wounded against 45 dead argentinians but playing it I usually end with far more casualties for both.

[pdoktar]

Casualties are not counted directly resulting in a kill or incapacitating wound. The casualty figures, can range from a direct kill to psychological incapacitation. That´s why you can have one-man teams firing all possible weapons, because the one guy still fighting may have these "casualties" hanging on with him and blasting away with a shot or two.

[VDS]

pdoktar said:
Casualties are not counted directly resulting in a kill or incapacitating wound. The casualty figures, can range from a direct kill to psychological incapacitation. That´s why you can have one-man teams firing all possible weapons, because the one guy still fighting may have these "casualties" hanging on with him and blasting away with a shot or two.

Does the game take morale into account when assigning damage? If it doesn't, wouldn't elite troops be less likely to have "psychological casualties" then, due to training/mental strength? Would it be fair then to increase the toughness value for a side with mostly elite elements? And lower it for a side with poor morale? I hardly ever touch these settings, but just curious.

[Nightblade]

After making a short battle with the computer, using 60% as troop thoughness for both sides, i am now puzzled.

Because it does not seemed different than with the usual 100% and 80% i was playing before.

So is this setting really doing something ? is it broken ? or was it just this test battle in which both the computer and myself were unlucky with the hits/casualties rolls (as it is always possible) ?

Have someone noticed higher casualties (at equal level of squad experience of course) while playing with a low troop thoughness ? if yes , with what percentage ?

[cbreedon]

I have 100 vs 30 and it seems to work OK.

The IA seems to have a huge advantage wuithout the adjustment. Even still I seem to get wierd shots at unrealistic range getting hits against me.

[pdoktar]

AI seem to have huge ADVANTAGE without the adjustment? Are you playing with your troop quality at 100 and AIs at 30? I´ve never heard that the AI has a huge advantage built in the game. With casualties, think about this. One guy gets hit pretty bad in the stomach or maybe get his thighbone severed. So he might need two guys to take care of him in combat, but when lying on the ground he is still able to use his firearm, but needs help moving about, so you could think that the team has lost 2-3 men in casualties, but those guys are still hanging about and messing around, sometime taking care of their buddies by shooting or applying more bandage.

[cbreedon]

Yes 100 for me, 30 for the AI. I have seen quite often fairly untrained armies that I play take out tanks with an RPG at 400 meters which I feel is unrealistic. You see on the news, militias from where ever randomly spraying in the general direction of the opposition. Hitting out to 400 meters would be a long shot from them, but it happens all the time in the game..... I have no real combat experience and I am only basing this on what I have seen or read about, so take it for what it is....

[Nightblade]

After more testing at 60% for both AI and me ,

The only clear difference i spotted in 60%, is the increase of casualties during an artillery fire, at 100% it was very very very rare to see a single casualty, but at 60% i observed more (both in mine or AI troops), making artillery (and plane bombing) really deadlier.

But for firefights themselves at 4/5 hexagons of distance, i don't observe a real increase in casualties for both the AI and me with 60% thoughness, it seems mostly the same as with 100% thoughness.

I will test with giving a different percentage to the AI and me, maybe a difference in the firefights will be more obvious.

[RecruitMonty]

Wtf? I am pretty sure that a casualty is a casualty in this game. If you sustain a hit and your unit goes from 12 to 8 men then you can presume quite rightly that four men have just kicked the bucket or are close to kicking the bucket. I am fairly certain that there is no room for all this business about wounds etc in game otherwise you would be able to access more detailed information about the makeup of each squad (like in close combat). BTW I am also fairly sure that it is just game mechanics that cause the one man in the unit to use all three/four weapons not some business about the other 12 being otherwise engaged.