Game Questions

[chuckfourth]

Ive seen English commandos (unit 203) and Rumanian paratooper pioneers (unit 111) assault armour when there 4 satchel charges and gebalt ladungs are all used up and the message below says something like "engineers assault with satchel charge/Gebalt ladung". I dont know if its just the message saying this or whether they really do get a extra fith charge when they close assault.
Best regards Chuck.

[Cross]

This is how it's done:



Rumanians against a T28

[DRG]

Originally Posted by chuckfourth

Ive seen English commandos (unit 203) and Rumanian paratooper pioneers (unit 111) assault armour when there 4 satchel charges and gebalt ladungs are all used up and the message below says something like "engineers assault with satchel charge/Gebalt ladung". I dont know if its just the message saying this or whether they really do get a extra fith charge when they close assault.
Best regards Chuck.

Next time you see this Chuck try to get a save game so we can all look at it becasue I just ran a test with those same Romanian paratooper pioneers with NO flamethrower or Gebalt ladung left and when they close assualted a tank all they used were the weapons that were still available.... NO flammethrowers...... NO Gebalt ladung

Don

[Lt. Ketch]

Originally Posted by Ramm

Sounds like a recipe for disaster for the tank and a recipe for manburger on the infantryman's part I can easily see a guy getting off the tank too late

See Saving Private Ryan for what happens when you anti-tank weapon goes off in your hand.

Granted, stuffing your SMG in the drivers slit, up the air vents or get it under the turret, and you might be able to enough damage to seriously impair it's fighting power. A tank crewed by dead men is not likely to be shooting at you.

[Imp]

Imagine 8-12 guys climbing all over a buttoned tank stuffing grenades under the turret, in the engine compartment in the tracks and underneath (where the armour is weakest) and even down the main gun without supporting inf. to hose them off.

Imagine is exactly what you will have to do, the reason assault chances are based partly on squad size is more of them might develop big cahoonas. The idea is that when the first guy tries at least some of the others will decide to help him if for no other reason than save your buddy. The whole squad deciding this is a good idea is probably not going to happen.
Modern military traning means more men are effective on the battlefield but in WW2 or even Vietnam the odds were not much higher than one in 10. not saying the other guys would do nothing they would see targets pass ammo etc but most of the fighting was done by just 1 or 2 men.
The fact that modern training means more people participate has allowed reduced squad sizes as in fact more people are firing back.
It is to me however discusting that the modern military trains people to be good killing machines but the buck seems to stops there. What happened to training them to deal with it after, Mr cynical says its not a good return on your dollar.
Dealing with it though maybe partly what drives the US to want to kill everything from a distance.

[Ramm]

Originally Posted by DRG

Next time you see this Chuck try to get a save game so we can all look at it becasue I just ran a test with those same Romanian paratooper pioneers with NO flamethrower or Gebalt ladung left and when they close assualted a tank all they used were the weapons that were still available.... NO flammethrowers...... NO Gebalt ladung

Don

I know when a unit close assaults it only expends ammo it has left but can it use a weapon for close assault when the ammo stock for that weapon is depleted? I ask only because it seems to me that squads with depleted AT weapons are more effective than squads without them when close assaulting tanks (could be blind luck though, as I have not conducted scientific test ).

Don or Andy could you debunk or confirm this, I am very curious as to whether or not it is coded into the part legacy part new "spaghetti". This would actually make sense if it were because AT equipped infantryman would be trained in tank killing and could use their knowledge even without spare AT ammunition.

Would it make any difference if the tank assault was op-fire or human controlled, as to whether or not ghost ammunition could be used (If indeed, it is used at all)? If ghost ammo does exist can the AI also use it?

Yours Truly,
Andrew Nault

[Ramm]

Sorry for the double post, the edit time limit expired, it is only set for 30 minutes

What I'm asking in a nutshell: Can a unit close assault with a weapon if it doesn't have any ammo left for that weapon?

[Lt. Ketch]

Ramm, if you scroll up to post #13, I think Don answers this question. As I understand Don's words, the unit may still close assault, but will not use weapons that are out of ammo.

[PanzerBob]

I too have seen empty units assault with weapons they don't have or at least the text below says so, I will strive to capture this on a save as well.

Bob out

[gila]

Originally Posted by Ramm

Sounds like a recipe for disaster for the tank and a recipe for manburger on the infantryman's part I can easily see a guy getting off the tank too late

Exactly!
Have you noticed when inft.assaults vehicles,pillbox's or whatever,, they are suppressed by the action?
Whether they succeed or not there is some suppession.
Sometimes will not rally enough to be effective for awhile.