Infantry Casualties at 50m

snake · #1 May 23rd, 2006, 01:58 PM

Joe,
I know what you mean but the solution, IMHO, is realistic and that is to preceed your advance with plenty of supressive artillery fire then move in. I've found that the defender is usually suppressed enough that every squad you move against them doesn't get shot up and routed. Then just keep after them. If you have engineers, then turn off the rifles so you can 'light them up!' before they retreat.
If you are unsure of their positions, use a rolling barrage that you follow - not too closely.....
And don't forget that a spotter plane or two can tell you a lot before you lay down the barrage...

Uncle_Joe · #2 May 23rd, 2006, 02:21 PM

Yes, massed arty can do the trick, but in small engagement there doesnt tend to be a lot of arty of hand for speculative fire.

Also, it just feels wrong in city fights when you cant even engage the enemy. IMO, close in city fighting should involve casualties on both sides and infiltration and surprise. But with the way the system works, thats tough to accomplish because unsuppressed infantry almost automatically spot and engage anything adjacent and with the current lethality fire, kill a handful, and throw the rest back with no counter-fire.

Again, I felt it was about right in the DOS version. I'm just wondering what the change was (if any) and/or the reasoning behind said change. The rules blurb on range even states that units in adjacent hexes arent necessarily at point-blank range to each other so why does nearly every shot seem like its a firing squad?

At the very least perhaps a few more 'go to ground' or 'seek cover' results could occur at 50m to protect against the full brunt of all of the weapons every time. But just reducing 50m rifle casualties in close terrain would be great IMO.

Smersh · #3 May 23rd, 2006, 02:26 PM

the problem seems to be that you can never suprise the enemy, they always no you have snuck up on them, even from behind. this is how historically you would attack an enemy at 50m and not get chewed up. (with no artillery or supporting fire)

but I guess you have to assume in every situation that all sides now a fight is going on, and are waiting prepared and ready for enemy.

Uncle_Joe · #4 May 23rd, 2006, 02:38 PM

Yes, so to counteract that, there should be pretty good possibility to not inflict lethal fire at that range.

serg3d · #5 May 23rd, 2006, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Smersh said:
the problem seems to be that you can never suprise the enemy, they always no you have snuck up on them, even from behind. this is how historically you would attack an enemy at 50m and not get chewed up.

That is a technical AI problem. Taking directions into account would increase calculations complexity several times. Don't think anything could be done about it without serious rewriting AI code.

czerpak · #6 May 23rd, 2006, 07:02 PM

I dont know if all of you noticed, but if Uncle talks about Russian 39' campaign, he must be facing polish infantry squads of 19 men each. In fact, they have double firepower of average squad.
Believe me - we did have lots of fun with those polish squads (especially myself, as I tend to play a lot with Poles) during testing. They ARE tough, so running into them at full speed could be a risky bussines.

Uncle_Joe · #7 May 23rd, 2006, 07:21 PM

Yes, those huge squads do make a mess and yes, it was in that battle that I really sat up and took notice. After that I tried a few other battles in close terrain and saw similar (if perhaps less spectacular) results.

Its not even the casualties per se, its the 'throw back' that results from taking so many casualties at once. That is what doesnt seem right to me. You move up, lose a handful of men and get tossed right back without ever firing a shot.

If the casualties were lower, the resulting 'morale check' or whatever it is might be more passable resulting in a few more 'sticks' (again, which is what I recall from the DOS version).

czerpak · #8 May 23rd, 2006, 08:23 PM

If we are talking realism (with each and every player having his own opinion about realism, I am aware of that) I like the way it is. If we are talking gameplay - well, I just ran a quick, simple test and had no problem whatsoever to pinn down enemy with area fire. Enemy was spotted, in the woods, not in LOS, range 3 hexes. Needed two squads (one halted, second on the move) to pinn enemy down.
Tried only once, didnt repeat test, but had no problems with achieving the goal WITHOUT any arty. Pure inf vs inf.
With some more luck first squad should probably do the job on its own.