Infantry Thoughness values ?

[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.

[RecruitMonty]

I don't have any problems with infantry toughness. Perhaps there is something wrong with your PC or with your DL/CD of the game.

[Irinami]

Monty, I think you're trying to be too precise. Rembember, this is a simulation--more to the point, an abstraction. You have 4 casualties, and that's all you're told. You have to do a little Zen or Deconstructionism (a la Derrida) and figure out what you're not being told, for example:

You're not told if they're...
... dead.
... just wounded.
... wounded badly.
... grazed.
... left behind.
... brought along.
... able to fight.
... not able to fight.
... might be able to fight.
... etc.

When the end result is unsatisfactory, the the process of seeing if the reasoning has to be narrowed down can begin--note, not the process of narrowing down/specifying.

For example, I'm sure you've all heard of the Australian helicopter flight sim that accidentally armed Kangaroos with SAM's, since they were modelled/simulated as a sub-class of Infantry. Well, the result was desired: Pilots avoided Kangaroos. Roos will spook when a helo flies over, thus alerting people that a helo's around. So... there's no reason to "fix" it. That SAM may have spawned from the Roo, but it may as well have been fired by someone sneaking along with them. Just an analogy for ya.