Close Assaulting Tanks...

Real time World War II combat simulation
Post Reply
User avatar
Paolo Sforza
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:07 pm

Close Assaulting Tanks...

Post by Paolo Sforza » Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:28 pm

After yet another defensive scenario, where a lone tank launches without infantry support itself at the objective (in a wood no less!) Then sits there claiming squatters rights, I, again, start thinking that something has to be done to make the AI in this area conform more with reality. I have to say that I'm pretty guity of using this 'tactic' too!

A close assault capability for ordinary troops is desperately needed, particularly in a defensive situation where one can assume that the defenders will have got nasty surprises ready - even if only in the form of bags of grandes or empty beer bottles, rags and petrol. I propose the following.

In 3.99 then there are three types of troops it seems - ELITE, REGULAR and RAW. Ignore RAW for these purposes - they don't take on tanks. ELITE (like paras - as they tended to carry sticks of plastic explosive) should be able to close assault any tank that is stationary (or turning on the spot) or one that is moving and comes to them, without its own infantry cover, in any situation (buildings, wood or open terrain). REGULAR troops should be able to close assault any tank that is stationary (or turning on the spot) or moving and comes to them, without infantry support, in or next to a building, wall or hedges or in woods.

Even better would be for tanks not to be able to count as a unit that can claim an objective. After all, only infantry can hold ground. Tanks should also be much less willing to move ahead without infantry support.

This is just tanks. Other AFVs with open tops wouldn't go anywhere near somewhere that could be the source of a lobbed grenade.

Just to whet your appetite seehttp://usmbooks.com/panzerknacker.html

I also think that tanks seemingly operating always in 'buttoned up' mode makes them far too strong in the game. To operate effectively a tank commander need to have his hatch open to see what's going on. In that position he is a good target and should be a potential casualty to small arms fire, mortars, etc. - that's why tanks need infantry support. Buttoned up, a tank is effectively blind (or easily blinded) and should be much less effective in spotting and hitting targets and much more circumspect about moving into potentially dangerous areas.

What do others thinK?

Cheers.

Quitch
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:56 am

Post by Quitch » Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:41 pm

Well, a Flamethrower sitting on the objective will frag every tank that comes close without ever being in danger from them, but they're overpowered too. I agree with you.

User avatar
Paolo Sforza
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:07 pm

Post by Paolo Sforza » Wed Oct 19, 2005 5:53 pm

Yes, Quitch, I saw your earlier messages on flamethrowers and have tried them. Great fun they are too! But, seriously, that's really my point. FTs are offensive weapons and not likely to be around in a defensive situation so we're combating one unreal situation with another.

It's also the issue of purchasing troops as the start of a game. Sure, I could kick a request up the line asking for a couple of Ronsons (or Elefants for that matter), but the Colonel would say, 'Yeah, I'll see what I can do, but in the meantime Captain you've gotta hold that hill with a couple of 2pdrs and some infantry'. I don't like the purchase part of the game for that reason, and tend to play with whatever the AI (and the Colonel) has been able to rustle up.

In the meantime, I can recommend the FTs to anyone.

Cheers.

Quitch
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:56 am

Post by Quitch » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:35 pm

I don't mind purchasing for battles (and often stick with the default choices to stop me cheesing out), but in a campaign I think there needs to be some sort of continuity to stop you going for all one thing.

Then again, I guess the idea is you have a pool of units and they're allocating you stuff to get the job done.

Then AGAIN, if the idea is you're playing commander at this level, would you choose your forces or be allocated them?

Guest

Post by Guest » Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:04 am

Quitch, I know what you mean. I think if you're a Captain, you'd get what was going. Some choice over which sections - who needs rest, who needs it less, etc. Given that the HQ is a foot-slogger then I've always viewed the armour and artillery as attached elements, the rest of their regiment supporting the rest of your own infantry regiment in their objectives along the line. Seems about right. I'm am glad that occasionally, some guys DO leave ronsons around though!

Cheers.

Post Reply