Login

russian armor

AoE damage found too deadly to elite infantry.

14 Apr 2016, 01:07 AM
#21
avatar of Carlos Danger

Posts: 362

The Pack Howitzer is the biggest offender here imo. That thing can kill three or even four models fairly consistently, which is a big problem for units like Fallschirmjagers. I've seen the King Tiger insta-wipe British four-man squad too.
14 Apr 2016, 06:15 AM
#22
avatar of Hitman5

Posts: 467

Most of the issues would be fixed with larger squad spreading though I agree the pack howitzer is over performing.
15 Apr 2016, 02:37 AM
#23
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

"Blast Radius in this game is at least 5 times smaller than it in real world, so I think it's kind of acceptable"

I can't remember the exact figures but one I do recall is that the 155mm had a kill radius of 50m for troops in the open. For artillery the zone is actually eliptical or tear shaped.

81mm had a surprisingly large radius, something like 25m due to it's trajectory. Grisly I know but a single mortar round once killed or injured over 250 people...

I do remember that 16inch naval fire had a massive kill radius of 150m though it was special in that almost half of that was purely due to concussive shock. Even without shrapnel this was enough to kill and overturn 60 ton tanks or blow their turrets off. Even heavily dug in infantry would simply be dead after facing a barrage, only heavy fortifications offered any protection. HMS Rodney once took out an entire heavy armoured battalion of Tigers which was forming up for an attack in woodland.

Most prized though was the weight of fire achievable by a light cruiser, something like HMS Belfast with 12 6" guns fed by hydraulic hoists could easily exceed the firepower of a Corps level artillery formation.

Those 12 rounds from the Brit 25pdrs should actually clear half a 1v1 map...

If this scares you then don't join the infantry. :D
15 Apr 2016, 02:57 AM
#24
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

If this scares you then don't join the infantry. :D

And that is why conscription exists!

Ok, well, it existed long before any of that stuff did too, but still...
15 Apr 2016, 04:09 AM
#25
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

"And that is why conscription exists!"

Rather that is why conscription no longer exists... The infantry and the army in more general terms is not a place for the unwilling or the poorly trained.

As an example I did a full year in the reserves during which time I racked up enough full days service ( we aren't talking 8 hour days here ither!) to make it equivalent to 7 months in a full time job ( whilst also holding down a full time job and adding in a third part-time job as a semi pro poker player), then signed on the dotted line for a deployment. From here I spent another 7 months full time in pre-deployment training before flying out to Afghanistan. I think we had 5 days off in the entire time and only 1 full weekend.

Once there the first month was acclimatization and in theatre training, and then 5 months actual trigger time.

Still I was quite rightly treated as a war tourist and last to be chosen to go into harms way.

Being an infantryman is a complicated job these days.
15 Apr 2016, 04:18 AM
#26
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

I think there's ongoing conscription in like, at least a third of the world's countries actually.

But yeah, we know what happens if you sent conscripts to Afghanistan. You lose.
15 Apr 2016, 09:27 AM
#27
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Apr 2016, 04:18 AMVuther
I think there's ongoing conscription in like, at least a third of the world's countries actually.

But yeah, we know what happens if you sent conscripts to Afghanistan. You lose.


Obviously, giving FIM-92 Stinger and camouflage to mainline infantry was a bad design decision.
15 Apr 2016, 10:02 AM
#28
avatar of Carlos Danger

Posts: 362

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Apr 2016, 04:18 AMVuther
But yeah, we know what happens if you sent conscripts to Afghanistan. You lose.
Or you send volunteers to Afghanistan and, er, you still lose.
15 Apr 2016, 10:28 AM
#29
avatar of mortiferum

Posts: 571

I would love it if FSJ's squad spacing is a bit looser?

Right now, I think Napoleon's line infantry had more space between them and the men beside them :/
15 Apr 2016, 10:38 AM
#30
avatar of BlickWinkel

Posts: 49

It's weird how I actually find open ground safer to my 4 men squads than light cover. In the open they are at least somewhat spaced, but in yellow they get so close they get insta wiped by anything, it's a deathtrap with any indirect fire on the field.
I think if heavy cover gives you 50% damage reduction against explosives, light cover should provide 25%, this would help considerably with one-shotting. However, I believe that the real issue is 4 obers being as easy to kill with explosives as 4 conscripts, and optimally that's what I'd want fixed.
15 Apr 2016, 18:54 PM
#31
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

Or you send volunteers to Afghanistan and, er, you still lose.

TL;DR: Before you decide to invade Afghanistan, think long and hard about whether you are Alexander the Great. If not, don't do it.
16 Apr 2016, 15:02 PM
#32
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

Alexander didn't win either, he had to marry off and make local alliances to survive.
16 Apr 2016, 15:54 PM
#33
avatar of skyshark

Posts: 239

the switch to received accuracy happened relatively early in the game's development because shocks (who wear steel body armor) were pretty much invincible to vehicular weapons. PGs were given an armor value at the time despite the fact that they weren't wearing any. now armor and RA play a different role.

i don't think elite infantry should have any increased benefit vs vehicles. it doesn't make sense... it's the reason infantry don't stand up and go toe-to-toe with tanks in real life. you wouldn't survive.

one thing i wished they'd implemented across the board is an increase in squad spacing associated with veterancy. it's a thing in the real world... new soldiers tend to clump together, but veterans have a good feel for when to be very spread out (open areas with little cover) and when they need to be closer together (in buildings, behind heavy cover, etc.)

they could also make a squad spacing setting so that individual commanders can pick. it doesn't always make sense to have your guys super spread out... rate of fire would go down and coordinated fire would decrease... but a smart commander could use it to keep his guys alive as they move into position.

does anyone else remember C&C RA's "scatter infantry" function?
16 Apr 2016, 16:03 PM
#34
avatar of Swift

Posts: 2723 | Subs: 1

The Afghan analogies are fascinating, but not relevant, so please stick to the topic.
16 Apr 2016, 18:05 PM
#35
avatar of Mindtraveller

Posts: 34

Permanently Banned
This isn't an issue of AOE it's a question of random squad clumping which results in unfair wipes. It's a problem with the physical capacity of the engine and the programming for squad AI. The power of particular weapons has little to do with it.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 33
unknown 25
unknown 20
Germany 979
Poland 4
Russian Federation 1

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

838 users are online: 838 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49112
Welcome our newest member, Buchh647
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM