Login

russian armor

Vehicle-Infantry Combat Dynamics

26 Dec 2013, 22:32 PM
#1
avatar of DocRockwell

Posts: 60

The current state of combat involving tanks and infantry is pretty comical, tanks get chased around by the lowest tier infantry (i.e. conscripts, grenadiers) instead of the other way around. Armoured cars, instead of being more resilient vs infantry than bare flesh need to be micro'd like snipers and are even more fragile. Now with the nerf to moving accuracy a single infantry squad can chase tanks for ages before having to retreat.
The imbalance in micro that is required is absurd, infantry need to be issued 1 command (atnade/faust), tanks need to be constantly maneuvered.

The whole dynamic is screwed up.

Tanks are formidable weapons against infantry, in the absence of anti-tank weapons, a tank should easily displace soldiers. Infantry should be scurrying around tanks and hiding in cover, not chasing them!

Far be it for me to say how the game should be run, but I have a few ideas that would address this issue.
1) Faust/At nade - should primarily inflict damage, not disable. Guarantee damage on hit, chance to disable tracks/engine only on rear armour attacks.
2) improved affects of cover for infantry -green should keep guys relatively safe, infantry with no cover should be more vulnerable
3) increased affect of range - give infantry decent staying power at long range, and die quicker up close.

With these changes conscripts/grenediers can still deal with all manner of vehicles in a reliable yet cost-innefficient way. With guaranteed damage you can make a calculated decision on how much munitions it will cost to kill a vehicle with tier 0/1. The chance to disable on rear attacks would punish tanks that are over extended and unsupported.
The changes to cover/range would punish infantry that attempts rushing tanks head on and would let players conserve their infantry until AT weapons can be brought in by soft retreating and hiding in cover.
Tanks would be able to kill covered infantry quickly up close, but would risk over extending and getting disabled from behind.
26 Dec 2013, 22:38 PM
#2
avatar of akosi

Posts: 1734

Permanently Banned
the problem isnot the vehicle dmg, the problem is the tanks cna be easily spammable, and dont make lots of dmg in the beginning. For example you have 3 p4 against 1 cosncript, Probably he wont run to drop at nade on you., but if you have only one tank, he would try it.
26 Dec 2013, 23:56 PM
#3
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

I think it's fine the way it is now. Some vehicles like the ostwind and KV-8 are already scary enough for infantry to deal with, having main battle tanks like the Piv and T34/76 be even more scary will just make spamming them even more appealing.

Your changes would mess too much with the overall balance of the game, for very little overall gain in playability.
27 Dec 2013, 01:32 AM
#4
avatar of MVwhine

Posts: 107

I find it a tad bit silly as well that armors in CoH2 have to be micro'd extensively when you see infantry rushing you.

I miss the impending sense of doom you feel in vCoH when you hear the sound of a greyhound/stuart/puma because you KNOW your infantry are gonna take a pounding if you don't have any anti-armor capability.

Even Men of War, an indie game, knows that armor > infantry. Heck, almost every RTS game knows that you don't rush armor with infantry except maybe in swarms.

A possible solution would be:

Increase the resources needed to produce armor
and/or
Decrease/remove resources gained from non fuel/ammo points.

Buff the armor a bit and decrease the engine crit chance on the faust/AT nade coz it's also a bit silly that you can get an engine crit when the faust hits your frontal armor. MVGAME

These may make it hard for balancing but I feel it would be a change towards the right direction.
27 Dec 2013, 03:04 AM
#5
avatar of sir muffin

Posts: 531

panzerfaust should inflict a medium amount of damage, about the same as a panzershreck

soviet AT nade should damage engine in a small throw radius, and the animation should stop and munitions be refunded if the tank leaves that radius.

just like COH1.
27 Dec 2013, 07:12 AM
#6
avatar of JohanSchwarz

Posts: 409

panzerfaust should inflict a medium amount of damage, about the same as a panzershreck

soviet AT nade should damage engine in a small throw radius, and the animation should stop and munitions be refunded if the tank leaves that radius.

just like COH1.


If only pigs could fly...
27 Dec 2013, 08:38 AM
#7
avatar of Le Wish
Patrion 14

Posts: 813 | Subs: 1

@OP While your 1st suggestion isnt all that bad (2nd more inf vs inf combat, and something that has been asked for as well. 3rd, I think makes little sense), I think a more proper way to get rid of this problem would be to get rid of the homing nades/fausts. I hate it when I got a vehicle half a screen away that still gets hit by the nade/faust. If you move out of throwing-range, the animation should cancel. This would lead to more kiting of infantry, and less retreats. It would also be harder to pull of that infantry vs tank rush, because you have to work hard to get into and more importantly stay in range while throwing. This means you have to be closer to the tank when you throw to begin with. Why do I think this is the better solution? Just because it only addesses the vehicle-infantry combat and more or less is contained to the nade/faust. This change would give the 221/222 or the m3 a bigger place in the game since they can more easy get out of range because of their speed (might have to deal with more clowncars again though).
27 Dec 2013, 20:01 PM
#8
avatar of DietBrownie

Posts: 308

t70 and ostwind says hi
27 Dec 2013, 23:29 PM
#9
avatar of Qubix

Posts: 133

I miss the impending sense of doom you feel in vCoH when you hear the sound of a greyhound/stuart/puma because you KNOW your infantry are gonna take a pounding if you don't have any anti-armor capability.


have you ever heard the sound of an early t70/ostwind arriving on the battlefield ?
27 Dec 2013, 23:52 PM
#10
avatar of MVwhine

Posts: 107

Oh, ok.. So the MG's mounted on the medium tanks are there for display after all.. I mean really, you see a P4 and your officer goes,
"wooopdedoooo! more targets for our potatoes!"
Yuri complains, "But Sir! It's a tank!"
And the officer simply replies with, "It's JUST a tank, no match for that potatoe in your pocket! For Stalina!!"

28 Dec 2013, 00:02 AM
#11
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Dec 2013, 23:52 PMMVwhine
Oh, ok.. So the MG's mounted on the medium tanks are there for display after all.. I mean really, you see a P4 and your officer goes,
"wooopdedoooo! more targets for our potatoes!"
Yuri complains, "But Sir! It's a tank!"
And the officer simply replies with, "It's JUST a tank, no match for that potatoe in your pocket! For Stalina!!"



A well thrown potato could do some serious harm to the exposed turret top gunner.
28 Dec 2013, 00:29 AM
#12
avatar of MVwhine

Posts: 107

Yes, and it seems that all their potatoes are "Well thrown" and always hit the engine even if the well thrown potatoe hits the turret. They must have had a "destroy engine" button placed on the turret.


But seriously guys, infantry should be running AWAY from the tanks or at least seeking cover and not the other way around. I mean it's true that T70's and ostwinds are anti-infantry but shouldn't it be the same for their big brothers who HAVE more MG's AND more powerful guns? I mean you're afraid of the the dinky T70 but laugh at a T34? Just doesn't make sense.
28 Dec 2013, 00:44 AM
#13
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Dec 2013, 00:29 AMMVwhine
Yes, and it seems that all their potatoes are "Well thrown" and always hit the engine even if the well thrown potatoe hits the turret. They must have had a "destroy engine" button placed on the turret.


But seriously guys, infantry should be running AWAY from the tanks or at least seeking cover and not the other way around. I mean it's true that T70's and ostwinds are anti-infantry but shouldn't it be the same for their big brothers who HAVE more MG's AND more powerful guns? I mean you're afraid of the the dinky T70 but laugh at a T34? Just doesn't make sense.


It has a bit to do with gameplay>realism. If infantry have to cower in fear for PIVs and T34s, who would ever bother getting an ostwind or KV-8 ever again? Also, at the moment it is very easy to acquire tanks, and even now there are complaints about how this game is a tank-spam fest (especially in team games). With even more effective tanks, what role would there be for infantry other than capping?
28 Dec 2013, 06:58 AM
#14
avatar of JohanSchwarz

Posts: 409



Also, at the moment it is very easy to acquire tanks, and even now there are complaints about how this game is a tank-spam fest (especially in team games). With even more effective tanks, what role would there be for infantry other than capping?


To be honest, I don't see why this can't be fixed by raising fuel and population costs for tanks to reduce spam (while increasing their effectiveness).

Relic.
28 Dec 2013, 14:18 PM
#15
avatar of Von Kluge
Patrion 14

Posts: 3548 | Subs: 2

pop costs for tanks shouldn't be rased anymore. They already had a raise.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

650 users are online: 2 members and 648 guests
aerafield, Farlon
2 posts in the last 24h
37 posts in the last week
137 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45066
Welcome our newest member, Fid McSauce
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM