Infantry power

[Joe]

...due to the incoming infantry improvements it comes to my mind (and it's been discussed earlier) that the physical abilities are far beyond real life. Could it be possible to reduce the amount of let's say bazookas in relation to the amount of "killed" members of an inf. plt.? Or how does it work in real life? In SB a common squad of six infantrymen has six bazookas, if five die, you still have six bazookas available for one man (nice feature if you manage to get behind enemy tanks), but imagine the heavy load this one man has to carry and the situation that he is mostly under enemy fire. Does this one man really gathers all the weapons his fellows dropped when they were shot down? Never paid attention to it, but does he similarly enherit all the rifle rounds his comrades left?
Only a thought.... ;)

[DrDevice]

I can easily imagine troops taking up key weapons from fallen comrades if the situation warranted, like manning the squad's LMG or something similar. I can even imagine "topping off" if you are low on ammo.

But you are very correct in the "let's grab all these AT weapons and run full speed after that tank over there!" being a bit far-fetched.

The challenge to the "who carries what" problem is tough, though. Combat Mission models something like you mentioned, where individual weapons are tracked, and the squad will "pick up" a LMG in place of a standard rifle if need be. However, that means tracking which soldier has what. I'm not sure if SB is really headed that far. It would be cool, but I'm not sure if it serves the training purpose in a meaningful (enough) way.

[NEpi]

the question one must continously ask oneself in case of simulation is how much benefit can you derive from each improvement.
does remodelling infantry weapon distribution change the way you use your squad in general (for example, letting those poor buggers die more easily since you still have their weapons)? if not, than it changes only specific scenarios.
then, are those scenarios common, and how much does your decision-making chance because of the flawed model? in this case I think it doesn't really change training on the simulator, since it's obviously different than real life, and noone is going to learn to run after that tank with one soldier expecting it to carry all RPGs and MG.

so, although it's bugging those with keen eyes and sharp brains, it have very little impact on the overall experience and benefit in the simulation. just like those "bloopers" in movies where characters move in the room between shots without explanation. yeah, it's there, but noone bothers with it since it has very little impact if at all.

[Ssnake]

Up to now - and I think even after the upgrade - infantry in SB has much higher attrition rates than what can be observed in reality. I share your point of view that at some point we need to reduce the superhuman abilities, but I think that for the sake of a reasonably realistic threat potnetial of intantry we need to continue giving them selected advantages.

I concede though that carrying six anti tank grenades is a bit much.

[ShotMagnet]

Could it be possible to reduce the amount of let's say bazookas in relation to the amount of "killed" members of an inf. plt.?From an earlier conversation I recall the answer going something like 'the likelihood that a unit will fire an AT weapon is directly proportional to the number of effectives remaining in that unit'. The more guys alive in the squad, the more likely they'd be to take a shot at the steel beast.

On the other hand, I have personally witnessed a single infantryman hunt and kill a tank, shooting at the thing twice. Granted, it's not impossible that one lone Rambo can avenge his fallen pals, but it should be a rare occurrence.

Still, even if it seems unrealistic that the remains of a squad will disdain losses and haul after tanks, I'd rather not see that changed. Tankers should be very afraid of infantry and as it is I think infantry die too easily in this game. Instilling a little additional concern by making the infantry contemptuous of death helps them kill tanks, and teaches us virtual Guderians to treat infantry with at least some respect.


Shot

[BlackDeath]

Since they are a bit stupid, they simply need more ammo... :D

[Los]

You can mitigate the issue somewhat in scenario design (except re: Mech platoons)

You can create a platoon with say 3 squads armed with small arms and several AT4s (I'd say realistcially no more than 2) and then create small sqauds (say three man or 2 man) armed w/ Milans or saggers) and then MG teams of two or three men where you change the MG from 556 to 762. Sample:

1 sqd 9 men 556 2-3 xAT4
2 sqd 9 men 556 2-3 xAT4
3 sqd 9 men 556 2-3 x AT4
4 sqd 3 men 556 2xMilan
5 Sqd 3 men 762 "MG" (simulates MG reaching out to 1000+m!)
6 Sqd 3 men 762 "MG"

This creates more guys to move around but does give you set weapons teams. Six of one half a dozen of the others.

Los

[HotTom]

Ssnake, somehow giving infantry, as you put it, "superhuman abilities" and "selected advantages" to compensate for their "much higher attrition rates than can be observed in reality" sort of runs counter to the idea of good simulation.

It shouldn't be about "compensating." That just sounds like a lame excuse for laziness in building the infantry models.

How about making some realistic infantry models instead? How about some fortifications and foxholes and the ability to use cover and concealment and to be able to fire and maneuver?

It seems to me that, as a training sim rather than a game, if I were a military customer I would want the infantry to be every bit as realistic as the tanks because they are even more dangerous, particularly in wooded or built-up areas and at night and periods of low visibility when they can get within RPG range.

What kind of training are you giving those tankers if the infantry just plops itself down on the ground in the open and shoots an impossible number of RPGs at them? That grunt with a bazooka isn't going to be laying out in the middle of a field. He's going to be hidden in a ditch or shell hole or behind a bush or a tree or a rock or a wall. And, just like tanks, he's going to move in bounding over watch.

Sri to sound harsh or to sound like I'm ranting. Writing this Golan Heights series of missions is showing me the shortfalls of the way the infantry is portrayed in SB. In particular, there are no tank-proof fortifications for them (in reality, not a single Israeli infantry bunker fell to the Syrians, but in the scenarios they get wiped out every time).

And there is no way to simulate how very effective infantry anti-tank squads were at night in killing Israeli tanks. Even when they didn't kill them, they distracted tank crews from hunting for Syrian tanks making night attacks. It appears the Israelis had to relearn that lesson again in Lebanon this year.

The infantry are both too lethal and too vulnerable and that is just poor modeling.

The tank part of this sim is superb but the infantry is pathetic. Putting them in buildings in the next patch is a good first step but they really have a long way to go.

With respect, I would suggest you put "realistic infantry" way up at the top of The List :)

It's really not about tanks. It's about tanks supporting (and being supported by) infantry.

HT

[Kingtiger]

Do we still USE Bazookas???

oh btw,the RPG works like a bazooka right?

Think most western countrys dont use Bazookas enymore anyway.

and Los, I think a Squad could carry up to 4 AT4 atleast, thats how many we had in the mech infantry 2003-2004, 2 soldiers with 1 AT 4 each and 1 AT4 per squadleader wich gives you 4 per squad.
especially if you consider the infantrys tendence to miss a obvius target when firing they need more AT4s imo.

But thats just my opinion, its up to the scenario creater to decide. but I really love your idea and views on the infantry :)

/KT

[Ghost]

The ammount of RPG's and ATGM's a squad of crunchies carry in SB can and should be changed by the mission designer. Getting engaged by six rpg's in 2 seconds from a squad of crunchies can be pretty devastating to your tank :)

[Ssnake]

Ssnake, somehow giving infantry, as you put it, "superhuman abilities" and "selected advantages" to compensate for their "much higher attrition rates than can be observed in reality" sort of runs counter to the idea of good simulation.
That's all nice and dandy as long as one doesn't have to code the behavior of infantry that would make them more survivable, placed in an environment that must render out to at least 4km, and still perform well in real-time conditions.

Simulation is about model building. A model is a set of mathematical routines - algorithms - that is supposed to predict or explain the behavior of certain aspects of a system while neglecting others.
In a computer program, we need to consider the fact that resources are finite. We have so and so many computing cycles per second during which we can accomplish so and so many iterations of the model.

We could add many more objects to the landscape to provide computer-controlled infantry with better cover and concealment. Unfortunately we would either need to increase the terrain mesh resolution by a factor of 36 to shrink the mesh width from 12.5m to approximately 2m, then apply a "random bump" function to create holes and knobs that obstruct observation and direct fire.
Unfortunately that would also increase the number of line of sight calculations that are required as the fundament of all actions that computer-controlled units must perform. LOS calculations however are THE limiting factor of each and every virtual and most constructive tactical simulations, and there simply is no magic solution to bypass them. So, increasing the LOS calculations even just by a factor of 36 means that probably 30 times more computing power is required - so, in five processor generations (105 months approximately, if Moore's law's best fit of 21 months can be maintained) we can talk again about that method - that's in 2015.

OK, so we keep the terrain as it is since the alternative isn't viable. Now what? We could set an artificial miss rate for all computer-controlled direct fire on infantry so that the casualty rate is being reduced to a more realistic level. If that's acceptable to you, then we're already bargaining which kind of cheat is acceptable. I suspect that it's a question of feelgood factor.

Or we set a rule "three strikes and you're out" - each infantry guy must get hit three times before dropping dead. Well, just a different kind of cheat, and not very practical either in the age of machine guns that are mounted on a stabilized platform with laser range finders.

Hey, let's render infantry invisible for most of the time - after all they could hide better in real life than they can in the not so detail-rich virtual environment of SB Pro. Whoopsie, that's bad game design for a virtual simulation. As much as possible there should be visible what's going on "under the hood" to make it a good experience for the player.


Either way I look at it, there's no way to find a perfect solution. Modelling always means simplification. We can talk about which simplifications are acceptable and which are not. I agree that a single guy with access to six RPGs can be an immersion breaker if you are using him "Rambo style" and a one-man army. But the alternatives that I listed are probably even worse in that respect, except that they would break immersion in different situations. So we're down to opinions about game design - personal taste, ultimately.

It seems to me that, as a training sim rather than a game, if I were a military customer I would want the infantry to be every bit as realistic as the tanks because they are even more dangerous, particularly in wooded or built-up areas and at night and periods of low visibility when they can get within RPG range.
Apparently most of our customers are happy with what they got not because SB is perfect but because there's little else available in its segment. And let's just look back over the past two years and see what we could improve, then tell me again that the trend isn't favorable. We're working our asses off, strictly guided by the preferences laid down in development contracts by our army customers to meet their requirements. And we always deliver more than they're asking for - as a bonus, and to advance areas and aspects of the simulation that need to get addressed as well.

I don't react too well to lobbyism for a particular interest. There are so many areas that require our attention, and we need to set priorities. First priority is what's in our development contracts. Second priority is bug fixing. Third priority is adding features that expand the scope of SB. Fourth is improving existing features.
I think that this is a well defendable sequence. Whenever someone lobbies for the advance of a particular aspect he should also have an answer ready which other feature is less important and should be delayed in favor of this one. It's not pleasant to set priorities, but it is absolutely essential to give the whole development process direction and determination.

[Los]

"and Los, I think a Squad could carry up to 4 AT4 atleast, thats how many we had in the mech infantry 2003-2004, 2 soldiers with 1 AT 4 each and 1 AT4 per squadleader wich gives you 4 per squad especially if you consider the infantrys tendence to miss a obvius target when firing they need more AT4s imo."

Well of course you bums in the mech infantry can carry everything including the kitchen sink, but the guys running around on LPCs have to be a tad more judicious!

Los

:men_ani:

[Kingtiger]

"and Los, I think a Squad could carry up to 4 AT4 atleast, thats how many we had in the mech infantry 2003-2004, 2 soldiers with 1 AT 4 each and 1 AT4 per squadleader wich gives you 4 per squad especially if you consider the infantrys tendence to miss a obvius target when firing they need more AT4s imo."

Well of course you bums in the mech infantry can carry everything including the kitchen sink, but the guys running around on LPCs have to be a tad more judicious!

Los

:men_ani:

Dude! thats why your Mech!!! ;)

(sorry for getting offtopic!)
/KT

[Chaplain]

It shouldn't be about "compensating." That just sounds like a lame excuse for laziness in building the infantry models.


"Lame excuse for laziness" - hmm, that sounds like a personal attack on the devs to me.

[HotTom]

Well, Chaplain, if you're looking for a personal attack, it isn't there. I am very impressed with the armor portion of this sim and it clearly required a great deal of talent and hard work.

In my opinion (which is free and thus worth what you paid for it) the infantry models are quite lacking (and I don't mean the way they look). An example: A scenario I'm building right now has enemy tanks attacking a town from the south and east. I have several squads on the perimeter, one of them facing west. The enemy comes into the town from the east and the troops, who are only about 20 yards away, never turn around to fight them.

It seems to me that if you can have AI for tanks capable of reading minute differences in terrain, it should be possible to have infantry notice T-80s that are rolling right behind them.

Am I lobbying? Sure. Is it personal? No. Is it professional? Yes, based on my training and experience in two wars and on many years teaching tactics and doctrine at a senior service school.

It's about Combined Arms. Every armored division in the US Army uses a triangle for its symbol and the colors of triangle represent armor and artillery and infantry. And, in my opinion, the quality of the infantry in this sim is, well, lame, when compared to the quality of the models for the other two combat arms. Neither armor nor artillery nor infantry fight in a vacuum.

If SB chooses not to allocate time and resources to that aspect of the sim, that is their right. And if most of their customers are happy, great! I suspect those customers use this sim primarily for gunnery and maneuver training, not as a combat simulator. In those areas, the sim is very realistic.

This customer disagrees when it comes to actual combat simulation. I think it could be better. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop playing it because it has limitations. EVERY sim I've ever tried has limitations and I think they are fair game for discussion. No one is flaming anyone here. I think I have a right to state my opinion. It would be a pretty boring forum if everyone agreed on everything, wouldn't it?

Funny to have a chaplain trying to stir up a personal dispute when there is none. Just a professional difference of opinion. When I have something personal to say, I send a PM and you would never see it. :)

Amen, brother...

HT

[Ssnake]

How did you set up the infantry force in your scenario?
You know, it's possible to not assign a specific tactic to a battleposition. Just make sure that all routes leafing away from there have embark conditions that prevent untimely departure.
These guys will be more flexibile in rearranging their position towards threats from surprising directions.

[Chaplain]

Well, Chaplain, if you're looking for a personal attack, it isn't there. I am very impressed with the armor portion of this sim and it clearly required a great deal of talent and hard work.

...

Funny to have a chaplain trying to stir up a personal dispute when there is none. Just a professional difference of opinion. When I have something personal to say, I send a PM and you would never see it. :)


I was not trying to stir up trouble. Rather, I was pointing out the your way of going about your argument is going to stir up trouble, and you need to find a better way of stating your opinion. Note what I said - and I choose my words very carefully. That is something that people who are going to lobby a position should learn to do.

[HotTom]

Ssnake, I had them engage from the center of the town to the perimeter (maybe 50 yards and then they just stayed there for quite awhile until the enemy showed up) and then set them for hold. I guess that means: Don't look behind you. When the good guys drive into the town after chasing out the bad guys, those troops are all alive and they didn't wave at the good guys, either. :)

In contrast, the infantry that is facing the attackers is TOO aggressive. They use up all their AT ammo at the very limits of their weapons' range and very rarely hit anything.

I would be happy if you just gave them some cover and concealment and the ability to lay down a base of fire and maneuver on an objective. And a bit of fire discipline. You don't have to send them to Ranger school, but Infantry AIT would be nice :)

These are just suggestions. What there is in the sim is absolutely great! Did you ever see a sim forum where the players didn't ask for more? It's not like I'm asking for an M1A2 or anything...

S!

HT

[stalintc]

Hi Tom,

Just on the side point of infantry using up all their AT at max range, im pretty sure you can set their fire control properties to engage at whatever distance you would prefer.

Dont quote me on that, but I have used this command when setting up defences in scenarios that I have played in order to let the enemy close to the optimum distance to launch a harsh barrage of accurate fires.

/is not involved with this discussion, but just trying to provide a helpful pointer, dont shoot the messenger plzzzz :biggrin:

Cheers

[HotTom]

Actually, I hadn't thought of that, stalin. I'll give it a try.

Thanks!

HT

[HotTom]

Cranked it down to 400 yards and they were really nasty!

Thx, stalin!

HT

[stalintc]

Your quite welcome sir :biggrin:

Glad I could be of assistance!

Cheers

[Lhatsbeid]

As for making infantry harder to spot, why don't add a kind of flipboard in front (direction of the observer) that masks alpha of the infantry guy. Just like you simulate a figure standin in grass in a cartoon.

A face and a bit alpha computing ain't very hard. Could work and saves rendering insane amount of ground objects.:cool2:

[Ssnake]

I can easily hide infantry from a human eye's view with an alpha channel cantrip. The question is, how do we handle this for computer-controlled units, and wouldn't the disparity between an invisible dismount that the computer TC just spotted be more of a liability than a help?

Furthermore, isn't it just another form of cheat if we're rendering infantry invisible beyond a certain range just so that neither artillery observers nor careful tankers are able to use their standoff to the biggest possible extrent.


I think it's better to place more bunkers in the terrain than you actually have infantry. Hide them in buildings if you must. Heck, the mission designer can even use the spawn function to make infantry appear as if they had been hiding very well.
The features are all there in the mission editor - you just need to use them.

[IrishHussar]

Hi All
nice discussion
I think that the Infantry question could be resolved by simply modeling them on the "HotTom" or "Chaplain" versions as it would take a whole armoured Div to get past those two. LOL

IrishHussar

[Vati]

Ssnake,

I understand the difficulties of the issue. However I think the following features could improve the inf model and hopefully would not need radical changes to the current model:
- Ability to create trenches like you do it for vehicles for prepaired defensive operations.
- Ability for inf to dug itself. Every soldier who went thru boot camp knows that soldier #1 duty when not moving is to dig himself a 'bathtub'.
- Alpha blending with background based on range and move speed. So if soldiers are static they could blend better w/ background.

[Lhatsbeid]

I think you ppl know Operation Flashpoint. It seems the AI handled cover an such in a quite neat fashion.

I designed a couple of Missions there and it seemed the AI had difficulties spotting prone Infantry which is near Bushes and Trees. That reached from hard while close to almost impossible while inside a bush. So my guess is they just linked spotting range to stance and proximity to cover which produced quite a convincing effect.

Just another idea that came to my mind.

[ShotMagnet]

I can easily hide infantry from a human eye's view...The question is, how do we handle this for computer-controlled units, and wouldn't the disparity between an invisible dismount that the computer TC just spotted be more of a liability than a help?

Furthermore, isn't it just another form of cheat if we're rendering infantry invisible beyond a certain range just so that neither artillery observers nor careful tankers are able to use their standoff to the biggest possible extrent.'Spawn if...'


Shot

[Chaplain]

Hi All
nice discussion
I think that the Infantry question could be resolved by simply modeling them on the "HotTom" or "Chaplain" versions as it would take a whole armoured Div to get past those two. LOL

IrishHussar

Nah. An infantry brigade would probably be able to get past me.

However, model the M901 after the 11Hs who served in my platoon, and it might take an armored division...

[NEpi]

I think that "camouflaging" prone infantry isn't difficult technically: just find the right grade of camo as, for example, dependent on time prone. the TC could have a probabilistic formula for spotting infantry too, so it won't be "all or nothing" spotting ability for both human and AI.

the big problem, from my perspective, is determining how much is enough. how good is camouflage anyway?
this question should be answered by experimenting with simulated "camo" and comparing it to real-life data. the real pain is getting the real-life data, since although I guess several armies done such data collection (how easy is it to spot infantry anyway?), they are not very happy to share such data. it seems like simulation experiment reports are harder to come by than armor values of MBTs. :-(

anyway, I think that since noone here can tell how easy it is to spot a grunt prone, and calculate range in the equation, it is not productive to discuss a specific means to implement it in the simulation.

[HotTom]

Ssnake,

I already do use an over-abundance of bunkers to provide cover on defensive positions and have infantry spawn to give the impression that they have managed to use stealth to close on a position in the offense. Both work quite well.

It's the working with armor as a team (as in company team or battalion task force) that the infantry AI is lagging way behind the armor AI, which is indeed, quite remarkable. The tank drivers can find the most subtle folds in the terrain to get hull down. The grunts, particularly dismounts whose AFV has just been killed and who aren't scripted, just lay there (or wander around in circles) in the open and get picked off.

LOL Irish! What's the fun in debating if you can't get passionate about your position? Bombast and hyperbole are part of the weaponry! I thought all Irishmen knew that :)

I'm not a treadhead or a grunt (although I did go through Ranger School and learn how to jump out of airplanes at the Benning School For Boys) so I have no branch loyalty (or ego) involved. Here's my branch insignia for 28 years:

:MP:

If I wanted to lobby for my branch, I would argue for better Humvees and a return to the .45 caliber pistol and adoption of that amazing Benelli M4 shotgun the USMC now uses. This sim really needs some MP units in it to tell the tankers where to go :)

Salute all!

HT

[Los]

Spawn if works great BUT>>>>>

Isn't it only available to the scenario designer? To the player who has been issued his forces and wants to put together a defensive plan, "spawn if" is out of the question. Perhaps an option could be implemented that allows a player to use "spawn if" during the games set up phase?

But honestly the bigger issue IMO is attacking w/ inf not defending. It would be nice to tie a Direct Fire TRP to a unit and say shoot here, even if you don't see anything. Such as Recon by fire or even to set up more effective Support by fire positions. And if squads could fire and maneuevr simultaneously One half moves while the other half shoots. (Does that actually happen now?)

"Furthermore, isn't it just another form of cheat if we're rendering infantry invisible beyond a certain range just so that neither artillery observers nor careful tankers are able to use their standoff to the biggest possible extrent."

In real combat you often never see the guys you are shooting at especially in infantry combat, you are firing against terrain features, suspected locations, smoke or flashes. Using indirect or direct fire againts suspected location is a standard part of fire planning and combat.

But in that vein using "Spawn if" in that situation would be a cheat. Unless spawn if or some derivative of it could be modified to mean spawn if (this) or else spawn if under direct fire etc.

Los

[ShotMagnet]

Spawn if works great BUT>>>>>

Isn't it only available to the scenario designer?Sure. So what?

To the player who has been issued his forces and wants to put together a defensive plan, "spawn if" is out of the question.Or maybe the designer wants you to use the dismounts without recourse to hiding them. 'Spawn if...' is a tool for designers. Letting a player decide which elements to spawn might unbalance a mission, which is why a designer may or may not allow units to spawn during a mission.

But honestly the bigger issue IMO is attacking w/ inf not defending. It would be nice to tie a Direct Fire TRP to a unit and say shoot here, even if you don't see anything.It'd be nice, it'd also be grossly ahistorical and inaccurate. People are not robots, strive though they might to be otherwise.

In real combat you often never see the guys you are shooting at especially in infantry combat, you are firing against terrain features, suspected locations, smoke or flashes. Using indirect or direct fire againts suspected location is a standard part of fire planning and combat.Which is why 'Spawn if...' is so useful for mission designers.


But in that vein using "Spawn if" in that situation would be a cheat. Unless spawn if or some derivative of it could be modified to mean spawn if (this) or else spawn if under direct fire etc.It's not a cheat, given how quickly infantry die in this game. Given that real tankers fear the grunts, I don't see a problem.


Shot

[Los]

Whoa I'm not slagging off the game. I've been playing SB since the beginning and I love it too. And it's obviously been acknowledged even by the design team that infantry is not quite up to the same standard as armor. No problem given where the program came from and it's already been acknowledged that it's high on the list to fix. But what to do in the interim?

I feel you can do a lot more with infantry right now than most realise. (had a whole 'nuther thread about this in these forums last week.)

Someone mentioned "spawn if" as a solution to adress infantry to hide. (I could have misunderstood) I am just pointing out pros and cons of that kind of option being in the hands of the player after the fact.

"Or maybe the designer wants you to use the dismounts without recourse to hiding them. 'Spawn if...' is a tool for designers. Letting a player decide which elements to spawn might unbalance a mission, which is why a designer may or may not allow units to spawn during a mission."

Absolutely correct but there's also scenarios designed to allow a player to place is own forces, those are fun and instructional also. (Maybe not every player wants every unit in every scenario's moves preordained by the designer.) Perhaps some sort of option to hide a unit, somewhat similar to the spawn if, was a suggestion. Given the unit is deployed in appropriate concealable terrain. It will be interesting to see how things work out with the buildings, at what ranges a unit can spot another unit in a building and what not.

RE Direct Fire TRPs
"It'd be nice, it'd also be grossly ahistorical and inaccurate. People are not robots, strive though they might to be otherwise."

Well I suppose that things may have radically changed in the 18 months since I've retired but in the 25 years before that period that I've been in, Direct Fire TRPs are a basic part of engagement area set up, fire control and distribution from Machinegunner and his little range card all the way up to brigade commander. One can see FM 7-8, FM17-12-8 or any similar combat arms manual. Nor do DF trps need not be something set down in stone hours before on a multipage oporder but are also designated on the spot by the leader calling the shots. you can see examples in situations such as this: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_3_93/ai_n6366545/pg_5
or
http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/mrsm/targetdesignation.htm

Just a thought...

Los

[ShotMagnet]

Whoa I'm not slagging off the game.I'm not suggesting that you were.


Shot

[Ssnake]

All I can say at this point is that I thank you for your ideas and suggestions. We're not unwilling to take them into consideration, and where there is opportunity we will do so.

[GH_Lieste]

You could make target spotting dependant among other things on area visible..

Infantry could be masked by a proportion of the local ground clutter's height depending on range (ie less effect at very short ranges) and movement (ie reduced or no masking while moving upright at walk or run, but nearly the same masking in the crawl).

Reduce the effective height of the infantry by the masking height... present to the player with an alpha mask on the lower extremities, pass the new reduced areas to the spotting algorithm.

Firing troops should be required to unmask by a certain amount if not in prepared positions?

This shouldn't need to be dependant on additional LOS calcs, and while not 100% accurate seems slightly better than always fully exposed troops.

[RogueSnake79]

For me, I think one of the reasons that I'm usually able to defeat troop attacks quickly, other than the fact that they always move in a line/formation making them a big target. Is the fact that they use tracer rounds. We all know what a double edge sword that is. Providing quick directions to their location.

Currently the only solution to that would be to set them to hold fire till the enemy is very close. But that makes them less effective, even more than they are currently.

I guess my main question is to whether it is common practice for rpg teams to engage the enemy with small arms (with Tracer rounds) at long ranges?
Ranges that they currently will not fire their tank killing missles.

Sorry if this has been mentioned, did'nt have time to read the entire thread this morning.

[Los]

Personally I just enjoy the process of mulling over these things...

I do think pulling off ambushes are pretty easy even right now, and definately more so if you want to preordain everything as the designer. It's a big plus that you can highlight and select multiple units and then right click and access fire control. It does allow the player to decide when to spring the ambush. If "spawn if" is not an option, (I.e. you've already repositioned your guys in the game or whatever) then you have to site you force so that it's concealed from the enemy along it's anticipated avenue of approach, something easily done if in the right mix of constricted terrain.

Even assaulting is handled pretty well by the Ai, it's support by fire that gets tricky since you can't really personally designate fire for them like when you are in a vehicle. It'd be nice to be able, from the external view, to give inf fire commands. Or if you had a plt hq unit that could do that. (though probably not workable unless as a major rewrite.) Certainly many of these types of things are fixes or temp solutions given the difficulty of programing AI.

Sb is as much a great wargame as it is a great sim.

Los