Trout

I agree, smaller teams are the way to go. Has anyone else tried setting 1 team to engage, and the other to assault? Or what about 1 group fixes and the other flanks? Most of the guys get wiped out anyway but it would be cool if these things worked. I dont get the sense that the defenders AI is influenced at all by being flanked, nor do they present easier targets from the side or rear.

thats a separate issue (inf mount/dismout restrictions). The bigger problem is that when you DO send your dismounts into town or any heavy cover area to assault other infantry, they will suffer HUGE casualties. Even with somthing like a 5 to 1 ratio, your casualties will be unrealistically heavy. It may have somthig to do with being prone or not.

Ahh....Falcon 4! Has there ever been a better sim with more replayability?! Sadly the realistic sim has gone the way of the Dodo.......

I know its an armoured sim - its the best on the market. However, you should be able to dismount your troops and have them clear enemy infantry out of towns, bush and forest to remove the threat to your vehicles. As it stands now, even a single enemy squad will cause, IMHO, unrealistic casualties in the engaging/assaulting force. I think that is the biggest problem with infantry in this game Trout

Lets start another one! How would you improve infantry in this sim? I'll start: -By default they should reboard their PCs when the PCs are given movement commands. PCs could then have an "embark without infantry" command added. -Infantry need to be less vulnerable to small arms when they are upright and/or hit the dirt sooner. Inf. vs inf. engagemnts just dont work right in this sim. -movement in windows. you should see SOMETHING in windows when infantry are present, not just tracers. The only way to deal with infantry in buildings now is to flatten every building in site!

Yup, infantry are not very effective while moving. If they stay put in good cover they are nasty, but they are incredibly vulnerable when exiting or entering the vehicle, or when advancing with any command other than scout. I"ve been playing around with inf vs inf situations and you need WAY more than 3 to 1 advantage to attack or assault succesfully. I assume that with infantry vs infantry battles, the outcome is figured arithmatically? They dont actually SEE each other and shoot? Yes, they should be able to sprint to and from the carriers or when covering open areas. But they should also be harder to hit when shot at by AI. Also, 2 prone units within grenade range should hurt each other more. SInce SB is a military training tool, does it not give vehicle commanders the wrong ideas about the usefullness of dismounts on the attack? Trout

keep dismounts from being left behind when their PCs take off?! I wish they had an "embark without infantry" command.... where the default "embark" would automatically hold the PCs until eveyone is loaded. Trout

What I meant was, the DEVELOPERS must do this, since clearly the player community has not. In the end you guys suffer for it because customers cant sort out the fun missions from the not-so-fun ones. Maybe you guys dont have time to do this, but you could certainly appoint a committee of volunteers. When you look at the number of downloads it is clear that there are lots of people out there playing these missions. So just put a formal mechanism in place for proper peer review.

Hi, I’m a new customer for SB and I just wanted to say that I think this is a fantastic sim. I was always a fan of the old Microprose military sims (like tank platoon), but its been years since I’ve had that kind of enjoyment from an offline sim. One issue I have, however, is that without a dynamic or scripted campaign, you really have to rely on scenarios other people make. I find the rating system pretty useless and there are too many missions that are either too complex, or contain some sort of element that makes it less enjoyable. I saw the same problem with Dangerous Waters, which is an outstanding naval sim that has a limited appeal. Its just too much bother to find missions that are enjoyable. I think that even though the developers don’t want get into producing content, what they really should do is set up a mechanism for rating and describing other peoples missions. They could even set up a campaign description and get volunteers to fill in the missions. Perhaps they could put together a committee of volunteers who could rate the missions and write a short 1 para review? Either way, they should get involved somehow in ensuring that customers, especially new ones, have an easier time finding the right missions. Trout