Jump to content
Volcano

TGIF 2015: scenario list, discussion, and house rules

Recommended Posts

Yes, what would you do in real life when a tank comes toward you with intent on running you over? Die.

In training (simulator) we were taught to do just that when I was a driver: if you saw enemy infantry near you, run them over and keep going, don't even bother machine gunning them (as bad as it sounds). It is the nasty part about the tank business, but he is trying to kill you and your crew.

I know it is frustrating when it happens - I get upset too when my team gets run over but I don't see a problem with it. I managed to kill a few tanks like that before too: save up you stamina, then burst sprint away at 90 degrees and as it tries to run over your other troops in the team: pop it with an RPG (of course it depends on how far away you can get and the RPG type though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a gruesome part of war. Thankfully for SB, getting a vehicle that close to infantry doesn't result in a close-assault situation where the infantry rushes up and kills the AFV with grenades, molotov cocktails, satchel charges and the like so unless someone has an ATM, the infantry is hamburger.

After watching the AAR, my statement about the Blue side losing convincingly stands. Better luck next time :cool3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not saying infantry should not die if a tank runs over them. I saying that its a too much efective tactic because:

-infantry always stays in a perfect line,making very easy to run over them

- When enemy tank is close enought, infantry does nothing, they just start crawl slowly(IA does not scatter,or hide, or shoot)

You can destroy a full infantry squad in few seconds just running them over.

Anyways seems im the only who thinks this is wrong so its OK, running over infatry maybe is not realistic but is funny :luxhello:

PD: Rotar,I think you had a video about this, if you can post it, I can not find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand, please, you guys both enlighten us on what you think is realistic here. Just about the only thing they can do in this situation is hide from the tank, being too close to shoot with RPG (or being without an RPG). It isn't like the movies, infantry do not climb on tanks and throw grenades in hatches.

And someone else in this thread mentioned something about infantry not having grenades, satchel, charges - nonsense. Real life isn't Saving Private Ryan. The only thing infantry normally carry that are effective against tanks are RPGs and ATGMs. With that expended, they better seek cover or get some support. Molotov cocktail? OK partisan commander! Satchel charge? You would be talking about combat engineers (who I would like to see one day), but ordinary infantry do not walk around with blocks of C4 in their pockets. Grenades? They will do jack squat to a tank, but maybe someone saw the Germans bundle together seven hand grenades to take the track off of a Mark IV tank in WW1.

What would you like the infantry to do? Climb a tree? :heu: Try running them away from the tank. Oh, wait, you probably can't because you exhausted them already.

The actual solution: support your infantry with other infantry, ATGM teams, and vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infantry has a few trick up their sleeve that SB cant model correctly.

Most of the mentioned "make shift AT weapons" have 2 things in common: They work much less effective then an RPG and they have to be prepared before....and third: you have no chance using them in the tank has Infantry cover. So why bother preparing them if you have RPG?

What would make a big change is if the Infantry would use the RPG more effective: fire it from a prone position! Or fire it anyway. Many times the AT-team do "kneel-lay down-kneel-ley down....repeat till you get shot"

The thing that we used for close AT-training:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handflammpatrone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handflammpatrone

That thing was issued and part of the squad equipment, ready to use and MUCH more effective then a molotov coctail!! Esp. when are in a vehicle with Al-armour, I've seen that set an M113 hull on fire :-o

Another fact that makes infantry in SB less effective is the missing dugin positions.

Foxholes (Kampfstände?) connected by covered-trenches and all that. :-(

Infantry in the open has the same problem since millenia: cavalery will ride them down

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would make a big change is if the Infantry would use the RPG more effective: fire it from a prone position! Or fire it anyway. Many times the AT-team do "kneel-lay down-kneel-ley down....repeat till you get shot"

Well of course in theory:

Infantry (RPG gunners):

Calmed down the RPG gunner to cure a nervous twitch that occurred immediately before firing.

I guess if that isn't the case in 3.023 / 3.025 then it deserves a bug report. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well of course in theory:

I guess if that isn't the case in 3.023 / 3.025 then it deserves a bug report. :)

Not actually a "bug" as such, but if the target is behind half a twig that covers 0,5% of the target surface...the AI gunner will just not fire

And I'd like them to shoot from prone position anyway :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I'd like them to shoot from prone position anyway :-P

Agreed.

kneeling just says - hey look over here.

But there's a bunch of stuff that would be good prone such as use of binos adjusted so you aren't looking at the clump of grass 10cm from the bino lens. :)

But I suspect doing stuff prone adds more complexity (LOS, checks etc.) as well as modelling it.

I also agree that stock standard Infantry don't turn up with C4, Satchel Charges, Molotov Cocktails, socks and grease, etc. stored about their load carrying equipment and again the key weapon systems have been currently modeled.

I think the fundamental issue is being on hand to manage your people.

So yes if you know Infantry are being approached by a vehicle then go to the unit and "manage" them (move them out of the way, pop their smoke, orientate them to the threat and tell them to "engage here", etc.).

If enemy map updates are on, this should be straight forward.

If enemy map updates are off, then read the messages in the text box and react if one of your units is being fired on.

If you decide that you want to focus on your tank unit and leave the Infantry to fend for themselves, then expect there to be not too many of them left the next time you visit.

The alternative is to become a dedicated Platoon Commander and just look after your Infantry platoon.

The number of units and players in a typical TGIF means that's unlikely to happen as you probably have a Company at least to look after. So you need to make a judgement call as to which units need your attention and if the "neglected" ones get destroyed then you can't do much more except report that something destroyed your squad at Grid X.

Of course if you focus on the Infantry battle then a tank or two is probably going to be destroyed.

As the Company commander, its your coin toss. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true that in NORMAL conditions, infantry didn't have access to everything. Though we did have some of those thermite grenades. I used one on a BRDM in Desert Storm (Not during combat) and those things do a nasty job burning through the engine deck. Probably not effective on a moving AFV but it's better than nothing.

Satchels and C4? Well, my company did have a section of combat engineers attached to us during the war. Not sure if it was SOP or not but they did have them. All I had to do was ask how to use explosives. Effective against AFVs in battle? Something is better than staring at a tank about to run you over and all you have is a rifle or an MG :c:

I'm still waiting for improved fighting positions, foxholes and the like. But it's ok. Long as I have my TOWS...:gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7uPDTIX.gif

I think they should always stand up and sprint to avoid getting ran over, even if under direct fire and/or out of endurance, and never just crawl around slowly in those situations. Also, way back in 3.002 the release notes said: "Infantry may now fire RPGs from the prone position". Whatever happened to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is true that in NORMAL conditions, infantry didn't have access to everything.

Agreed.

Well, my company did have a section of combat engineers attached to us during the war.

Not "normal".

QED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should always stand up and sprint to avoid getting ran over, even if under direct fire and/or out of endurance, and never just crawl around slowly in those situations. Also, way back in 3.002 the release notes said: "Infantry may now fire RPGs from the prone position". Whatever happened to this?

EXIBIT A. Maybe we should discuss what bonehead in your video put infantry on STAY tactics around all those buildings (in the video). What people don't seem to understand is that 99% of infantry intelligence is based on the controlling user. The user consistently puts his infantry in stupid situations and then complains about SB and how infantry are nothing but fodder. You are doing it wrong if that is the case. We freely admit that the infantry has a long way to go to be ideally effective, but I think a lot of people are tired of reading these comments that are mostly attributed to incorrect usage or inadequate support.

As for the ability to fire an RPG in the prone, the animation for that has been added, but not the behavior (and it was added to the release notes by mistake). This is something on our to-do list. That said, I am pretty sure that infantry firing RPGs while prone has nothing to do with them getting run over, which again comes down to user made decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... That said, I am pretty sure that infantry firing RPGs while prone has nothing to do with them getting run over, which again comes down to user made decisions.

Only in that way, that they often fail to kill the tank before it runs them over, because of that. ;-)

I admit I moved away from the run over topic and added some overall "need haves" for the infantry.

I'm sure Rota only used this gif to show and extreme sample of grunt-crushing.

Normaly try to avoid tracks and that works OK against AI-tanks.

No amount of "movement drills" for the AI will help against a human-player hunting them down on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Rota only used this gif to show and extreme sample of grunt-crushing.

Normaly try to avoid tracks and that works OK against AI-tanks.

No amount of "movement drills" for the AI will help against a human-player hunting them down on purpose.

Yes, well, my comment wasn't directed at him -- it was at the video and those calling for it to be shown.

The point being: let's say those were my infantry in that video and I was the bonehead (they could have been, who knows). The mechanism to make them more difficult to run over in that situation is there - all I had to do was put them on HOLD or DEFEND orders to have them occupy nearby buildings.

If an infantry unit needs to fire an RPG from the prone to survive, then that would mean that it is under fire from the vehicle it is shooting at. I agree that this would be very useful, and as I said, it is on the list otherwise we would not have made an animation for it. However, as you should know, the best protection for infantry is other infantry (anyone ever heard of overwatch?). All too often in SB, people spread out their teams too far to where they have no support, and they are running around in the woods like Rambo trying to get RPG shot on tanks, or trying to find the enemy.

The other problem with infantry is a scenario design one. By default, mechanized units are created with just a rifle team w/ RPGs, and an LMG team. This is actually not correct for most armies, and it is why I made the infantry template scenario:

http://www.steelbeasts.com/Downloads/p13_sectionid/258/p13_fileid/2545

You can freely change the infantry composition and weapons in each IFV/PC platoon.

For example, a modern US infantry platoon would have support from Bradleys with TOWs at long range, then up to three Javelin teams from medium range (that is 6+ ATGMs by default), then RPG teams for the close range engagements. Someone try to make a scenario of a tank platoon attacking into a properly created US M2A2 platoon, that is correctly deployed (i.e. with the correct frontage) and see how that works out for the tanks.

But the fact is that most of the infantry vulnerabilities can be avoided with proper usage, support, and with correctly designed scenarios. Now I myself am guilty of having some infantry units in SB contain their default rifle (RPG 1|1) and LMG only composition, but this is usually for all the older scenarios that I did not originally make, but I updated them to keep up with the latest improvements. However, the fact also remains: any time there is a scenario where infantry are "properly" (adequately) equipped, 9 times out of 10 the user spreads out so far that he cannot support himself. It is that natural tendency because people are using the infantry to go forth and scout and distract. If they are going to use them for that purpose then they are giving up safety when that isolated team is caught out by a single tank.

And yes, everyone knows that infantry firing RPGs from the prone would be good, as would the presence of combat engineers/sappers that actually have special ability (like demolition). Having infantry be able to fire RPGs through a couple of tree branches would be nice too. Personally, I would like to see the ability to dig into fox holes which makes them impossible to run over. But let's say that some improvement was made where infantry get up and sprint around like roaches when a tank drives next to them. While that might help for a few seconds, it would essentially delay the inevitable. That is not to say that it wouldn't be a good improvement, just that they would still get run over by a determined tank. Better to not have them in that situation to begin with. ;) This is all a bit of a 50/50 issue here.

I am here to provide the other side of the picture. There is just too much blame going towards SB in this area. The improvements that are needed within the simulation are known and apparent, but at some point the user does have to take responsibility for improper usage. For example: 'my infantry are useless hamburger and get run over all the time', implied: 'so we lost the mission because SB infantry are useless'. Take this stuff to the infantry thread please.

Edited by Volcano
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 JAN scenario:

TF Deutschland 1978-3025

This scenario is quite large (one of the largest), and a lot of player are needed (about 6-8 Blue, and about 9 Red minimum). If we do not have enough people then we will play something else.

NOTES:

  • Avoid studying the enemy's side; only gather intel from the briefing and exposed enemy unit icons (enemy intel), and briefly looking over both sides to figure out which one you want to CO. Anything beyond that ruins the fog of war element.
  • To avoid passwords, open the scenario in Network Session as HOST and choose the side you want to play and go to planning phase. You may briefly look at both sides like this to see which side you want to play or CO on. As CO, once you choose a side, go to that side and create your plan.
  • Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com community rules.

Edited by Volcano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.But let's say that some improvement was made where infantry get up and sprint around like roaches when a tank drives next to them. While that might help for a few seconds, it would essentially delay the inevitable.

It would also expose them to the tank's wingman who would happily hose them and the tank down with coax or Canister. :)

There are a whole bunch of sins comitted by people unaware of what happens in RL.

Lone tank encounters lone squad in forest = both are "boneheads" (new technical term). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What's unrealistic about it? A tank is also armed with two tracks."

"In training (simulator) we were taught to do just that when I was a driver: if you saw enemy infantry near you, run them over and keep going, don't even bother machine gunning them (as bad as it sounds). It is the nasty part about the tank business, but he is trying to kill you and your crew."

+1. Tacbat and Volcano are spot on right. I got the same training on Centurions in the '60's. For example, the Cent could do "neutral turns," pivoting left and right in one place: used to collapse foxholes, slit trenches and the like so that you buried, crushed and/or suffocated your enemy. Tracks are as much a psychological as a physical weapon, and very effective as either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"What's unrealistic about it? A tank is also armed with two tracks."

Tracks are as much a psychological as a physical weapon, and very effective as either.

No doubt that tracks can be a very efective weapon,but in the video you can see a 9 men infantry squad crushed in 5 seconds(thanks for the video Rotar).Do not you think it's too effective?, if not impossible. Realize that put the infantry in buildings would not have changed anything,those are almost light buildings you can destroy ramming with tank and instantly killing everythign inside

'so we lost the mission because SB infantry are useless'. Take this stuff to the infantry thread please.

I never said that and reading my post i don't think i suggest anything like that. The original idea was to talk about adding a new TFIG rule,not talking about infantry problems, that is why i was posting here, but ok, we can continue debating in infantry thread

PD: I'll co red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No doubt that tracks can be a very efective weapon,but in the video you can see a 9 men infantry squad crushed in 5 seconds(thanks for the video Rotar).

I think the point Volcano was making was that those Infantry were run over because they had been given a "Stay" tactic which means they wouldn't move even if the could.

Stay

The unit will sit in place and will not move regardless of the tactical situation or enemy presence.

Had they been given a "Hold", "Defend" or "Guard" tactic they would have probably been in the buildings or had moved out of the way as the tank approached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that and reading my post i don't think i suggest anything like that. The original idea was to talk about adding a new TFIG rule,not talking about infantry problems, that is why i was posting here, but ok, we can continue debating in infantry thread

That was addressed to the person who continually mentions infantry problems in regards to TGIF scenario results, or so it seems to me.

To tell you the truth, I don't know what to make of the video. It is basically a point of extreme absurdity. The infantry are laying on the ground with a stay tactic, in an area where there are clearly buildings around and the tank drives up suddenly and rapidly on the infantry who happened to be sitting in the row between said buildings, perpendicular to the tank. Not sure what we expect here: maybe they start flipping out of the way like ninjas at the sudden sight of the tank that comes roaring over the hill? Maybe they should automatically run into the buildings on STAY orders and then make everyone angry that there is no way to keep them out of buildings? The point I was making earlier is that someone here was clamoring for this video to be posted to show infantry ignorance, but it also shows the ignorance of the controlling player (or the scenario designer if they are AI) because the entire situation could have been avoided.

That is the point in all of this. I am merely suggesting that if users start utilizing infantry in a more intelligent manner then you WILL get better results. Let's have a little owning up to improper usage here with some of these issues. Instead that never seems to be a topic of discussion. 'Infantry suck and are worthless hamburger meat!' But interestingly enough, in the hands of some users they actually CAN be very effective. Interesting. :heu:

That said, there was nothing wrong with asking for a TGIF rule, but no, there will be no such new TGIF rule for the time being because I believe most of the problem here revolves around the controlling player.

Now can we return this thread to the original topic? By all means, criticize the infantry in the other thread. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No doubt that tracks can be a very efective weapon,but in the video you can see a 9 men infantry squad crushed in 5 seconds(thanks for the video Rotar).Do not you think it's too effective?, if not impossible. Realize that put the infantry in buildings would not have changed anything,those are almost light buildings you can destroy ramming with tank and instantly killing everythign inside

PD: I'll co red

Tacbat,Volcano and I are discussing the realities of high intensity warfare, not SB or how various players use it. As you say, "No doubt that tracks can be a very effective weapon..." Precisely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No doubt that tracks can be a very efective weapon,but in the video you can see a 9 men infantry squad crushed in 5 seconds(thanks for the video Rotar).Do not you think it's too effective?, if not impossible. Realize that put the infantry in buildings would not have changed anything,those are almost light buildings you can destroy ramming with tank and instantly killing everythign inside

I never said that and reading my post i don't think i suggest anything like that. The original idea was to talk about adding a new TFIG rule,not talking about infantry problems, that is why i was posting here, but ok, we can continue debating in infantry thread

PD: I'll co red

A tank driven at high speed can kill a lot of infantry in 5 seconds. That is why it is best to keep them in surrounding buildings instead of laying on the ground out in the open. If they don't fire from the buildings, the AI will usually not detect them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...