[SD44] New patch 79074

[Uncle_Joe]

Infantry would definitely make better use of cover and dispersal than is represented in the game. And vehicle-mounted MGs would have a MUCH harder time finding and engaging the infantry (unlike now where they just open up and fire until the squad vaporizes or manages to fall back).

Abstraction is necessary so I think it would make sense to either just lower HE values or increase infantry resistance to fire.

 

[unipus]

One reason for the constant arty spamming in the wargame series is that it has never modeled actual forward observers. Now, SD has added off-map and "forward observer" units, which are excellent ideas and done mostly well... yet this superior design continues to coexist with the old model of on-map, always-on-call artillery as well. That part confuses me quite a bit.

As for infantry losses, I'm willing to accept some amount of abstraction there, as well (some % of them being immobilizing wounds rather than kills, etc), but the rate of loss is still astonishingly high at times. I too have seen the situation where leaving a building even for a moment is essentially a death sentence for any infantry unit.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

As for infantry losses, I'm willing to accept some amount of abstraction there, as well (some % of them being immobilizing wounds rather than kills, etc), but the rate of loss is still astonishingly high at times. I too have seen the situation where leaving a building even for a moment is essentially a death sentence for any infantry unit.

Exactly, it's as if they all walk out in one mass and are cut down the same way. Modeling infantry tactics at this level is not practical so abstractions have to be accepted in the form of reduced lethality.

 

[FatRefrigerator]

Exactly, it's as if they all walk out in one mass and are cut down the same way. Modeling infantry tactics at this level is not practical so abstractions have to be accepted in the form of reduced lethality.

Back during Red Dragon everyone said "no pls don't make a WW2 game because we know you're not gonna fix infantry combat and it's gonna be even worse in a WW2 setting" but heeeeeeeyyyy here we are.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

Back during Red Dragon everyone said "no pls don't make a WW2 game because we know you're not gonna fix infantry combat and it's gonna be even worse in a WW2 setting" but heeeeeeeyyyy here we are.

The sad thing is that's certainly not an insurmountable problem even with the current engine. Will it 100% model realistic infantry combat? Nope, but it wouldn't have to. Unfortunately, I've seen little movement or desire to even attempt a fix.

A few tweaks here and there could make it feel a LOT better.

 

[FatRefrigerator]

The sad thing is that's certainly not an insurmountable problem even with the current engine. Will it 100% model realistic infantry combat? Nope, but it wouldn't have to. Unfortunately, I've seen little movement or desire to even attempt a fix.

A few tweaks here and there could make it feel a LOT better.

Really? I've watched Band of Brothers and I vividly remember the characters being sucked into buildings through the walls and the entire cast dying in 3 seconds when a halftrack shot at them in the open.

 

[Dongs Galore]

Infantry combat is a reasonable enough abstraction at this scale.

 

[Yung Rommel]

Just give infantry a damage reduction from sources of damage that fire bullets.

 

[Sir Garnet]

Damage reduction is about conditions - cover, concealment,visibility, wehather, platform stability, suppression on both sides etc. - and competence, as more experienced soldiers take a lot fewer losses because of how they move and fight.

 

[Uncle_Joe]

Infantry combat is a reasonable enough abstraction at this scale.

MAYBE for WW1 where 'over the top' into MG fire was more common. For WW2, the casualty rates from direct fire in SD are frankly hogwash.

 

[unipus]

Oh, the drama! Go figure that this went from "some tweaks to the damage model for soft targets would be nice" to "the entire game engine is broken and can't be fixed to replicate this period of history" in about 10 posts. Internet wins again.

 

[Dongs Galore]

MAYBE for WW1 where 'over the top' into MG fire was more common. For WW2, the casualty rates from direct fire in SD are frankly hogwash.

The casualty rates are higher than real life, sure, but battles are only 50 minutes instead of several days. It seems to me not much different from how boardgames at the same scale abstract infantry losses.

As I said, I think "pinned" units in cover should get a substantial defense bonus. Not enough to survive direct fire from field guns, but enough that after pinning them down the attacker should have to actually storm the building to clear them out rather than just potting them to death with MGs from across the street. This would in my opinion adequately represent the idea that a "pinned" squad has stopped exposing itself to enemy fire and are hiding in the cellar or whatever; combat ineffective but not actually dead. Their player could then choose to have them fall back and expose themselves to fire, or try to advance and relieve them.

I'm fine with infantry in the open taking current casualty rates, pinned or not.