Infantry Armour Cooperation

[Daz]

The AI does not seem to be able to recognise the correct unit to send out as advance guard for the changing terrain, daylight and weather conditions.
I recall mention of the fact that there is something in place to make Recon units advance guard when they are available, but maybe not Infantry?

I'm not sure if this is asking to much of the AI but in the dark, in close terrain, or thick fog when its available infantry should be selected over Armour for the advance guard.

The spacing of the formations should be much tighter between units in these kind of conditions as well, with one of the Infantry and Armour sharing the same footprint, except where one of them is sent into retreat of course.
Depending on the acceptable losses setting, the non retreating unit should either wait for its support or continue on regardless without it.

In bright daylight conditions, crossing open terrain armour should be set as advance guard, unless there is an armoured Recon unit, and the spacing's between units should be increased to ensure they don't share the same footprint and of course the inevitable bombardments.

 

[Kurt]

Exactly what I was saying , hopefully when Dave tackles the MOUNT/DISMOUNT issue this close support will be dealt with

 

[Daz]

It usually ends as in this example with 3 or more Panthers illuminating the dark forest as they burn.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Well more needs to be done than just sticking out inf in front of tanks. First off you need an assessment routine that determines if the conditions warrant leading with inf or tanks. This needs to be called in the planning routine. Then you need to have some form of reassessment done periodically to determine if the conditions have changed and if to invoke a change in formation - eg visibility drops or increases, terrain becomes close or open.

 

[Daz]

Yeah quite a bit of work I should imagine.

When I play, I kind of know where the AI is capable and where it is lacking.
I will adjust my orders, or order individual units, and try to coordinate their timings so they move or attack at the same time.
This Infantry Tank Coordination is one of the areas that gives me an advantage over the AI and allows me to have some convincing wins.
Its definitely one of the areas that is letting down the AI side when its playing as your enemy.

 

[Daz]

For a short term solution maybe it would be better to have the AI lead with infantry as a default regardless of terrain and viz.
This is better than the other way around because I would rather lose a few infantry than a few tanks.

As a short term solution for the player maybe a check box in the Tasks Edit box for Infantry Advance guard or Armour.
That way the player can be more in control at a higher level negating the need for as much micro management that I know some people are adverse to?

 

[Daz]

Just realised I posted this on the wrong forum.
It was supposed to be on the Feature Request Forum, in response to Dave asking me to post about it here:

http://forums.lnlpublishing.com/threads/manhay-crossroads-axis-victory.1696/

I did realise it would be complex to pull off and would need to wait for another build.
Sorry about the confusion

Edit: Feel free to move it as required.

 

[Daz]

Also see Kurt's post on the subject here:

http://forums.lnlpublishing.com/threads/tank-infantry-close-support.1657/

I should give him credit for spotting it first

 

[Kurt]

No worries Daz, the more its mentioned the more likely Dave is to address it

 

[Ripppe]

I'd also like to bring this up due to the experiences I've had with the scenario (All American over Nijmegen) I'm currently playing.

I have now come up a few instances where (at least in my humble opinion) _tank destroyer_ units of 30. Corps have been improperly used or they act rather strangely. Especially when you consider that this units consist of 3 Achilles tanks.

1) 5/COLD is conducting an important bridge capture assault albeit at night time. An organic TD unit (H.21) is assigned to the left guard duty. What almost blew my off the chair was that the unit decided to make "all or nothing" dash through the bridge WITHOUT any actual support. Although weird things happened in war (I could somewhat count this as such incidence), this was rather hazardous and reckless move. What if the (primed!) bridge would have had a more consistent defense? Luckily the lonely flak company and TD unit didn't meet. I'm not 100 % sure but I think I used successive lines in this case.


2) This is a minor one but I can't help but wondering why TD units (again, I'm speaking about the same scenario where these units are composed of 3 Achilles tanks) are assigned to the front line, ESPECIALLY when there are more suitable candidates (again imho) available? The situation above is such, but I also come up with this situation when Coldstream was assaulting Nijmegen itself.

Here you can see that two instances of TDs in front. One (G.21, organic) in the north section of the city (B.1CO has just passed by it). And the other (L.21, attached) in the right flank.

3) The same TD units really like to act as an advance guard despite the fact that there are other units present in the formation (such as household cavalry or armored recon units). Unfortunately I don't have a good picture to show case this.

 

[Kurt]

I have experienced the same thing , now I tend not to use TD's or AG's in assaults unless I am desperate . I have also relegated these same to "LINE-SUPPORT" instead of "LINE" in my own Estab's when creating scenario's .

 

[Daz]

Just want to add a few more ideas to this topic with regards to the edit options dialogue for an attack.
It would be nice to be able to specify (via a tick box?) if you what the infantry sent in first of the Armour.

Also, probably a bit beyond the capabilities of the game engine, but here goes anyway;
If armour is selected by the player to be sent in first, for example in an attack over open terrain, it would be nice if the infantry were to be given a temporary direct fire defence bonus to simulate them taking cover behind the slow moving tanks.
Obviously the tanks rate of advance during the attack, would also need to be adjusted to that of the walking infantry and their shock factor on the enemy infantry adjusted as well I guess, as they would no longer be charging at the enemy.

 

[Kurt]

Good , valid points . Their also needs to be a representation of Russian troops riding on tanks during assaults , this makes them more vulnerable to direct and indirect fire but allows the tanks to advance at full speed . German panzer grenadiers used their half-tracks aggressively , often the grenadiers would stay mounted during the assault and only dismount close to the enemy trenches . This makes the passengers more resistant to small-arms fire and shell fragments but more vulnerable to AP rounds . Maybe once Dave has cracked mounted-ops it would be a logical progression to include all these features . ( I can just imagine Dave wincing at these requests ! )