Yeeee, but as someone who has experience in Games that have anti tank infantry, like Heroes and Generals that doesn’t exist anymore, let me tell you that it is absolutely annoying if you are in a Tank. Especially if the Anti Tank Infantry has realistic capabilities.
Believe me, you don’t really want infantry in this game.
Especially if the Anti Tank Infantry has realistic capabilities.
Priorities:
- Give infantry carriers (APC/IFV/Helis) additional options for capping points
- Minimal balance impact (read as: infantry are not a lethal threat at any significant range)
Believe me
I’ll start believing you on anything when you demonstrate you can read more than one line of a comment before replying.
But that would not be realistic. Any infantry coming out of a BMP or PUMA would have capabilities to kill tanks at at least 1km of range while being hardly detectable.
But well, not that I would care that much, it is not like Gaijin would ever implement something like this.
not be realistic
You serious my brother? Breaks from reality are made for balance and gamplay purposes all the time. Is it “realistic” that I need to get some “spawn points” before I can spawn CAS, and that I need to pay extra to equip said CAS with the ground attack munitions that will make it effective in its intended role?
If you make it this far: “so you don’t care about realism” ain’t it. Not every squad in the order of battle has long range AT weapons, and it’s unnecessary to include every variety of infantry squad just like it’s unnecessary to include every variety of tank. I mean, shİt, right now the IFVs come empty. Does that pass your realism test?
But well, not that I would care that much, it is not like Gaijin would ever implement something like this.
Yes but your engagement A. keeps bumping the thread and B. forces me to engage critically with idea (somebody has to do it).
1km is not “long range” as far as AT-Weaponry goes. And usually every squad deployed in an area where there is active Tank combat would indeed have AT-Weaponry with 600-1000m effective range. That is pretty standard, at least in NATO.
Long Range would be multiple Kilometers of effective Range like the Javelin, but even these are found rather commonly.
But yeah, Gaijin made Enlisted for that stuff, so it won’t be coming to War Thunder (Hopefully heh)
Find me the longest ranged infantry AT weapon listed here:
“that’s motorized, not mechanized”–don’t even think about it buddy
UPDATE: I gave Enlisted a fair shake. It’s a fun game, strong Red Orchestra vibes (which I also enjoyed back in the day).
But it’s an infantry combat game with vehicular characteristics. The maps therefore must be designed in a way that you can reach everywhere on foot. It’ll always be a hugely different game from WT, which is designed on being able to drive everywhere. Like New York vs. Los Angeles. The texture of the two will always be different.
I should also highlight the desire isn’t to play as infantry (because in many/most cases they’ll just be eaten by tanks), but to have 'em running around on the map with a moderate amount of player interaction. I say again, any future game recommendations should be made with the knowledge that A. playing as infantry isn’t the goal and B. I’m not looking for other game recommendations.
1 Like
That is pretty standard, at least in NATO.
“So here is a BMP Motorized Rifle Squad”
Well, must have missed the point where Russia joined NATO, clearly.
Also the Grenadier (Pvt) in the Fire Group on you picture has an RPG-7, so even they have Anti-Tank weapons (Although it “only” has a range of 500m, would still be annoying in game to have them sitting somewhere in some bush)
“So here is a BMP Motorized Rifle Squad”
Is “dummköpfe” the word I’m looking for here, or is that too harsh?
But to humor you:
“It is effective against targets to 400m stationary, 300m moving.”
My Friend was a PzGrenadier in the German Army and said they used the MILAN. What you show is a “Gruppe”, so a Group which occupies a Vehicle.
But 4 Groups (Vehicles) would make a Zug (Platoon)
Of these 4 Vehicles at least 2 would have a MILAN at their disposal.
Now, the MILAN is not used anymore, but it was replaced by MELLS. Range is 4000m
And if they think they will be confronted with enemy Tanks, the Anti-Tank Gunner in the other 2 vehicles would have his Panzerfaust 3 replaced with a “Wirkmittel 90” which has a Range of 1200m
The PzF3 is only the Backup for when you are not expecting to be engaging tanks, in case you need to engage one unexpectedly.
What you show is a “Gruppe”, so a Group which occupies a Vehicle.
I appreciate the rundown on German mechanized formations, but organizational realism above the individual vehicle level is not deterministic to the game. Whenever I spawn a US Sherman I don’t automatically get three buddies in a platoon, air support, and tank destroyers backing me up, despite those being part of the doctrine for any American unit of the time period that was expecting tank combat.
Doctrine doesn’t determine the available choices in WT. The squad with the PzF3 comes out of a Puma. Include it. Don’t include the squad with the Wirkmittel. “Don’t include organizational/doctrinal realities that would be overpowered” isn’t a new idea, it’s basic element of the game.
I’m going to guess that your position will boil down to “well any type of squad that could have ridden in this vehicle at any point must be included”, like ammo. Simply do not die on that hill, treat infantry slightly differently from ammo, and the “it must be realistic”/“if it’s realistic it’ll be overpowered” gordian knot you’ve tied is cut.
“I want to treat infantry and ammo the same, if any infantry is an option, then all infantries must be an option”–well, carry on.
Also just tracking the goal posts here:
First: any infantry coming out of a BMP or PUMA would have capabilities to kill tanks at at least 1km of range
Second: any NATO infantry in an area with active tank combat would have AT-weaponry with 600-1000m effective range
Third: infantry coming out of a BMP carry RPG-7 with an effective range of 500m
Fourth: My friend was a NATO infantryman and used long range ATGM
You’ll understand that it appears your position has contracted somewhat from the beginning of the conversation.
No, If you read my post I have confirmed, that in a zone where enemy tanks are expected, a Panzergrenadier Group on a PUMA would have an MELLS or Wirkmittel 90 depending on which Vehicle in the Platoon it is. BOTH weapons have at least 1km of range.
Maybe it is not true for the Russians and the BMP (I would doubt from some graphic that you just found after 1 Google Search, that was wrong for at least the Germans) but they still would have an RPG-7 with a range of ~350m which would be enough to camp behind some bush and kill any tank without the tank having any chance to fight back.
My Friend that was a Panzergrenadier is a good source for it because he knows the standard composition of a Panzergrenadier Group and I asked him again because of this very thread, where he confirmed what I said.
So at least for Germany the 1km thing in a Tank combat area would be accurate. Every Vehicle with Panzergrenadiers would have a weapon system that is capable of killing a tank 1km away.
For France the same /should/ be true, as they use the same weapon system for the same purpose, but I can’t confirm it.
For the US, according to the Website you used for the BMP and Panzergrenadier Squads, Mechanized Infantry in Bradleys carry Javelin Anti Tank (2500m range)
So for Nato it is true, it would be pretty shitty for the game.
But yeah, maybe the Russians can only kill you from 400m in a bush. Sorry.
Speaking from experience with any game that has Tanks and Anti-Tank Infantry, it will completely change gameplay to the worse. Only sniping, not flanking, no close combat, because once you leave the protection of your own Infantry (like in real life) you become cannon fodder for the enemy AT-Grenadiers.
in a zone where enemy tanks are expected
Given that your whole argument has come to hinge on this, there’s many vehicles in the game who would never intend to operate near enemy tanks. So again, not the standard for inclusion.
What’s inaccurate about the German squad composition? You yourself said it was accurate, just not when facing enemy tanks.
RPG-7 with a range of ~350m
> Ivan walks into the motor pool
> His track sergeant PLUT0NIUM waves him over
> “Ivan! Welcome! Look at new weapon–it can hit capitalist pig tracks at over 1000 meters!”
> Ivan sees RPG-7, asks if guidance system
> “No, is not guided, but trust me, 600-1000 meter range is accurate, Soviet optics ensure it.”
> Optics are high magnification, Ivan asks?
> “No, 2.7x. But optics perfectly adequate for effective range of 500 meters”
> And muzzle velocity of rocket? Need aim into wind due to rocket propulsion?
> “Aim into wind yes, but muzzle velocity plenty. Rocket good to 350 meters, without problem.”
> “Trust me Ivan, I know what I’m talking about.”
IFVs and APCs are already cannon fodder, sniping is already a big problem, (especially from spawns), and close combat would still be necessary for capturing objectives. If anything, adding infantry would improve the gameplay. People are ignoring the fact the not every player would choose to play as an IFV/APC. A large chunk of players would still most likely play as tanks. Multiple tanks could easily counter dismounted infantry with HE rounds and machine guns. The addition of infantry would be meant to improve gameplay for vehicles that are already at a huge disadvantage, not to make gameplay more difficult for tank players. Even with all that being said, they could always just make it a separate game mode so ground players would not be affected at all.
1 Like
I will just rest easy, knowing that Gaijin will never implement this <3
I mean Beyonce will never reply to my DMs, but you gotta shoot your shot brother.
To conclude the ATGM talk:
- Our main balance sticking point is the presence of infantry carried ATGM.
- If we do not insist on the presence of said ATGM for infantry which would otherwise carry them[0], and for all other infantry below an equivalent BR, we face the task of balancing short-range weapons (AT grenades, bazooka, RPG, Pzf, etc.) against their paper stats. Consider AT grenades and demolition charges the bottom tier here.
- Said weapons can be adjusted using the “soft” stats of total accuracy, time-to-shoot, and ammo capacity. Additionally, more powerful weapons (including ATGM, if we desire them to be included) can carry an SP cost.
[0] Unmentioned so far, but significant from a doctrinal basis–when we talk about the mech inf. organic ATGM, the launcher can often interchangeably be mounted on an IFV or man portable tripod (this applies in cases like the MILAN but not the Bradley). That the loadout of the (player controlled) IFV would be considered as part of the mechanized infantry loadout shouldn’t be overlooked when we discuss what they would be expected to carry (the entire point of an IFV, really–beats lugging that stuff around on your back!).
An observation from Enlisted:
- In the context of an infantry combat game, the AI controlled soldiers are generally just targets. In the context of tank focused game (WT) where the weapons are less twitchy, the state of AI present in Enlisted is likely viable.
Final thoughts:
- The capping side of things seems pretty well nailed down, which leaves the combat aspect.
- The balance goal should not be to make tanks vulnerable without infantry support, but rather to give a situational advantage to carriers which deploy said infantry.
- Consider infantry as a slow, unarmored, lightly armed vehicle which in one-on-one matchups would be categorically outclassed.
- The dynamic we’re looking to achieve is that of said “light vehicle” and a medium tank/IFV against a heavier combatant: the marginal contribution of the “light vehicle” can be far greater when supporting an ally, compared to its slim chances when solo. There are many variables that could be adjusted to achieve a desired balance state, if only we use our imaginations.
- Given the above, pure APC carriers (those without the weaponry to have a fighting chance against armored targets and are generally not candidates for inclusion in the game now) would remain unviable without a significant investment in the gameplay and balancing of heavier infantry AT weapons, which remains outside the scope of this suggestion.
Rest easy.
2 Likes
This is easily the most balanced, fair, and comprehensive explanation I’ve seen about this topic.
It would be best if it was made into its own game mode; a game mode that includes ground vehicles, planes, and helicopters, so the ground players have nothing to complain about. This could give them a ground only mode, so they don’t have to worry about the CAS spam or anything else besides other ground vehicles. Throughout this thread, every argument or question against the idea has been answered and accounted for. Out of the 145 votes, 103 voted in favor of the idea. At this point, it just seems like people are being contrarians.
I am so glad this is finally being brought up. Clearly a little over 50% of the community wish to have infantry ingame, and I think this is good. Games are supposed to change over time and evolve from their original 1.0 release. War thunder has change quite little in the grand scheme of things. We have gone from ww2 props and tanks to modern combat vehicles we use today but, the core foundation of wat thunders gameplay has effectively remained the same, im referring to the game modes. We need a second game mode on amuch bigger maps, and focus on completing objectives over kills. Defending points, assisting your team and so on should be the main source rp. In this mode infantry can be the only way to capture and hold positions, and we in tanks planes etc, are there to keep them alive in the fight. You bring up such a crucial point to this game bc everything in warfare always falls back to the boots on the ground, its effects how tanks and planes operate. Not only that, Gajin adds apc’s like the bmp or lav-AD or the mi-8 Hip or even the MH-60l but, half of the role these vehicles have just don’t exist. War thunder needs big change like this, were affectively playing the exact same game since release, if it’s just added in a new separate game mode, no one can be mad bc if you don’t like the game mode, then dont play it.
4 Likes