Allow mechanized infantry to withdraw transports and add trucked infantry.

[HISTORIAN_GAMER]

As the title said. We know that this is within the game's engines capability as heliborne troops has demonstrated. Of course infantry platoons are ideally a separate resource from their IFVs. This would add a lot of depth, but only if the AI is capable of utilizing this ability. In the game's current form, the player has a huge advantage being able to deploy heliborne troops while the AI doesn't, especially debilitating when AI picked an airborne heavy formation.

[BobTank63]

I wouldn’t expect it unfortunately. Dev has announced on the Regiments discord that there will only be one more bug fixing patch before he ends development to move onto another project.

Why would you want to withdraw the transport of a mechanized platoon anyway? The transports are supposed to fight with the infantry.

[Edelweiss]

It doesn't make sense to withdraw transports. It's a cold war game, and in cold war the doctrine was mass mechanised assaults, so infantry would always follow vehicles. There are no benefits to withdrawing vehicles, you just lose protection and firepower.

[HISTORIAN_GAMER]

Entrenched infantry is much more survivable without transports in this game. Compare a platoon of entrenched airborne troops their mechanized counterpart, and you will see that they survive better since

1. Its easier to blow up vehicles that wiping out the infantry.

2. Instant death to the infantry with blown up vehicles.



Also, there is a reason we see entrenched tanks, but not entrenched IFVs in ukraine. Sure, if you are pushing you don't want to withdraw those IFVs. But on the defense, they are more of a hindrance.

[BobTank63]

Originally posted by HISTORIAN_GAMER:

Entrenched infantry is much more survivable without transports in this game. Compare a platoon of entrenched airborne troops their mechanized counterpart, and you will see that they survive better since

1. Its easier to blow up vehicles that wiping out the infantry.

2. Instant death to the infantry with blown up vehicles.



Also, there is a reason we see entrenched tanks, but not entrenched IFVs in ukraine. Sure, if you are pushing you don't want to withdraw those IFVs. But on the defense, they are more of a hindrance.

That’s not really how the game works. When infantry are deployed, they act as a shield around the transports, so they will take most of the hits initially. It’s only when most of the infantry are already dead that the vehicles start getting blown up.

[MERRY COKEMAS]

Originally posted by HISTORIAN_GAMER:

Entrenched infantry is much more survivable without transports in this game. Compare a platoon of entrenched airborne troops their mechanized counterpart, and you will see that they survive better since

1. Its easier to blow up vehicles that wiping out the infantry.

2. Instant death to the infantry with blown up vehicles.



Also, there is a reason we see entrenched tanks, but not entrenched IFVs in ukraine. Sure, if you are pushing you don't want to withdraw those IFVs. But on the defense, they are more of a hindrance.

That's actually partially true.

Much of the extra survivability comes from the extra HP of elite troops and how AT weapons are entirely useless against them.

But at some point, you need to retreat those platoons to replenish them, and these platoons suffer from two problems. First, they don't have any vehicles, so they take longer to retreat, exposing them to more fire. Second, most vehicles deploy smokescreens when retreating, greatly reducing the effectiveness of incoming fire, while airborne platoons don't know what smoke grenades are.

Also, certain weapons are better at killing infantry than vehicles. Such examples include grenade launchers, mortars and incendiary rocket launchers ; when facing them, it's a regular occurrence to have 100% casualties in the infantry while all the vehicles are still alive. Note it's quite ironic that grenade launchers deal little damage to vehicles, as IRL they have HEDP rounds providing more penetration than ball ammunition from heavy machine guns.

This is particularly true the tougher the IFV is ; for example, let's say you've got an M2A2 platoon facing some East German Pioniere in BTR-70s, and there's a distance of 900m between the 2 platoons. The Pioniere have no MGs, and therefore can only fire their incendiary rockets at the M2A2 platoon, while the BTR-70s can fire all their MGs. The 14.5mm MGs don't gain any penetration the closer they are to the target, so they are of limited usefulness against the M2A2s and would mainly deal damage to the U.S. riflemen. Same thing with the 7.62mm MGs. So with a few incendiary rocket hits and maybe some damage ticks from the MGs, the M2A2s would lose all their infantry complement. Of course, the M2A2s can return fire with their autocannons and TOW-2s, resulting in fiery explosions for the BTR-70s and the death of all the Pioniere.

[Senor Smoke]

NO. the vehicles being attached is the only reason this game is playable.
every day somebody shows up here to go "this game sucks!! play WARNO instead!!". so I try WARNO.
i load a match, look at all the units & stats & variants at my disposal, i go "cool". i deploy 12 units, move them into position, unload all my infantry and my ui ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ EXPLODES!!!!!!!!
at no point in the hundreds of hours of playing Regiments did I ever actually think to myself, "I really wish i had twice as many units to control, but exactly half of them have 0 attack or utility. Sure this game is amazing but having 12 seperate units of empty jeeps that the game wants me to be microing for some reason getting in the way of what I'm doing would sure improve things."

Regiments > every single competitor forever purely and for no other reason (altho for other reasons too) than bc the dev doesn't listen to you.
if he listens to you on this I will reach into my wallet, reach allll the way back in time to every time that i gave him money, and strangle my past selves to death so i never have to experience this game asking me to micro empty troop transports. I would rather Looper myself

[Deus Vult]

Well, I do wish I could pull the IFVs back some to support the infantry from a distance as opposed to them being on top of the infantry.

[HISTORIAN_GAMER]

Originally posted by Senor Smoke:

NO. the vehicles being attached is the only reason this game is playable.
every day somebody shows up here to go "this game sucks!! play WARNO instead!!". so I try WARNO.
i load a match, look at all the units & stats & variants at my disposal, i go "cool". i deploy 12 units, move them into position, unload all my infantry and my ui ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ EXPLODES!!!!!!!!
at no point in the hundreds of hours of playing Regiments did I ever actually think to myself, "I really wish i had twice as many units to control, but exactly half of them have 0 attack or utility. Sure this game is amazing but having 12 seperate units of empty jeeps that the game wants me to be microing for some reason getting in the way of what I'm doing would sure improve things."

Regiments > every single competitor forever purely and for no other reason (altho for other reasons too) than bc the dev doesn't listen to you.
if he listens to you on this I will reach into my wallet, reach allll the way back in time to every time that i gave him money, and strangle my past selves to death so i never have to experience this game asking me to micro empty troop transports. I would rather Looper myself

You misunderstand me, basically I wanted a groundhog version of heliborne infantry, especially for non maneuver infantry units that aren't meant to maneuver in the first place. The came in trucks, deploy, the trucks auto retreat. Simple. The game engines already allows that anyway, no micro. Doctrinally and practically combining infantry and their IFVs is actually correct, as no modern doctrines allows infantry to get too far from their battle taxi in a maneuver. However, provisions are also made that when, the infantry needs to act as groundhog guys and not a maneuver unit, the battle taxi will retreat, leaving the infantry at the front. We see this practiced in ukraine a lot.


Now here is one thing that hasn't been addressed at all in the game: Infantry casualties. infantry casualties doesn't adds up to your cost, they are basically infinite as long as you have resource to recover transport. This simply doesn't make sense. The russian 2022 blyatkrieg literally failed because they have too few infantry and too much IFVs and armor.

[Histidine]

I'd also like for static defenses (both friendly and enemy) to use leg infantry platoons sometimes. Aside from flavor, this would give riflemen more use other than being meatshields.