Initial infantry thoughts

[boring2004]

When there was such a long time between updates, I had my fingers crossed for infantry - and wasn't disappointed. Having infantry in game will be a definite improvement. I played through a few of the new missions last night, trying to get a feel for the additions. Obviously this is a work in progress, but so are my thoughts!

Pros -
The very fact they're present is a pro.
Damage model seems to be ok, if you hit one with an MG - they go down.
The do fight back if you blindly rush on them and can damage you, they're not just fodder.

Cons -
They might be a little too lethal - I was one shotted by an RPG at 600 yards, which seems a bit high in my amateur opinion.
They're very "whack-a-mole". If you fire at one with an MG and miss they'll duck and then pop back up in the exact same spot a minute later.
The commander seems to stress a little too much about engaging them with the coax at ranges that they present absolutely zero threat.

Obviously this in an early build, but I'd say the number one thing that would improve infantry would be suppression/retreat AI. Just thinking of Steel Fury, where enemies will get down and crawl from position to position if you fire at them. And if you fire long enough, cause enough casualties, etc. they'll break and run from the position. I don't know what the Cold War doctrines for overrunning infantry position entailed, but it seems a little off to have to halt at range and try to "snipe" infantry during an otherwise fast moving assault.

Overall - this is a massive first step and I know you guys will keep up the good work.

[Memento Mori]

I will also give my opinions here.
Contrary to you, I found the infantry to be not lethal enough. I can come very close to them without them shooting at me (this will be fixed with more AT weaponry, but in regards to AT launchers, I think infantry is too weak. It might be because of supression tho, which would be fixed if infantry switched to a non-supressed place, which I will talk more about).
I do however agree VERY VERY MUCH with the "Whack-a-mole" part. Having infantry be able to move through the trench and shoot from different positions (I don't know how cold war trenches were dug Irl, but if you could fire from the entire trench, and not just specific positions like in game, having that in game too would be cool, because then infantry could pop out of anywhere, and you would not be able to guess where they would pop out from) would be great. Cuz rn I shoot mg, miss, adjust aim, shoot, miss, adjust aim, shoot, and finally hit, because the infantry did not bother moving to a place that was not under supressive fire, and I don't need friendly infantry at all. Better AI, things like having infantry be in cover for a while just to peek and shoot immediately would increase caution you would have to take and make you rely on infantry more (by making them clear trenches for you) instead of bravely rushing in alone because noone peeked so you knew noone was alive.
Also, HE could very much use buffs, I don't think that being 4 meters away from a 125mm HE shell explosion is something that would not have any impact on you, even if you were just peeking your head.
However, don't get me wrong, infantry is still a nice addition the game, and this is very early infantry, so everything can, and hopefully will, be improved (also, yes, I am throwing tons of ideas here, but I understand that this is not a studio with a team the size of and with the budget of a small country, so some things might be too expensive to implement).

One question I have for devs: are trenches generated or manually made (did you place a position on map, place new unit of x entrenched infantry and the game did it, or did you create an entire trench network model and then placed it into the mission)?

[Remove console. Serbia strong.]

The complaints about infantry being "whack a mole"

Is just reflective of the literal real life utility of infantry. This is the entire point of trenches.

I'm all in favour of them moving about the trenches as well. Even better. It will get closer and closer to realistic simulation of combined arms.

[[22g]Ben]

This update has been game changing in a great way! It's been a nice introduction to infantry and I whilst their role is rather small compared to yours, it makes the battlefield seem so much more alive.

Obviously this update is just an introduction to infantry and I have no doubt their behaviour and movements will be further worked on. I do have a few personal wishes myself.

1. Make infantry take a kneeling position to engage when under fire, seeing them all standing whilst taking fire seems to me like a bit of a death wish. I've seen them go prone too but to me it makes more sense to go to a kneel, especially if they are moving to an objective. Save your back, kneel if the incoming fire is inaccurate and light. Go prone if being suppressed by fire.

2. Have missions that involve them taking multiple objectives. Something along the lines of them dismounting before a village, moving into said village and then securing a small re-supply point beyond the village, a prolonged engagement like this would put more emphasis on protecting them and making sure the bigger threats are dealt with swiftly before you take too many losses.

3. Entrenched soldiers relocating to other firing positions if their position has been zeroed and under heavy fire. Popping their heads back up to see if that M60 is still there and still shooting at them is again a bit reckless, would be neat if they decided "Nope, too hot here, move down the line".

[Sling Blade]

Those are all great points. I'd also love to see pact troops get the RKG-3 AT grenades. Imagine you carelessly driving past a trench you thought was cleared only for a regular rifleman to nail your engine compartment with a well-thrown AT grenade!

[Memento Mori]

Originally posted by Sling Blade:

Those are all great points. I'd also love to see pact troops get the RKG-3 AT grenades. Imagine you carelessly driving past a trench you thought was cleared only for a regular rifleman to nail your engine compartment with a well-thrown AT grenade!

Same, that seems like something that could help with dealing with M1s, because they are though to pen frontally with launchers like RPG-7. Great idea!

[AbsolutMauser]

I love how they hilariously high-step into combat. (I know it's an early build and I am enjoying them).

[[22g]Ben]

Originally posted by AbsolutMauser:

I love how they hilariously high-step into combat. (I know it's an early build and I am enjoying them).

Agreed! They do have a certain pomp about them when they manoeuvre, chin held high and ready to earn some medals lol

[Eagletanker]

Originally posted by Memento Mori:

I will also give my opinions here.
Contrary to you, I found the infantry to be not lethal enough. I can come very close to them without them shooting at me (this will be fixed with more AT weaponry, but in regards to AT launchers, I think infantry is too weak. It might be because of supression tho, which would be fixed if infantry switched to a non-supressed place, which I will talk more about).

I'd like to point out that aside from Dragon, in the way of handheld AT weaponry whats in the game currently I think is it. Dragon gives the US the ability to reach out and touch Soviet AFVs from farther away but struggles against the front of newer Soviet models, while the Soviets I do not believe have anything like it. When Dragon does get added, what's likely to happen is it becomes even more dangerous and difficult to tank as the Pact, while NATO becomes even easier to tank.

[DANINJEN]

Grenadiers and Support gunners will probably be a neat addition.

[BuckDashing]

biggest issue is the "whack-a-mole" problem. This could probably be solved with a simple variable that makes them take cover for a variable amount of time, rather than a fixed time. They are so predictable, I can pre-fire on their location, knowing their heads will come up beforehand. I would assume for this change, their "reaction time" should also be increased, to make them slightly easier to hit before they go down for an indeterminate period of time.

[plc]

I'd agree that HE and HEAT rounds feel a bit weak versus infantry. In several playthroughs of native narrative I called artillery on the infantry-occupied village without it having much of an impact. Similarly firing heat rounds at infantry in trenches doesn't seem to do much unless the soldier is directly hit.

[Memento Mori]

Originally posted by Eagletanker:

I'd like to point out that aside from Dragon, in the way of handheld AT weaponry whats in the game currently I think is it. Dragon gives the US the ability to reach out and touch Soviet AFVs from farther away but struggles against the front of newer Soviet models, while the Soviets I do not believe have anything like it. When Dragon does get added, what's likely to happen is it becomes even more dangerous and difficult to tank as the Pact, while NATO becomes even easier to tank.

2 things to point out:
1. I was saying that the infantry does not use the current AT launchers enough, probably because of range and/or supression.
2. 9K115 Metis. I googled "Soviet version of the dragon ATGM" and it spat that out. Why not at least do a quick google search before saying stuff, cmon man.

[Eagletanker]

Originally posted by Memento Mori:

Originally posted by Eagletanker:

I'd like to point out that aside from Dragon, in the way of handheld AT weaponry whats in the game currently I think is it. Dragon gives the US the ability to reach out and touch Soviet AFVs from farther away but struggles against the front of newer Soviet models, while the Soviets I do not believe have anything like it. When Dragon does get added, what's likely to happen is it becomes even more dangerous and difficult to tank as the Pact, while NATO becomes even easier to tank.

2 things to point out:
1. I was saying that the infantry does not use the current AT launchers enough, probably because of range and/or supression.
2. 9K115 Metis. I googled "Soviet version of the dragon ATGM" and it spat that out. Why not at least do a quick google search before saying stuff, cmon man.

And a basic glance at Wikipedia would reveal the Metis was company level while dragon is squad level.

Your going to be running into a lot more dragons than Metises.

[Memento Mori]

Originally posted by Eagletanker:

Originally posted by Memento Mori:

2 things to point out:
1. I was saying that the infantry does not use the current AT launchers enough, probably because of range and/or supression.
2. 9K115 Metis. I googled "Soviet version of the dragon ATGM" and it spat that out. Why not at least do a quick google search before saying stuff, cmon man.

And a basic glance at Wikipedia would reveal the Metis was company level while dragon is squad level.

Your going to be running into a lot more dragons than Metises.

Allright, but just 1 Metis can destroy a few NATO tanks and cost you (or win you) the mission.

[Marathonmann]

while i like the idea of infantry in GHPC in their current form they bring the gameplay to a grinding hold everytime they appear. Your weapons are ineffective against them and it becomes a game of finding that on pixel you have to aim at to hit them. And they dont shoot back anyways. And their implementation is kinda comical, reappearing at the same spot over and over again with the same animation and speed.