The Troop - Tactical Turn Based Platoon Level WW2 game

[Dayyālu]

if the ai was like utterly braindead and DIDNT move and just shoot, i have no idea how i would have won that...
there are like 3 turns of distance between 2 of them and you, you flank 2 of them and the moment you turn the corner and get LOS - its a die roll to die...

Skill issue.

Like everything you wrote, really. I understand you're bad at the game and can't even use basic mechanics like suppression or smoke, but please, stop humiliating yourself so much.

Maybe it's because I'm from a country not involved in WW2, but WW2 is by far the most boring, unsubscribe-on-sight game or movie setting there is. I still haven't played Silent Storm because of this.
Does this setting hit differently if you're American/German/etc?

Normandy is the most boring setting possible. At least this one has the British, but the combat system kinda makes up for it (and the British have at least some variety compared to the usual Americans).

Also, very few units seem to have AT rockets(bazookas, panzerfaust). It should be one per squad in a mechanized infantry unit, and 1-2 per platoon in an infantry unit. Approaching a building held by infantry at point blank to spray machine rounds inside is much safer than it should.

Standard grenades attack also count as AT grenade attacks: tanks surprised by infantry in urban environment or by dug-in infantry close by are as good as dead. I don't exactly get why "approaching a building held by infantry is much safer" because dug-in infantry is probably one of the most annoying headaches the game has to offer (particularly if hidden). Fail to recon and boom, here it goes half of your advance. Furthermore, tanks have limited vision: it's perfectly possible (if you don't have your commander sticking his head outside) to simply not see some fucker that's going to blow you up.

The game does give you a shitton of tools to "manage risk", between smoke, infantry recon, vehicle recon. The game is not simulative, but I'd say a good "simulation of a tabletop wargame".

 

[std::namespace]

Standard grenades attack also count as AT grenade attacks: tanks surprised by infantry in urban environment or by dug-in infantry close by are as good as dead.

im like 99% sure that you are full of shit, as expected,
gonna install the game, plop a sherman with clothed hatches next to a building an eat a bunch of grenades,
if it doesnt do shit, as i know it wont (the worst it does is some suppression, just drive away bro)
you are going to the ignore list as retard

 

[Turn_BASED]

Standard grenades attack also count as AT grenade attacks: tanks surprised by infantry in urban environment or by dug-in infantry close by are as good as dead.

im like 99% sure that you are full of shit, as expected,
gonna install the game, plop a sherman with clothed hatches next to a building an eat a bunch of grenades,
if it doesnt do shit, as i know it wont (the worst it does is some suppression, just drive away bro)
you are going to the ignore list as retard

Regular grenades can kill a tank crew after enough harassing. 2 inf squads can keep a tank locked down completely as it won’t be able to escape

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

To balance out tanks Vs. Infantry I would suggest perhaps only infantry units be able to take and hold victory locations. Also include realistic ammo types and counts so that tanks can't just blast away at things blindly. Only HE shells would do (serious) damage to buildings and you would have to balance the load out of HE vs other types of AP shells and smoke. This way a Panzer 3 might only have 11 or 12 HE shells depending on how many AP shell types they decided to load. This would add tactical choice before battle (picking Ammo types and amounts) as well as during battle since you would need to choose what kind of Ammo to use on each target as well. You might end up that you only had AP shells to use on a building and it would be a waste, so you would not do it.

These things (not being able to take and hold objectives+limited and varied Ammo types), would help to balance out the armored vehicle power. It would make it so that you had to choose some infantry to take victory locations also, so they would be needed, thus giving them more value.

 

[darkpatriot]

To balance out tanks Vs. Infantry I would suggest perhaps only infantry units be able to take and hold victory locations. Also include realistic ammo types and counts so that tanks can't just blast away at things blindly. Only HE shells would do (serious) damage to buildings and you would have to balance the load out of HE vs other types of AP shells and smoke. This way a Panzer 3 might only have 11 or 12 HE shells depending on how many AP shell types they decided to load. This would add tactical choice before battle (picking Ammo types and amounts) as well as during battle since you would need to choose what kind of Ammo to use on each target as well. You might end up that you only had AP shells to use on a building and it would be a waste, so you would not do it.

These things (not being able to take and hold objectives+limited and varied Ammo types), would help to balance out the armored vehicle power. It would make it so that you had to choose some infantry to take victory locations also, so they would be needed, thus giving them more value.

Ammo management in general, for all units, adds a lot to tactical games. Most vehicles and individual soldiers do not carry enough ammo on them for more than a few short engagements, or one long engagement.

And regarding tanks, especially of the WW2 variety, most games give tanks way too much visibility. If crews were buttoned up, they had very bad situational awareness and visibility. And if they weren't buttoned up, they could be killed and injured by small arms fire. They also tend to just make tanks 'immune' to small arms fire and munitions that couldn't penetrate armor. But in real life small arms fire and other munitions were very much capable of damaging optics and viewports (making tanks already poor visibility even worse), antennas, and even tracks to immobilize them.



Of course, if you make tanks as fragile as in real life (there has been no major conventional war involving tanks where massive numbers of tanks weren't lost) gamers often complain they aren't "tanky" enough, as they think a tank should be some kind of powerful juggernaut. Even if that isn't really accurate and just sending your tanks forward while relying on their armor has always been a terrible way to use tanks.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

To balance out tanks Vs. Infantry I would suggest perhaps only infantry units be able to take and hold victory locations. Also include realistic ammo types and counts so that tanks can't just blast away at things blindly. Only HE shells would do (serious) damage to buildings and you would have to balance the load out of HE vs other types of AP shells and smoke. This way a Panzer 3 might only have 11 or 12 HE shells depending on how many AP shell types they decided to load. This would add tactical choice before battle (picking Ammo types and amounts) as well as during battle since you would need to choose what kind of Ammo to use on each target as well. You might end up that you only had AP shells to use on a building and it would be a waste, so you would not do it.

These things (not being able to take and hold objectives+limited and varied Ammo types), would help to balance out the armored vehicle power. It would make it so that you had to choose some infantry to take victory locations also, so they would be needed, thus giving them more value.

Ammo management in general, for all units, adds a lot to tactical games. Most vehicles and individual soldiers do not carry enough ammo on them for more than a few short engagements, or one long engagement.

And regarding tanks, especially of the WW2 variety, most games give tanks way too much visibility. If crews were buttoned up, they had very bad situational awareness and visibility. And if they weren't buttoned up, they could be killed and injured by small arms fire. They also tend to just make tanks 'immune' to small arms fire and munitions that couldn't penetrate armor. But in real life small arms fire and other munitions were very much capable of damaging optics and viewports (making tanks already poor visibility even worse), antennas, and even tracks to immobilize them.



Of course, if you make tanks as fragile as in real life (there has been no major conventional war involving tanks where massive numbers of tanks weren't lost) gamers often complain they aren't "tanky" enough, as they think a tank should be some kind of powerful juggernaut. Even if that isn't really accurate and just sending your tanks forward while relying on their armor has always been a terrible way to use tanks.

There was an older game 'Panzer Command: operation winterstorm" and "Panzer Command:Ostfront" which were combat mission type games (but better IMO, but no longer supported even though they might be sold at Matrix games) that modeled tank munition types and load out as well as number of shells and you could run out of shells. I think you could even run out of MG ammo eventually as well if the engagement lasted long enough. Same with the mortar crews and off board artillery I think had to be called in a minute or two ahead and you only had a couple times you could use it and it had to be the the HQ unit with the radio to call it in etc..it was pretty cool. The graphics were not that great, even for 2016 or whenever it was , but it was still a great game.