Ok, we have all done it, and we have all had it done to us. I am speaking of the soak off attack where you spot a tank but know that he will get first shot on your tank if you pop out so you grab your trusty infantry squad and start spraying the tank hoping he will shoot back and waste his shots that turn.
We all know that it is part of the game and code wise nothing can be done about it, but what do you think about it? If you had the option would you somehow "turn off" the soak attack, or would you allow it to go on?
While the filter will help some, the attacking infantry unit will still button the tank and increase the attacking tanks chance of getting off first shot.
What do you think could solve this, if you were so inclined? Perhaps saying that only one non-afv (anything that does not have penetration capability) unit may fire at an afv before an afv must engage?
What happens in real life? Does side A try to distract side B's tank then attack it?
Against attacking tanks, German infantry doctrine was to fire at the tanks along with the heavier weapons. Presumably this might have helped button up the crew and possibly obscure the source of lethal fire. When attacking tanks, infantry were expected to provide covering fire for AT teams and armor. Assuming no soft targets nearby, presumably this could include firing at the tank to distract its crew.
The Afrika Korps routinely used "soakoff" tactics by firing a unit or two at long range with hopes that the British would maneuver to return fire, then opening up with the concealed, close-in main force.
So, I'd have to suggest this particular example of gamesmanship isn't ahistorical. It probably is exploited in WinSPWW2/MBT a bit because the stock infantry is so darn durable. In the various SPWAW builds, soakoff tactics aren't as reliable and infantry goes into shock rapidly when used in this way.
-- 30 --
You said a bad word...RL. :cheeky: This is a game, I have stopped trying to force it to be RL as it is nothing close to the sort no matter what the reviews say. SP use to frustrate me to no end (BS - this would never happen in RL) until one day a big heavy brick hit me in the head and I saw the light....it is a game.
I was in the infantry for 6 years and tanks for almost 6. In the infantry we would have told the zipper heads to do their own damn job, and in the armoured corps we would have told the pongos to do theirs. No frigging way I would sit there with and FN plunking rounds at a tank when a Leo is in the bush behind me afraid to stick it's nose out. And in the tanks we hated when the grunts got in front of us and obstructed our fields of fire. In open terrain it was "stay behind us" but in close terrain we were very polite..."OH AFTER YOU BY ALL MEANS."
Quote:We all know that it is part of the game
Quote:You said a bad word...RL. This is a game,
OK I get it. Why bring it up? It's just part of the game.
RL...........................:whis:
I use infantry fire on tanks until I get it buttoned, usually one squad does the job. Then I'll take my chance with the OP fire.
hmmm
- what about to use filter (option) in MBT ?
and next idea: should be easy for SP CAMO to made similar filter in SPWW2 ???
Soak off attacks have been used since war gaming was invented. Even is board games on a larger scale than SP, they're a part of the game.
While Chris is right and it will never be "real life" I always pictured soak offs as fair play and not at all gamey. My way of looking at it is that although we're moving one unit at a time, we're simulating a turn during which everything is in motion at once. Soaking off therefore represents what is essentially suppressive fire. It's usually not even suicidal for the infantry to engage the AFV since there's a good chance the infantry won't even be spotted unless they have to move to get the shot off.
On today's modern battlefields the lethality is much higher, and I can see Chris' point about infantry not being too willing to "suppress" an enemy AFV, but in WW2 I think it's a very valid tactic. I have read of many documented accounts in Russia in the opening weeks of Barbarossa when the Germans routinely "killed" KVs by incessant small arms and light Flak fire against them. None of the rounds penetrated, but the sustained rates of fire created such a deafening noise the crews would bail.
So, no, it doesn't bother me. At least not in a WW2 battle. MBT battle, well, I may feel a little different about that because the tactics on the modern field are so different.
steel god Wrote:So, no, it doesn't bother me. At least not in a WW2 battle. MBT battle, well, I may feel a little different about that because the tactics on the modern field are so different.
This is a solid point. A WWII tank would have a horsepower ratio between 12 (Tiger I) and 22 (Cromwell V) with a turret traverse rate between 6 (Tiger I) and 25 (Sherman) degrees per second. An Abrams' equivalent values are 25 and 40, and its turbine has *far* better low-end performance than the short-stroke powerplants of 1945.
Eluding a Tiger I up close might actually be kind of fun, in a we-haven't-invented-the-X-Games-yet-and-I'm-18-and-immortal kind of way. Eluding an Abrams would be an exercise in futility.
-- 30 --