10-02-2017, 01:21 PM
Sooooo. Last night, we had a little thing about grenades. I wanted to say something then, but I decided to leave it overnight to when I could get it out easily, without argument.
So, essentially, we play a very specific set of roles. Generally small teams who have to go to an objective and blow stuff up or find something in an enemy held position against an enemy that is much stronger on paper. And consequently, that means we have to play to the enemies strengths. Which is a pain, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
What I mean, is that in infantry combat, as the larger force, you want to try and get elements close to the smaller force so you can force a decisive engagement. This is where the 3-1 rule comes from, you have a suppressive force, an assaulting force and a reserve to either exploit victory, help with the suppression or help with casualties. The smaller force should avoid this, as, as I have mentioned above, that most casualties come from point blank range, and when it gets to point blank range, you should expect to trade 1 for 1 and anything better is a bonus (unless the opposition is suppressed or pinned in place). Unfortunately, we can't really avoid this, because of the missions we tend to play. (If you watch ShackTac videos, you notice that they tend to withdraw when a superior enemy force starts closing, and if you pick positions right, you should be able to do this, which is part of the reason being flanked is so dangerous, because you often close off escape routes with fire and cause the decisive engagement the smaller force is seeking to avoid.)
When it gets to the final section of the attack, known as the assault, grenades are critical. In WW1, there were guys who crossed no mans land with nothing but a bucket of home made grenades, one British Officer got a Victoria Cross because he drove off a Battalion, killing a full company of men with nothing but his bucket of grenades and a pair of balls so massive I'm surprised he fit in the trench. If I was going into a position to finish off a dude with automatic fire and a bayonet, you can bet all your money I'm going to hit him with as many grenades as possible beforehand so even if he is alive, he is in no state to consider fighting back. And yes, currently grenades are too powerful, I'd like to see them do basically no damage and just rely on shrapnel, but if I understand how the shrapnel system works, then that's a pipe dream (On a tangent, I'd have made it so all explosives do randomX damage where X is the amount of damage they currently do at a distance (with maybe a random chance of a multiplier), so its possible for a dude to survive a hellfire hit, but you might also die from a grenade 25m away).
In missions where we aren't forced to close with the enemy, where we can just stand off and whittle their numbers down from a distance before closing in, we tend to do much better and lose less guys to grenades. In terms of accuracy from distance, we are clearly much better than the AI, and its harder for them to use their strength in numbers against us as effectively, so maybe being less aggressive where we really don't need to so much could help. We're often far more aggressive than our force ratios should allow, though it's often forced by the mission situation, and we don't bound anything like enough really.
As a conclusion, I don't really see anything too wrong with the AI's use of grenades really, though they could really do with less of them, but that seems impractical.
So, essentially, we play a very specific set of roles. Generally small teams who have to go to an objective and blow stuff up or find something in an enemy held position against an enemy that is much stronger on paper. And consequently, that means we have to play to the enemies strengths. Which is a pain, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
What I mean, is that in infantry combat, as the larger force, you want to try and get elements close to the smaller force so you can force a decisive engagement. This is where the 3-1 rule comes from, you have a suppressive force, an assaulting force and a reserve to either exploit victory, help with the suppression or help with casualties. The smaller force should avoid this, as, as I have mentioned above, that most casualties come from point blank range, and when it gets to point blank range, you should expect to trade 1 for 1 and anything better is a bonus (unless the opposition is suppressed or pinned in place). Unfortunately, we can't really avoid this, because of the missions we tend to play. (If you watch ShackTac videos, you notice that they tend to withdraw when a superior enemy force starts closing, and if you pick positions right, you should be able to do this, which is part of the reason being flanked is so dangerous, because you often close off escape routes with fire and cause the decisive engagement the smaller force is seeking to avoid.)
When it gets to the final section of the attack, known as the assault, grenades are critical. In WW1, there were guys who crossed no mans land with nothing but a bucket of home made grenades, one British Officer got a Victoria Cross because he drove off a Battalion, killing a full company of men with nothing but his bucket of grenades and a pair of balls so massive I'm surprised he fit in the trench. If I was going into a position to finish off a dude with automatic fire and a bayonet, you can bet all your money I'm going to hit him with as many grenades as possible beforehand so even if he is alive, he is in no state to consider fighting back. And yes, currently grenades are too powerful, I'd like to see them do basically no damage and just rely on shrapnel, but if I understand how the shrapnel system works, then that's a pipe dream (On a tangent, I'd have made it so all explosives do randomX damage where X is the amount of damage they currently do at a distance (with maybe a random chance of a multiplier), so its possible for a dude to survive a hellfire hit, but you might also die from a grenade 25m away).
In missions where we aren't forced to close with the enemy, where we can just stand off and whittle their numbers down from a distance before closing in, we tend to do much better and lose less guys to grenades. In terms of accuracy from distance, we are clearly much better than the AI, and its harder for them to use their strength in numbers against us as effectively, so maybe being less aggressive where we really don't need to so much could help. We're often far more aggressive than our force ratios should allow, though it's often forced by the mission situation, and we don't bound anything like enough really.
As a conclusion, I don't really see anything too wrong with the AI's use of grenades really, though they could really do with less of them, but that seems impractical.
Lead me, Follow me, or Get out of my way.