Page 2 of 5
Posted: Mar 30 2006
by Journier
i just tried them out, and to tell the truth, id rather have max strength light infantry than the engineers
usually on the world scenario i go from Light Infantry then switch over to LAV-5a's.
Maybe they are better on the smaller scenario's?
Posted: Mar 30 2006
by margab
bergsjaeger wrote:Well U were talking about Engineers not having anti-tank weapons. I seen something on the military channel a minute ago. An engineer in the 1st Us armor battalion in the latest Iraq war blew up a mine field with just 3 bombs. The tank in front of the column actually was pushed back from the explosion. Now if u get 350 engineers with 3 bombs each and set them all up for an ambush aganist a tank battalion I imagine either the tanks will be disabled or damaged beyond fighting. Then if the tankers are stupid enough to try and get out of their tanks they be cut down by the engineers shooting at them. that's not saying the entire battalion be wiped out but will be missing a few tanks.
What you are talking about is a modern engineering division. In the game, the engineers we build don't have a required tech level. May be the engineers should have levels too like 1950, 1970, 1990 etc.
I don't believe that a WWII sapper/engineer could stand against a modern tank battalion, no chance. Their AT guns wouldn't even penetrate the modern armor.
Posted: Mar 30 2006
by bergsjaeger
I don't think the engineers are that old in the game. For example the US rangers are in the game and and don't have a tech level. (the II one's do)So does that mean their the world war 2 ones because of that. Their more likely the modern one even though they don't have a tech level. So think of engineers in that way. They are modern in every sense.
Posted: Mar 30 2006
by margab
OK, I understand your point that they should be thought as modern divisions, but then still I believe that since the mine laying/mine sweeping functionality wasn't introduced to the game, that should be discarded as a justification for the engineers having high hard attack values. IMO a bunch of engineers cannot withstand the power of a tank battalion.
I still would like to hear other peoples opinions on this.
Posted: Mar 30 2006
by bergsjaeger
Well in real life it depends on the terrain to know if engineers can withstand a tank battalion. But I admit they need some toning down to hopefully get the AI to build something else.
Posted: Mar 30 2006
by Draken
Kind of off topic but:
Bergs,
Was something like
this what you see in the show?
Posted: Mar 30 2006
by bergsjaeger
Nope the engineer got out of a gator ran over set the bombs then ran like hell to get back into the gator before the bombs explosed.
Posted: Mar 31 2006
by Draken
Posted: Mar 31 2006
by bergsjaeger
well he might have been part of a marine element wit the 1st Armor but still he was a engineer.
Posted: Mar 31 2006
by dust off
My two pennies worth: Engineers get the 10r combat penalty; but even so they are over strong. Generally speaking examples of engineers doing great things in combat are plentiful, but it's simply not their primary role. Soft and hard attack should be toned down.
Posted: Mar 31 2006
by bergsjaeger
Well by just their name engineer implies their are not a real combat element but more of a support. But they are trained as regular soldiers before they get a specialty in engineering. I don't think though the US or other countries would use a full battalion in combat like regular infantry. Course a country backed to the wall might.
Posted: Apr 01 2006
by dust off
I don't think though the US or other countries would use a full battalion in combat like regular infantry.
True, they get attatched to formations when the situation calls for it to make combined arms teams.
Posted: Apr 01 2006
by BigStone
dust off wrote:I don't think though the US or other countries would use a full battalion in combat like regular infantry.
True, they get attatched to formations when the situation calls for it to make combined arms teams.
Yep... and thats why i think (imho) the engineers should have high
values....
Posted: Apr 02 2006
by bergsjaeger
but u never see an entire engineer battalion in the field. The battalion is most likely broken down and added to other types of battalions. Like my example of the engineer being with the 1st US Armor Battalion.
Posted: Apr 02 2006
by dust off
Yep... and thats why i think (imho) the engineers should have high
values....
Engineers can supliment, even multiply the combat power of infantry, and armoured units. On very rare occasions they have fought well independently, but this would be the expception that proves the rule. Engineers are not equipped, nor trained to engage an enemy independently and thus their values in SR2010 make them unrealistic.
In combined arms teams their role is principally removing or placing obstacles.