Jump to content


Infantry in World of Tanks


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
46 replies to this topic

Poll: Infantry in Game (126 members have cast votes)

Where would you like Infantry in Wargaming?

  1. With World of Tanks. Tanks worked in conjunction with the soldiers, and it gives light tanks another speciality. (83 votes [65.87%])

    Percentage of vote: 65.87%

  2. In a seperate game (43 votes [34.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.13%

Would Infantry be a good idea.

  1. Yes (87 votes [69.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 69.05%

  2. no (but still read the article please) (39 votes [30.95%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.95%

How do you think I did with gameplay idea?

  1. Those are great ideas! (27 votes [21.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.43%

  2. Nice! (26 votes [20.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.63%

  3. I like this topic (37 votes [29.37%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.37%

  4. I did not like it. Here are my reasons.... (36 votes [28.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 28.57%

Vote Hide poll

Anonynonymous #21 Posted Jul 26 2011 - 22:55

    Private

  • Beta Testers
  • 3373 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    09-04-2010
I've always been in favor of adding infantry, but not directly controlled by player. Instead we should add another tree that's consist of troop carriers, which will consist of basic trucks, halftracks, wheeled APC, and tracked APC. Depend on the Tier.

The infantry will behave like AI controled ground bound drones which you launch from your troop carrier. And your research tree will consist of not only upgrades to your vehicles, but upgrades to your squad's weapons (MG/Recoiless/Rocket/Mortar/ETC) and classifications (Recon/Engineer/Light Infantry/Heavy Infantry/ETC) as well. Infantry should have naturally high camo rating and faster flag capture capability.

They'll act like ammo you buy in your garage. You basically point your crosshair at the ground (Click at an hostile target will direct them to engage it.)and it will direct the troops to leave your vehicle and advance to the location you pointed. And change their stances depend on the number key you hit (Hide/Hold fire/Fire at well/Cautious/Charge!/ETC). You can replimish the squad members by having them return to your vehicle. And if you do lose an entire squad, you can 'reload' (Very slowly, and only limited amount of times.) to get a new squad.

I think this way WoT can remain a vehicle centric game, but still have infantries for added variaty.

Eliminateur #22 Posted Jul 26 2011 - 23:53

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15719 battles
  • 1,467
  • Member since:
    08-14-2010

View PostVonTielbur, on Jul 26 2011 - 21:16, said:

There's several options out there already that allow for infantry to fight against tanks and vice versa.

I play this game because I like TANK warfare, I like fighting other tanks... not having to spend an entire map running from stupid squishy players with a stupid satchel charge or boom stick.

RO, WWIIOL, pick one if you want combined arms. But I will stop paying good money the day they force me to stop fighting tanks and run from a stick man with a portable bomb.

^this +1
infantry has NO PLACE in WOT, there's no need for such "variety" as it will absolutely ruin the game

BaDkaRmA158Th #23 Posted Aug 09 2011 - 22:49

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 7346 battles
  • 246
  • [KR] KR
  • Member since:
    06-20-2011
They already have a world of tanks, and airplanes, ships are inevitable, as is a infantry type game.



So don't worry, all it will take is time...lots and lots of time. <_<

darkdog9 #24 Posted Aug 10 2011 - 00:20

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6520 battles
  • 1,302
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011
Would love it why you ask so i could run over whole squads in my heavy tanks.

T_CD_34_85_Cell #25 Posted Aug 10 2011 - 01:01

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10451 battles
  • 78
  • [-KT-] -KT-
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011
Infantry would be very good,since it would contribute to the immersion in the game.
But I guess infantry should be somekind independent from the tanks,not needing a tech tree or upgrades.
Allied infantry fires at axis tanks and axis infantry fires at allied tanks.The only classes that would be effective in the game are AT and sappers,but reg infantry should be added,for realism sake.
Every inf shot could be +100 credits and +10 XP.
If infantry should be coordinated by players,then IDK...Better not.
Oh,and APCs,trucks and jeeps,artillery batteries and AT Guns could be added too.

ApplesauceBandit #26 Posted Aug 11 2011 - 20:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 27242 battles
  • 5,994
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011
I bet that would make the game really laggy

OdinsRealSon #27 Posted Aug 13 2011 - 13:54

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9873 battles
  • 133
  • [TATU] TATU
  • Member since:
    04-02-2011
No.

Panzerpete #28 Posted Aug 13 2011 - 22:52

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 14657 battles
  • 111
  • [F-O-E] F-O-E
  • Member since:
    08-24-2010
I'm surprised nobody has pointed this out but check the FAQ on the main page.  On page 2 it says:

Quote

Are there any machine guns in the game?

Tanks have machine guns installed on them, but as long as there is no infantry, there’s no need to use them in battles, because even the most powerful machine gun is not capable of penetrating armor of a decent tank. Infantry will be implemented further on.

But then again many things they've planned to implement have yet to see the light of day such as an in-game auction system for your tanks.

Anyway HERE is a link to the FAQ.  It's the 4th question from the bottom.

The_Pugilist #29 Posted Aug 14 2011 - 21:02

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6269 battles
  • 90
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-02-2011
It's a very nice idea for a light tank add-on and AI controlled infantry. I believe most tanks in realism often had two infantry squads for support. As good as the idea may sound the developers believe this wasn't necessary for a tank-only game, and it would ruin the very element of what tank tactics and strategy would stand for. Honestly I believe it will improve the way tactics and critical thinking in random battles would work for both teams, maybe only give light tanks infantry control to balance their weak armor and they can rely more for heavy tank support by destroying the opposing light infantry which would hurt heavy tanks if left unattended. My opinion is that the game is proud to be an all tank game, but what most people dislike about the game is that all it takes is a steamroll strategy with the highest tier tanks to take out most of the light tier with a single shot. Yes the heavy tanks earned it considering the time and effort to get such a tank, but the fact remains that its never fun to be on the opposite side of that barrel. Who knows the developers might add a small taste of infantry to spice up the battles, maybe as an add-on equipment or a new tech-tree all-together. But squibbon's infantry tech-tree is a bit messy, Think of infantry as rock, paper, scissors, instead for example in my perspective:

My Infantry:

Anti-Infantry               (Rock)                 ex: Sub-machine gun, 30 Cal, Sniper rifles                  + Strong against other Infantry

Support and reconnaissance  (Paper)                ex: Mines, Quick repairs, Mortars                           + Strong against Stationary or Light-armored targets

Anti-Tank                   (Scissors)             ex: AT-Crews with Mobile 70mm gun                           + Strong against Tanks


And given that each light tank gets one squad or put a squad cap per team and not a brigade which will lag the game, this system can improve the fan-factor for most lower tier tanks and give a sort of a fan-factor. Either way they answered that they will be thinking of adding infantry, just give them time to carefully think of how they will implement it to a tank-only game is the real problem.  <_<

Akura #30 Posted Aug 17 2011 - 21:11

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 2543 battles
  • 106
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostEliminateur, on Jul 19 2011 - 12:48, said:

no, don't like the diea, it would completely ruin the game.
if you want to have infantry and tanks go play BF*, wot right now is spiffy and bullshitish enough as it is without adding BS infantry shooting molotovs at your T10 tank and killing it...
noone wants their T9/10 tank ruined by some dork with a bazooka hiding in a bush completely undetected.

so no matter how good the idea/theory you put, infantry has no place in WoT

That made me LOL , A noob infantry trying to cap at your base only to get splashed by its own team's arty lmfao trying to hit your tank lmfao!! Then that tank gets TK status lmfao an gets blown up by its own teammates

Valkeiper #31 Posted Aug 18 2011 - 01:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostImaginary_Star, on Jul 19 2011 - 11:30, said:

I actually thought of having infantry on the maps as a sort of "dynamic scenery". Them fighting it out with each other, without having any effect on the tanks. Purely to make the game more lively and battle-like. But that entails much technical issues, plus would bump up the age rating.
So.. eh.

and graphics cards all over the world would be crawling into a corner to cry piteously...

before the Network Interface Cards takes pity on them and closes the connection.

Valkeiper #32 Posted Aug 18 2011 - 01:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 8176 battles
  • 2,018
  • Member since:
    04-15-2011

View PostEliminateur, on Jul 19 2011 - 12:48, said:

no, don't like the diea, it would completely ruin the game.
if you want to have infantry and tanks go play BF*, wot right now is spiffy and bullshitish enough as it is without adding BS infantry shooting molotovs at your T10 tank and killing it...
noone wants their T9/10 tank ruined by some dork with a bazooka hiding in a bush completely undetected.

so no matter how good the idea/theory you put, infantry has no place in WoT

let me put it to you another way.

there was once a board game called "Chariots" (just after the movie "Ben Hur" hit the screens).

This game did well on the local market (no internet then) and they sent out modules of new chariots and horses and such on a regular basis.

then they included weapons for the drivers (D&D style weapons).

Less than three months later, the only people to win the races first won the fight and ran the rest of the course (the horses were dead). even if no weapons were in the race; the race would boil down to the drivers on foot and beating the S*** out of each other and killing the horses.

This would happen on many maps of WoT (especially maps like Himmelsdorf).

UnMoveingTarget #33 Posted Aug 18 2011 - 05:16

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3072 battles
  • 169
  • Member since:
    07-29-2010
i favor ai inf , have them as addon to tanks ,they could even hang off the sides untill deployed , and i think the inf should be equiped based on the year the tank was made (low tier inf have only grenades or firebombs)when deployed inf should have good stealth when not moving, letting them ambush tanks if they get close(nasty on urban maps) but if your tank has your inf still hanging on they can defend it from hostile inf.

each tank class could have its own inf type it can carry (light tanks might get a anti tank team a small team of scouts or a mg team) (a med might get a inf team or tank riders with smgs) (heavys could get larger teams or more of them) (tds could shair with what other class matches its size) and arty could get .. no idea maybe somethign to help defend it?

dallasfan315 #34 Posted Aug 18 2011 - 07:32

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17078 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    03-12-2011
I think if you guys looked at how infantry worked on the original Operation Flashpoint, you'd see how infantry could actually make the game a lot more "alive" i honestly wouldn't mind looking out for a guy commanding a squad of 5 or 6 guys. If the squad in your tank was just as much alive as the squad commanded by the player commanding infantry, instead of driving a tank with it's crew of soldiers, it would become a lot more strategic to let the infantry scout from bush to bush and lay prone as the tanks battle it out. You would see prone soldiers getting fired by enemy heavy MG's. I think it would make it a much better game and I wouldn't mind seeing another game give Battlefield a run for it's money. In battlefield you respawn, in WoT, you don't. That's why you wouldn't see a person who chose to be infantry "running and gunning". One shot one kill. Period. So a guy hides in the bushes with a bazooka, if our infantry was doing it's job(snipers, mortars, etc.) that dude had to fight to get to it. Now once he parks all the infantry is spamming chat with where he went, a tank chooses HE, fires a shot at the bush. Target down. If you look at OF, the infantry would get shot in the leg and go down, not die, but his leg would be out of commission. I honestly think infantry should be looked at, but it should be a player in first person controlling a squad of up to 12, depending on "Tier"(I'd personally just go by ranking.) I think a Tier 1 infantry should start with a squad of five, making it a total of one human player followed by his five npc's. There should be a tactical view so you can command your squadmates to flank and move to certain locations and set up whatever type of "guns" you've researched for your squad. Say you researched a sniper rifle, well you get to use it or have one of your squadmembers equip it. I think the guns in this game should blow Battlefield out of the water, I'd like to see a game that's like the "Gran Turismo" of guns. Anyways, that's just some of my thoughts on how infantry could really improve the game and not take away from the fun. I don't think people who drive tanks should have a squad of soldiers he can manuever around the battlefield, he should be able to tell one of his crew members to mount the machine guns though. You'd have to choose which soldier you'd want to mount it. If you chose your driver to mount the gun, someone else in your squad would have to drive, thus making your driving a bit less effective. I think this would even out the advantage of having a wall of steel vs. maybe a squad with a total of five rounds of rockets. Soldiers can only carry so much weight.

thebestanthe5th #35 Posted Aug 18 2011 - 19:18

    Private

  • Players
  • 173 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011
i think having infantry carrier tech tree would be great idea.i think infantry should be commanded were to go not controlled like fps or somthin.and they should be used to cap flags and have bazooka people camp in buildings and stuff like that. ;)

katlord #36 Posted Aug 24 2011 - 16:33

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5184 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    08-18-2011
I'm not sure about your complex infantry tech tree however (hold cntrl to draw a straight line btw) but I look forward to infantry being implemented.

Wargames isn't stupid either. They're running a business. They're not going to impplement something which is going to polarise players so much as to make heaps of them leave. They'll trial it, see if it works and use it if it does and won't if it doesn't. Not worth getting worried about.

Polishpaul #37 Posted Aug 25 2011 - 12:49

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13162 battles
  • 171
  • [REPUB] REPUB
  • Member since:
    06-03-2011
The tech tree makes no sense!

Check out a game like Close Combat 2 or 3 to get inspiration. you may like it too :)

First of all, instead of soldier specialization, you should have squads (mortar squad, rifle, MG, assault, etc.) It would be silly to have to earn your way up to an AT weapon or a mortar which is a standard weapon for infantry. What would work better is a small mortar, to medium, to large, etc. Same with all other weapons - Partisans, Guard, Rear line, Regular, Assault, etc... Also, i don't see how grenades are AT weapons...

Generally, your idea has been around for ages.

UnMoveingTarget #38 Posted Aug 28 2011 - 07:45

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3072 battles
  • 169
  • Member since:
    07-29-2010

View PostPolishpaul, on Aug 25 2011 - 12:49, said:

The tech tree makes no sense!

Check out a game like Close Combat 2 or 3 to get inspiration. you may like it too :)

First of all, instead of soldier specialization, you should have squads (mortar squad, rifle, MG, assault, etc.) It would be silly to have to earn your way up to an AT weapon or a mortar which is a standard weapon for infantry. What would work better is a small mortar, to medium, to large, etc. Same with all other weapons - Partisans, Guard, Rear line, Regular, Assault, etc... Also, i don't see how grenades are AT weapons...

Generally, your idea has been around for ages.


handgrenades would only be of use when inf rush a tank at close range(ant not verry effective at that) though some nations did make hand throwen anti tank mines (eg the german magnetic mines)that would attach to the hull and detonate a shape charge .

Polishpaul #39 Posted Aug 28 2011 - 08:11

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 13162 battles
  • 171
  • [REPUB] REPUB
  • Member since:
    06-03-2011
i'm not sure what world some of you live in.. but a grenade is a fragmentation weapon intended to harm flesh. Perhaps too many movies and video games lead people to believe that a grenade would harm a tank!  :blink:

UnMoveingTarget #40 Posted Aug 28 2011 - 15:58

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3072 battles
  • 169
  • Member since:
    07-29-2010

View PostPolishpaul, on Aug 28 2011 - 08:11, said:

i'm not sure what world some of you live in.. but a grenade is a fragmentation weapon intended to harm flesh. Perhaps too many movies and video games lead people to believe that a grenade would harm a tank!  :blink:

toss one down into a hatch,if you swarm a tank you could get on top and try to get it open , tossing one into the tracks could also cause some damage, though it would be more effective agenst open toped
tds.

hell you mentioned close combat its possibel to take out a tank with regular inf in that game even if they lack an at weapon, usualy gets them all killed unless the tank is distracted.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users