I'm in total agreement with Kevin. The ability to model partial killings is an advantage of TACOPS over ATF. Although TACOPS also abstracts many things, it wins in terms of perception in actions that involve infantry. Infantry units lose combat power gradually with losses until all men are "killed". ATF would be greatly enhanced if it could model partial killing and vehicle damage in TACOPS fashion. I hope that future versions of the engine will give answer to these issues.
Antonio
Antonio
kbluck said:I disagree. It's all a question of scale.
<snip>
With regard to infantry combat, ATF in particular suffers from its simplistic combat resolution model. "Partial kills" simply aren't modeled. Barely tolerable for AFV combat, it is even less acceptable for infantry combat. Given the attention to detail lavished on other aspects of the game, I find the binary "dead or not" abstraction a bit baffling.
<snip>
Another major issue for close infantry combat is that direct fire suppression, in my opinion, just doesn't work.
<snip>
ATF could do these things, and I think then it would work just as well for infantry as it does for armor combat (which would also be improved at the same time.) These features simply aren't a development priority at this time. But that's not at all the same as saying it probably can't be done.
--- Kevin