We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I wouldn't say this thread is an echo chamber that takes personal shots at people
It's just that some of us here has played the beta already (I know Graphic and UltimateIdiot has), and we know that this truck thing (and many other topics) is really getting blown out of proportion by those who haven't and only watched the stream, and drawing MANY (in my experience 95%) conclusions that are straight up false, but we can't tell you because NDA.
In reality this truck thing is really just a compromise for gameplay that sacrifices authenticity, nothing more nothing less.WW2 combat is just not cold war combat and most infantry didn't have rides from the rear right up to 100m of the front lines, they walked. But that makes for shitty gameplay unless we have usain bolt rifle squads, and you can't make a game where 70% of your units take 10 mins to get into position.
Yes disappearing trucks is a little jarring especially watching on stream, I was surprised in the first few minutes of my first game and I was like "Well where the eff did that truck go", but then I literally did not care from then on all the way till the end of beta.
It's just quite frustrating to see some very vocal members in the main forum bringing up every single reason from gameplay to balance to historical realism yadi yada in argument for something that is nice to look at for the first 2-3 minutes or so but otherwise is literally the same result.
I'm sure at this point Eugen has taken the hint multiple times. If they put it in before release then great, nice eye candy for when I have the time to zoom in right before a town fight, if not, literally does not matter, it's not the "end of the world game breaking" thing that justifies that "PUT IN OR CANCEL PREORDER NAO" sentiment some people seem to have.
I wouldn't say this thread is an echo chamber that takes personal shots at people
It's just that some of us here has played the beta already (I know Graphic and UltimateIdiot has), and we know that this truck thing (and many other topics) is really getting blown out of proportion by those who haven't and only watched the stream, and drawing MANY (in my experience 95%) conclusions that are straight up false, but we can't tell you because NDA.
In reality this truck thing is really just a compromise for gameplay that sacrifices authenticity, nothing more nothing less.WW2 combat is just not cold war combat and most infantry didn't have rides from the rear right up to 100m of the front lines, they walked. But that makes for shitty gameplay unless we have usain bolt rifle squads, and you can't make a game where 70% of your units take 10 mins to get into position.
Yes disappearing trucks is a little jarring especially watching on stream, I was surprised in the first few minutes of my first game and I was like "Well where the eff did that truck go", but then I literally did not care from then on all the way till the end of beta.
It's just quite frustrating to see some very vocal members in the main forum bringing up every single reason from gameplay to balance to historical realism yadi yada in argument for something that is nice to look at for the first 2-3 minutes or so but otherwise is literally the same result.
I'm sure at this point Eugen has taken the hint multiple times. If they put it in before release then great, nice eye candy for when I have the time to zoom in right before a town fight, if not, literally does not matter, it's not the "end of the world game breaking" thing that justifies that "PUT IN OR CANCEL PREORDER NAO" sentiment some people seem to have.
This. I'd also like to add that "Usain Bolt rifle squads" is one of the issues people had with Wargame. The way it's implemented right now works fine in terms of balance, authenticity and gameplay. It's a compromise - but most things in real life are.
A couple things, seems weird for them to take time to develop an asset such as a transport that literally has 10 seconds of utilization in the game. The other thing is that I just have a huge problem with the feeling that you have infinite transports and you shouldn't.
A couple things, seems weird for them to take time to develop an asset such as a transport that literally has 10 seconds of utilization in the game. The other thing is that I just have a huge problem with the feeling that you have infinite transports and you shouldn't.
Probably because they realised that the transport disappearing has about the same effect as if it drove to the deployment zone on it's own - nill. While you're right on the second point, that's just the way it goes when your end-goal is to make a balanced multiplayer experience. You gotta give the players atleast some semblance of balance and equal opportunity, instead of giving one a massive disadvantage from the start.
As I said, they should've probably used "authentic" instead of "realistic" in the marketing speeches - not that it would've made a difference, but atleast they would've had something to fall back on. A lot of people seem to think it'll be a simulator, when in truth it's more of a RTS that tries to portray the tactics, pace, and unit (division) compositions of the time, but still attempts to make amends for fun gameplay to keep multiplayer balanced and viable.
You have not. In fact, standard operating procedure right up until now has been to ignore any post that offers an alternative in favor of posting a 4chan reaction image.
Watch this I will debunk this new thing you just came up with. Trucks stopping at imaginary lines is just bad idea.
It's not an imaginary line. It's a border between active military forces that unarmed transports wouldn't (in most circumstances) knowingly be sent to cross anyway.
What happens when those precious trucks get surrounded? Because this game does point out surrounding as one of more appealing features in gameplay. What will those surrounded trucks do? Pioneeresque wagon circle?
"I am able to see the logic behind the choices Eugen made, and accept that it's a compromise and it may or may not change in future builds of the game"
apparently means
"Laziness is okay".
Let me break it down to you, then.
It's a compromise.
- In order to make all divisions playable and fun, and be able to participate in the fight equally in a reasonable amount of time, they've to have equal opportunities to transport. Mechanized forces of course get a (deserved) advantage in the sense that their transports double as a fighting vehicle, but that's about it. Motorised troops don't have this advantage, and neither should they.
The presence of vehicles is not what's in question, here. This is a classic case of shifting the goal posts. What the vehicles are doing, IE, disappearing in thin-air, however, is.
It's an abstraction of divisional transport assets.
- For those of you that have an issue with everyone having access to transports, then you must have an issue with everyone having access to AT-guns, artillery, tanks, planes, etc. You've to forsake a portion of realism for balance. Eugen probably should've called the game "authentic" instead, but that wasn't viable for marketing purposes.
The presence of vehicles is not what's in question, here. This is a classic case of shifting the goal posts. What the vehicles are doing, IE, disappearing in thin-air, however, is.
It's authentic.
- In a game of this scale (platoon/company/battalion, depending on phase and lobby's income), you wouldn't see trucks driving around and moving single squads across the battlefield mid-engagement. The whole term "battlefield taxi" is a post-war invention. Majority of infantry in this time-period was non-motorised, and that is what this design choice reflects. Those that were motorised/mechanized, will have their transports as AFV's in the game, as it should be.
You literally just got done saying that it was a useful abstraction to have the vehicles. Your concerns outlined in this little segment are adequately addressed by the suggestions that other players have made on the issue. Those are compromises, because they're giving you what you want (by limiting player ability to use transport assets post initial deployment) while also giving us what we want (trucks that don't just transform into infantry.)
It's to reduce micro and/or pointless units.
- Think back on how many pointless transports you used to have lying around after any length of time in RD.
Every suggestion that has been posited has involved removing the trucks once they've done their job.
Transport trucks driving back and forth would add clutter.
- Not a lot, but still. However, the next point elaborates in what I mean;
It's almost entirely pointless.
- Much like with most graphical solutions in Wargame and SD, you'd wonder and marvel at the evacing trucks for maybe two or three games... then for the rest of the game's lifespan, actually play the game zoomed out as it is supposed to be played, and whether the trucks evac or disappear is irrelevant at that point. I think there's plenty of games in history where the emphasis was put on graphics and presentation, and not solid gameplay. This really isn't a core area or a "make or break" thing to focus on.
And here, you're just excusing laziness. There's no way around it. The developers went through the work of crafting historically accurate maps, creating wonderful textures and models for a game of this scale, and then they're gonna cop out on the issue of trucks because it's, in your words, "pointless because you spend most of the time zoomed out?"
It's beta-footage, we may yet see them evac/be purchasable/any other solution. Or we may not.
- This whole thing is being blown way out of proportion and understandably so as there's little gameplay footage to dissect. As I said, it's basically a non-issue in terms of gameplay or the game's lifespan, and it's not even the final build of the game. I won't name-and-shame, but some of the posts in this thread come across trying to hold Eugen hostage, "make the trucks disappear or I won't give you my money". You've every right to not buy the game, of course, but if you want to be taken seriously, atleast try to word it constructively. Or, you know, focus on actual issues.
I don't know, but I'm guessing that neither of us have experience in game development, and certainly not working on Iriszoom. We simply don't know how demanding a feature it would be, nor what kind of resource constraints (time, money and workforce) Eugen has to work with.
I'm willing to cut Eugen some slack here, and judge the game by it's gameplay, rather than how it looks.
My first suggestion: If you don't want them used as suicide scouts, make them unable to influence or cross front line.
That makes it physically impossible to use them as suicide scouts, especially if you do what else has been suggested on the matter: Make them blind. These vehicles were crewed by two men who had to watch the road.
How does it leave them open for exploitation as suicide scouts, if they physically cannot be used as such?
Second is needless work on the part of the development team,
Click-dragging a box around trucks and clicking the map border isn't micro intensive. In fact, I'd argue that it doesn't even really count as 'micro.' Micromanagement typically implies the requirement to get down and control each and every unit individually in a meticulous fashion. Group-selecting trucks and giving them a one-way order is not that.
The most rational solution is to have them removed from play when they are no longer of value to the meeting engagement, which is currently what happens.
Except that this game trumpets historical authenticity wherever it possibly can in its marketing. In fact, the only ones who have suddenly shifted gears to suddenly say that the game isn't about historical authenticity, have been a select group of Eugen Defense Force personnel that have cropped up since people started raising this issue about the trucks, mortars, etc.
You don't 'debunk' someone by just saying that you debunked them. You debunk them by making an argument. The thing is, I respond directly to your posts. You sit there and troll.
You have not. In fact, standard operating procedure right up until now has been to ignore any post that offers an alternative in favor of posting a 4chan reaction image.
I think I and many others have commented on most proposals here; but frankly, it's getting a little bit tedious to be ridiculed and belittled, and to have to repeat the same things all over again because apparently, anything less than what you want is "laziness", "cheap" and a "cop-out".
The presence of vehicles is not what's in question, here. This is a classic case of shifting the goal posts. What the vehicles are doing, IE, disappearing in thin-air, however, is.
I would personally have rather had foot sluggers be foot sluggers, and allow them to field more to allow them to assault defensive points on the map that they would be late to.
I can misunderstand and simplify your arguments too. So before you (rightfully) say that it wasn't what you meant: 1: Yeah, welcome to my world reading just about every single reply of yours, and 2: That isn't the only post that has similar sentiments. Many solutions here include limited transportation for divisions which, as I've said about a dozen times by now, is a nightmare to balance, and opens the door for cheesy tactics.
If you're going to treat those of us who defend the solution in place as a collective ("lol they can only argue that mg's disappear too") - well, right back at you bud.
The presence of vehicles is not what's in question, here. This is a classic case of shifting the goal posts. What the vehicles are doing, IE, disappearing in thin-air, however, is.
I... I'm not going to repeat what I just said, in a single post. That would be just ridiculous. Suffice it to say: no, I haven't shifted any goal posts. The burden of proof is on you.
You literally just got done saying that it was a useful abstraction to have the vehicles. Your concerns outlined in this little segment are adequately addressed by the suggestions that other players have made on the issue. Those are compromises, because they're giving you what you want (by limiting player ability to use transport assets post initial deployment) while also giving us what we want (trucks that don't just transform into infantry.)
By some of the suggestions, yes. Whether you're doing it on purpose or not, it feels like you're misunderstanding my point entirely. I said that if the trucks evaced out of the battlefield, that would be grand, great, epic, wunderbar, magnifico. But it's literally about the most worthless feature I've ever heard of or seen in a game.
No they haven't. More than a few have included that transports should remain on the field so that you can use them as "battlefield taxis" afterwards. In the case of infantry and motorised divisions, this is unauthentic. Some suggested the amount of transports should be limited, but that doesn't address issues of balance or cheesy tactics. You know, I wonder if you even read this thread, instead of just barging in and going on a crusade.
And here, you're just excusing laziness. There's no way around it. The developers went through the work of crafting historically accurate maps, creating wonderful textures and models for a game of this scale, and then they're gonna cop out on the issue of trucks because it's, in your words, "pointless because you spend most of the time zoomed out?"
First of all, whether they're gonna leave the current solution in place or not, I've no idea. I'm not a psychic, I don't have a hotline to Eugen's HQ. Secondly, can you please stop misunderstanding my points? I think the solution right now is a practical one, that addresses all of the worries that transports had in Wargame. Does it do it perfectly? No. Is it good enough? Yes. Should it change? Probably. Would I care if it did? Nah. Why not? Because I play the game and don't babysit my trucks.
If you want it simpler than that so you can actually understand all those words, I can make you a flowchart?
Yes, I'm trying to Gestapo this conversation. Just wait until I buy my black van and leather trenchcoat, and start wearing Eugen's logo on an armband.
In all seriousness. Discussing the game is fine, great, amazing. I love discussing the game and things unrelated to the game, as you've no doubt noticed. I'm just trying to bring some reason here, because right now, some of the posters here are less "OK, well we don't really like this feature of yours, here's why, please consider this" and more "WE'RE BRINGING OUT THE PITCHFORKS, THIS BETTER CHANGE OR WE'RE BURNING MADMAT'S HOUSE DOWN AND CANCELING OUR PRE-ORDERS".
And lest we forget; this thread is 7 pages long, most of it about trucks disappearing. That's more than a little overkill, I think, when we've a game that has innovative gameplay features, interesting units, overhauled combat, accurate maps, a lot of quality of life features... and when those of us who played the beta have multiple times said "yeah it looks like crap, but I didn't even notice after a while", I think it's safe to say this outrage is way out of proportion. Especially when you consider what there's been out so far:
A couple of screenshots.
Three dev diaries.
Some statements by devs.
One gameplay stream.
ALL OF ABOVE HAVE BEEN OF AN EARLY BETA-BUILD THAT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE, AND EUGEN HASN'T SAID A WORD ABOUT WHETHER TRUCKS WILL EVAC, DISAPPEAR, OR TRANSFORM TO SPACE SHUTTLES AND FLY TO THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON UPON THE GAME'S RELEASE.
As you can see, that's so little to judge a game by that this kind of outburst is more than a little ridiculous.
What, the suggestions about how to implement trucks and transportation? Yes, yes they have, I'm glad we agree.
In all seriousness, you could atleast admit that "mg's disappear too" wasn't my argument, and nor are those of us who defend the current way it's implemented a collective of some sort, rather than just call my arguments ridiculous. You're doing yourself no favors here.
Alright, go ahead and make a game then on a shoestring budget. I'll wait.
Critique is fine, trying to act like Eugen owes you anything, and slinging **** at them for not doing things how you want them done, however, isn't. It just makes you look juvenile.
Except that this game trumpets historical authenticity wherever it possibly can in its marketing. In fact, the only ones who have suddenly shifted gears to suddenly say that the game isn't about historical authenticity, have been a select group of Eugen Defense Force personnel that have cropped up since people started raising this issue about the trucks, mortars, etc.
Eugen Defense Forces, assemble! I was wondering when the shill argument comes up, I have to say, you resisted it longer than I expected.
Now. If you look back at my posting history, I'm pretty sure you can see me posting on a number of issues that would've been realistic, but made for pointless additions when looking at it from the perspective of gameplay.
Or even when it came to additions that I would've loved to have, I was willing to make amends for gameplay; I wanted mines to the game, but was more than willing to admit that we're not getting El Alamein or Kursk-style minefields because that would just make defending way too easy. Hell, one of the first things I posted on this forum was:
While destructible bridges could be fun for tactical gameplay, but with no way to repair them in the timeframe of a match, and no way to get around them... yeah, no. There's a point when realism has to take the back seat and let fun gameplay drive.
I think that the way to go would be making the transports be "abandoned" no longer being able to drive around and turning into a "scenery" object, much like those gliders we've seen on the WWW Stream
I think that the way to go would be making the transports be "abandoned" no longer being able to drive around and turning into a "scenery" object, much like those gliders we've seen on the WWW Stream
I think I and many others have commented on most proposals here; but frankly, it's getting a little bit tedious to be ridiculed and belittled, and to have to repeat the same things all over again because apparently, anything less than what you want is "laziness", "cheap" and a "cop-out".
Okay. That statement wasn't a request. I was saying that I would rather have had foot sloggers be foot sloggers. That came rather late in the discussion and has little to do with the topic being discussed. The topic being discussed is disappearing trucks.
Many solutions here include limited transportation for divisions which, as I've said about a dozen times by now, is a nightmare to balance, and opens the door for cheesy tactics.
Then you have not read those suggestions. The suggestions that have been posted, for example by myself, go out of their way to disable any possibility of using said transports for anything other than their intended purpose. Furthermore, my proposals focus on either removing them from the map automatically in a non-lazy way, or giving the player incentive to do it manually.
If you're going to treat those of us who defend the solution in place as a collective ("lol they can only argue that mg's disappear too") - well, right back at you bud.
I have responded to each and every post made to me in an individual manner, quoting each individual person with the correct tags.
I... I'm not going to repeat what I just said, in a single post. That would be just ridiculous. Suffice it to say: no, I haven't shifted any goal posts. The burden of proof is on you.
Burdon of proof? You tried to derail the debate by claiming that it was about the presence of vehicles. It never was. It was about the way the vehicles are being represented.
By some of the suggestions, yes. Whether you're doing it on purpose or not, it feels like you're misunderstanding my point entirely. I said that if the trucks evaced out of the battlefield, that would be grand, great, epic, wunderbar, magnifico. But it's literally about the most worthless feature I've ever heard of or seen in a game.
Presentation is worthless in a game that bills itself based on its purported historical authenticity?
No they haven't. More than a few have included that transports should remain on the field so that you can use them as "battlefield taxis" afterwards. In the case of infantry and motorised divisions, this is unauthentic. Some suggested the amount of transports should be limited, but that doesn't address issues of balance or cheesy tactics. You know, I wonder if you even read this thread, instead of just barging in and going on a crusade.
I correct myself then: Every suggestion that I have made.
First of all, whether they're gonna leave the current solution in place or not, I've no idea. I'm not a psychic, I don't have a hotline to Eugen's HQ. Secondly, can you please stop misunderstanding my points? I think the solution right now is a practical one, that addresses all of the worries that transports had in Wargame. Does it do it perfectly? No. Is it good enough? Yes. Should it change? Probably. Would I care if it did? Nah. Why not? Because I play the game and don't babysit my trucks.
If you want it simpler than that so you can actually understand all those words, I can make you a flowchart?
In all seriousness, you could atleast admit that "mg's disappear too" wasn't my argument, and nor are those of us who defend the current way it's implemented a collective of some sort, rather than just call my arguments ridiculous. You're doing yourself no favors here.
Saying that the presentation looks terrible and is lazy based on what we have seen isn't 'juvenile.' Tell me, would you have sat there and defended a game like, oh, I don't know, Aliens: Colonial Marines when it released?
Eugen Defense Forces, assemble! I was wondering when the shill argument comes up, I have to say, you resisted it longer than I expected.
I have no reason to assume that anyone in this thread is a 'shill.' However, we have already seen people claim that the game is not meant to be historically authentic in the wake of this live stream. That can be attributed to nothing more than fanboys trying to defend their game.
Now. If you look back at my posting history, I'm pretty sure you can see me posting on a number of issues that would've been realistic, but made for pointless additions when looking at it from the perspective of gameplay.
Or even when it came to additions that I would've loved to have, I was willing to make amends for gameplay; I wanted mines to the game, but was more than willing to admit that we're not getting El Alamein or Kursk-style minefields because that would just make defending way too easy. Hell, one of the first things I posted on this forum was:
But yes, I'm "shifting goalposts", "back-pedaling", and "shifting gears". I'm glad you unraveled my plan.
Well, if they make it correctly the transport would go to the "side" of the road, like we see in some pictures of the time. But would be interesting to see the capabilities of blocking a bridge with them, would be nice to hold infantry, but wouldn't be that effective against any armored vehicle or air support
You don't 'debunk' someone by just saying that you debunked them. You debunk them by making an argument. The thing is, I respond directly to your posts. You sit there and troll.
Well, if they make it correctly the transport would go to the "side" of the road, like we see in some pictures of the time. But would be interesting to see the capabilities of blocking a bridge with them, would be nice to hold infantry, but wouldn't be that effective against any armored vehicle or air support
Well, if they make it correctly the transport would go to the "side" of the road, like we see in some pictures of the time. But would be interesting to see the capabilities of blocking a bridge with them, would be nice to hold infantry, but wouldn't be that effective against any armored vehicle or air support
That might be a little much. I believe the key would be to get the trucks to deposit their payload, and then leave, either through AI control or through giving the player an incentive to return the vehicles to whence they came.
Using 100% hypothetical numbers:
Let's say that an Infantry squad costs 100 points +25 for the transport. If we stipulate that the transport can be returned to the reinforcement point to get a rebate for the 25 points of the transport, then players have a strong incentive to drag a box around their trucks and send them back home in exchange for either more infantry, support weapons, future reinforcements, whatever have you.
This could be a critical balancing point for non-motorized infantry that does not keep their transports, because as anyone who understands TO&E can tell you, Armored Infantry is probably going to massacre non-armored infantry weapon-for-weapon.
Take, for example, the United States Armored Infantry Squad, circa 1944: Each squad is carried in a halftrack that mounts a .50 caliber heavy machine gun. The distribution of weapons was such that each halftrack could carry a Bazooka (meaning one per squad.) The American Armored Infantry is notable for having no browning automatic rifles standard in their TO&E. Instead, the squad gets a belt-fed M1919 .30 caliber machine gun, in addition to the half track's armament.
A regular United States Infantry squad, in comparison, is dismounted with their heaviest firepower being the Browning Automatic Rifle.
That might be a little much. I believe the key would be to get the trucks to deposit their payload, and then leave, either through AI control or through giving the player an incentive to return the vehicles to whence they came.
Using 100% hypothetical numbers:
Let's say that an Infantry squad costs 100 points +25 for the transport. If we stipulate that the transport can be returned to the reinforcement point to get a rebate for the 25 points of the transport, then players have a strong incentive to drag a box around their trucks and send them back home in exchange for either more infantry, support weapons, future reinforcements, whatever have you.
This could be a critical balancing point for non-motorized infantry that does not keep their transports, because as anyone who understands TO&E can tell you, Armored Infantry is probably going to massacre non-armored infantry weapon-for-weapon.
Take, for example, the United States Armored Infantry Squad, circa 1944: Each squad is carried in a halftrack that mounts a .50 caliber heavy machine gun. The distribution of weapons was such that each halftrack could carry a Bazooka (meaning one per squad.) The American Armored Infantry is notable for having no browning automatic rifles standard in their TO&E. Instead, the squad gets a belt-fed M1919 .30 caliber machine gun, in addition to the half track's armament.
A regular United States Infantry squad, in comparison, is dismounted with their heaviest firepower being the Browning Automatic Rifle.
I agree with you, but i think everyone is misinterpreting me, it's not that i want the transports to be made as bridge blockers, i was just replying to the other fellow up there, what i was initially suggestion was that the trucks would move out of the road and stay there, not able to move, just as scenery (destructible scenery) and if they also had the option you said of sending them back for some points back, it would be really interesting in terms of gameplay and making the game less arcady
I agree with you, but i think everyone is misinterpreting me, it's not that i want the transports to be made as bridge blockers, i was just replying to the other fellow up there, what i was initially suggestion was that the trucks would move out of the road and stay there, not able to move, just as scenery (destructible scenery) and if they also had the option you said of sending them back for some points back, it would be really interesting in terms of gameplay and making the game less arcady
Oh I get ya. I'm just saying, the trucks being able to valculate what constitutes as 'out of the way; might be a little much. We've seen that the IRISZOOM engine, and Eugen's AI programming, can handle fast moving, attack moving, and units acting intelligently when actions are queued. For example, in Wargame, if you queued a supply unit to go back to your FOB and come back to the front, it would wait at the FOB until it's full on supply before it executes its return.
I'm just not sure if any prospective AI in this game can identify where it would be appropriate to park. Eugen doesn't have the best track record for impressive AI. One of the big selling points of Red Dragon was that the AI wouldn't cheat, but it did. Just more subtly than it did in ALB.
Oh I get ya. I'm just saying, the trucks being able to valculate what constitutes as 'out of the way; might be a little much. We've seen that the IRISZOOM engine, and Eugen's AI programming, can handle fast moving, attack moving, and units acting intelligently when actions are queued. For example, in Wargame, if you queued a supply unit to go back to your FOB and come back to the front, it would wait at the FOB until it's full on supply before it executes its return.
I'm just not sure if any prospective AI in this game can identify where it would be appropriate to park. Eugen doesn't have the best track record for impressive AI. One of the big selling points of Red Dragon was that the AI wouldn't cheat, but it did. Just more subtly than it did in ALB.
Oh yeah, i have failed to consider this problem, guess i'm a dreamer right?
But yeah, i just hope that the AI doesn't cheat on this one, what keeps getting me out of playing Red Dragon is the lack of Coop and the cheating AI on campaign, but hey, nothing is perfect right?
The Allied infantry wasn't considered to be fully motorized even then. Additional trucks were attatched from higher echelon if there was need to produce fully motorized unit capable of lifting all the infantry, the stores of munitions and supplies that were kept on hand, the heavy weapons etc. while leaving the divisional services free to do their job.
I would describe them as being closer to fully motorized than not though. And significantly they were not issued horse driven vehicles at all in this theatre unlike Germans (which obviously meant more motor vehicles were necessary as well).
There were couple of US divisions that had been considered motorized stateside, intended for cooperation with armoured units, but they had been converted back to infantry. As legacy they had SP howitzers in their cannon companies.
