Tanks take too much suppression?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Tanks take too much suppression?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Tanks take too much suppression?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Tanks take too much suppression? - 8/24/2006 5:44:34 PM

Manticore

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

Is it realistic for tanks to take so much suppression from simple fire arm? I took like 12 shots from infantry units several hexes away, and my tank ended up having about 90 in suppression.

You would think tank crews wouldn't fear so small fire arms.

Post #: 1

RE: Tanks take too much suppression? - 8/24/2006 6:07:23 PM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

Have you ever been inside a metal trashcan and had someone throw pebbles at it? The sound can be worse than the actual threat of injury; it makes it difficult to coordinate actions, and it can cause crew panic if they can't see where the threat is.

_____________________________

(in reply to Manticore)

Post #: 2

RE: Tanks take too much suppression? - 8/24/2006 8:07:40 PM

Manticore

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

That's an interesting way of putting it, but are the sounds really that bad inside of a tank?

Just saw that you are from Shippensburg, PA. I used to live in Camp Hill and Mechanicsburg, PA, which are very close to Harrisburg. It's interesting to see people from my area playing the same games as me on the internet.

< Message edited by Manticore -- 8/24/2006 8:09:59 PM >

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)

Post #: 3

RE: Tanks take too much suppression? - 8/24/2006 10:23:58 PM

azraelck

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

IIRC, when I first started playing, I asked the same question.

Since, I've found that it was a common and accepted tactic for infantry to fire at tanks with their small arms. I do not have the link handy since I'm at work, but on one of my webistes, a copy of a training manual notes that infantry was to aim for vision ports (such as the driver's vision hatch thngamabob), the joint between the hull and the turret, and the optical sight. This was to attempt to force the crew to button up, and shut the covers to all the vision ports, blinding the crew. There was also the hope of disabling the sights, or to penetrate and have a bullet or two richochet around the interior. That's on top of the lovely noise of being pelted with small objects from an unseen assaliant. While they logically knew that there was only a small chance of the small arms fire hurting them, the mind doesn't always thing logically. There was also the immediate threat that, if there were riflement nearby, there may also be an engineer with enough explosives to flip your little trash can, or a man with a Bazooka/Panzerfaust waiting to punch a hole in your side as well. That's why tanks don't attack infantry without adequet infantry support. Inf AT with make mincemeat out of your armor.

_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to Manticore)

Post #: 4

RE: Tanks take too much suppression? - 8/26/2006 7:04:55 PM

Svennemir

Posts: 542
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Denmark
Status: offline

The following is based on my tests and impressions from a long time ago.

The excessive suppression that tanks receive from small arms fire is an imbalance which has been ``dormant'' for most of the time SPWAW has existed, but which has been made more readily observable since around version 7.1 with the introduction of the splash damage fix.

When firing at a unit, two checks take place: first there is a direct-hit check against the targetted unit. Then there is a splash-damage check against all units in the hex and possibly neighbouring hexes. Both of these checks can add suppression to the affected units. Originally the splash-damage check would NOT be performed against the targetted unit. This created a problem because in some cases the splash check would actually have greater chance of hitting the unit than the direct check, which is obviously bonkers. This is why the splash damage fix was introduced: it simply includes the targetted unit in the splash damage check. There are a few side effects from this (such as units being hit twice by the same projectile on rare occasions, most easily reproducible with large-caliber shells against infantry at close range) but overall this fix improved the combat model after some corrections of infantry vulnerability and so on.

Tanks originally (versions until around 7.0) took little to no suppression being hit by light arms fire. Still, they take little to no suppression from the direct hit component of small arms fire. However the splash check does add the large amount of suppression. Does this mean the splash fix is bad? No, because you could actually achieve the same effect in earlier versions by direct-firing (using the Z key) at the hex (and thus not the vehicle). The fact that direct-hit suppression of tanks from small arms fire was negligible must have been entirely deliberate, implying that the present magnitude can be considered erroneous (cf. my earlier labelling as this effect as an ``imbalance'').

The larger suppression has become more easily exploitable since the splash fix, and this is why people are questioning it now (as has been done before).

Personally I see the amount of suppression taken by tanks from small arms fire as one of the more important problems in the game, because it promotes unrealistic play style, though this assertion will likely be disputed by other players.

< Message edited by Svennemir -- 8/26/2006 7:11:05 PM >

(in reply to azraelck)

Post #: 5