Armor use...(less?)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Armor use...(less?)

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] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Armor use...(less?)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Armor use...(less?) - 10/29/2006 8:11:51 AM

firfurcillo3

Posts: 3
Joined: 6/18/2006
Status: offline

What's the use of armor with the TOAW III rules? what is it useful for? I find myself using it for the same duties (more or less) as infantry, depending more on the raw attack/defense values than its pure armor nature.

Thanks

Post #: 1

RE: Armor use...(less?) - 10/29/2006 12:21:50 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

I would say it depends on the scenario and the scenario date - in Nato vs Warsaw Pact scenarios armour, especially soviet one, will have a hard time.
Avoid using armour in urban hexes, mountains and if possible hills. Artillery (in the case of a breakthrough i.e.) should be attacked by armour, not by infantry. It all depends on the own armour and the enemy AT capabilities. Make your own mind - attacking a Bn of JagdTigers with M75 Shermans is probably not that promising.
Armour achieves good effects when combined with infantry on the attack (combined arms). Armour also has advantages over infantry in disengagement from enemy units; Assault Guns or Tankdestroyers well entrenched in urban hexes, on the other hand works wonders.
It often depends on scenario design - and its use against infantry on the infantry's AT rating and its support with AT Guns. This often varies by scenario and scenario designer.
Remember the soviets, prior to early/mid 44 they broke the enemy lines with infantry and pushed armour through the gap into the rear - try it in toaw. Later they used armour also to break the line and pushed through, well, they had enough..

Edit: "Avoid using armour in urban hexes, mountains and if possible hills." - Look in the manual for terrain effects on combat strengths.

< Message edited by Telumar -- 10/30/2006 1:32:56 PM >

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to firfurcillo3)

Post #: 2

RE: Armor use...(less?) - 10/31/2006 9:24:12 PM

johanvc

Posts: 7
Joined: 9/29/2004
Status: offline

A while back a tried to make sense of what units work where and ended up compiling this little table based on the comments in the manual:

____________________________________Defense____________________|_Defensive_Attack____|_______
____________________________________Infantry__Static__Vehicles_|_AntiArmor__AntiPers_|_Recon_
fortified____________________________x8________x6______x3______|__x5_________x4,5____|__x2,5_
badlands_____________________________x4________x3______________|_____________________|__x3___
dense urban (ruin)___________________x4________x2______x1,5____|__x3,5_______________|__x2,5_
mountain_____________________________x3________x2______________|__x3,5_______x1,5____|__x2___
entrenched___________________________x3________x2______x1,5____|__x3,5_______x3______|_______
urban (ruin)_________________________x3________x1,5____________|__x2_________________|__x2___
bocage_______________________________x3________x1,5____________|__x2_________x3______|__x2,5_
defending____________________________x2________x1,5____________|__x2_________x1,5____|_______
marsh__________________________________________________________|__x2_________________|_______
forest_______________________________x2________x1,5____________|_____________________|__x3___
jungle,hills,wadi____________________x2________x1,5____________|_____________________|_______
croplang,hills_________________________________________________|_____________________|__x1,5_

As far as I understand things (and I'd be happy to be corrected here) the "Defense" multipliers influence how well your defensive unit will be protected from hits (i.e. how many casualties it will take), while the Defensive Attack multipliers determine how well the defensive units will be able to inflict casualties on the attacker.

The bottom line with regards to terrain seems to be:
- Avoid using armour to attack any units in mountain and dense urban hexes (and to a lesser extent urban, bocage and marsh) as you'll risk incurring serious casualties as a result of the Anti-Armour defensive attack multipliers (assuming the defender has at least some anti-armour capability)
- For the same reason, infantry should avoid bocage and mountains
- The best terrain to place infantry in a defensive position would be in "non-clear-hex" terrain and preferrably dense urban, urban, mountain or bocage, as the multipliers will increase survivability. The downside is that these terrain types also have a negative effect on the supply flow if they don't have rail or roads. Pretty much the same thing goes for static equipment (AT guns etc)
- Terrain has very limited influence on the vulnerability of vehicles (including Armour)

Best use for armour seems to be to operate in "open" terrain where infantry would be vulnerable ("unprotected" by terrain multipliers) to attack and artillery. Although the armour (being vehicles) will not benifit from terrain multipliers, it will require attackers with sufficiently powerful anti-armour values to dislodge them. Of course, if the armour quality is crap (i.e. low armour values) and enemy AT capability is good, they'll be sitting ducks no matter where they are.

Johan.

(in reply to Telumar)

Post #: 3

RE: Armor use...(less?) - 10/31/2006 10:47:48 PM

FaneFlugt

Posts: 188
Joined: 7/27/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Thanks for the statistic layout. Makes more sense now. By "static" I take, that its a weapon system that requires transports to move it?

(in reply to johanvc)

Post #: 4

RE: Armor use...(less?) - 10/31/2006 11:10:19 PM

Telumar

Posts: 2236
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: niflheim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt.DK

Thanks for the statistic layout. Makes more sense now. By "static" I take, that its a weapon system that requires transports to move it?

Yes. Most guns of any kind (AA/AT/Art).

_____________________________

http://thetoawbeachhead.wordpress.com

(in reply to FaneFlugt)

Post #: 5

RE: Armor use...(less?) - 10/31/2006 11:33:59 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: johanvc

As far as I understand things (and I'd be happy to be corrected here) the "Defense" multipliers influence how well your defensive unit will be protected from hits (i.e. how many casualties it will take),

For soft equipment, yes. Also, for all equipment, the ability to resist being forced to retreat either before or after combat.

quote:

- Terrain has very limited influence on the vulnerability of vehicles (including Armour)

No- terrain controls the visibility in a hex, which in turn controls the %-to-hit chance for anti-armour fire. On the whole armour is more vulnerable in more difficult terrain, ranging from 4 1/2 times as vulnerable in the early period to 0.85 times as vulnerable with very modern equipment.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to johanvc)

Post #: 6

RE: Armor use...(less?) - 3/4/2007 4:30:04 PM

johanvc

Posts: 7
Joined: 9/29/2004
Status: offline

quote:

As far as I understand things (and I'd be happy to be corrected here) the "Defense" multipliers influence how well your defensive unit will be protected from hits (i.e. how many casualties it will take),

The docs that come with the new patch have actually cleared up at least one mystery to me... I always wondered what the value of the "defense" factor was in armour combat, knowing that its resolution appeared to be largely based on anti-tank values vs armour value - so where does "defense" come into play ? Now the BioEd doc states that for armour, the defense value is actually calculated based on the armour value (defense = 5 + armour / 10 in most cases, with the exception of reactive armour and other fancy variations) - so the armour in fact determines the defensive value as one would suspect, and the latter is not (at least as to my understanding) an independent factor with an unclear influence in armour combat resolution. Better armour simply means better defense and visa versa. I'm probably stating the blatantly obvious but at least now there's some clear confirmation of this fact.

Johan.

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 7

RE: Armor use...(less?) - 3/4/2007 5:34:14 PM

Monkeys Brain

Posts: 605
Joined: 10/8/2006
Status: offline

Johan,

You must think maybe more in TOAW terms. Notice fortified bonus (!).

So when you say that armor should not be used to attack CITY URBAN HEXES OR DENSE URBAN, that is partially true.

Yes, armor is bad at attacking urban hexes but I use it in only 1st phase of a turn and with minimize losses and lot's of arty in direct support to force defenders into MOBILE status. I have used it for example to reduce Kiev city hexes (FiTE). True I have lost around 80 tanks around Kiev BUT I have paved the road for a less infantry squads losses which is very important in games as FiTE where you must try to hold your combat effectiveness in long period of turns.

And try to fortify Infantry unit in open terrain and attack it with armor - same like in city (or even worse!) armor will suffer big losses. As said combined arms is the key (also planes on combat support, etc...).

(in reply to johanvc)

Post #: 8