JAMiAM
Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KoenigMKII
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veers
Well, you may just not be noticing the difference, try a modern scenario and you will see your tanks slaughtered by infantry AT weapons.
I am aware of the difference, thats why I excluded 43 and 44 with panzerfaust and Bazooka, which both rely on the same shape charge technology as ITOW, Milan, Sagger or RPG-7 to make the weapons man [or two man teams] portable.
But in flat terrain in 41 or 42, non-dug in vanilla infantry does not get that same number defence ability in real combat. If they are flanked or moving its not a battle its pure slaughter. Urban/Bocage/hills/forrests are totally different, but TOAW is still giving me a strange feeling.
I have lost confidence that whats in the combat odds calculation black box is outputting results making sense for the case mentioned.
edited for more clarity
The anti armor combat system still needs some tweaking. However, contrary to your assumption, there is not really any "combat odds calculation" going on with TOAW III's combat model. It is based on equipment per side taken shots at each other. The number of shots fired are dependent upon several factors, such at attrition divider, number of pieces in units, unit strengths (supply, prof, readiness), deployment, terrain, entrenchment, and suppressive HA fire. Some factors affect the attackers. Some affect the defenders. Some affect both. After determining how many shots will be fired, the results are determined in a series of sub-rounds and tactical rounds. Some possibility of evading lethal hits scored is possible due to equipment agility. Some lethal hits result in equipment being permanently lost. Others are temporarily disabled. All AP hits are assumed to be lethal, with the previously noted exceptions.
Anti-armor fire has a couple more hoops to jump through, to make it to that stage where lethal hits are checked for evasion, and simple disabling results. They must first hit the target. This is the first of Norm's assumptions which need to be redressed. If you look at the matrix on page 69 of the manual, you'll see the "Anti-Armor Chance to Hit, per shot" for various combinations of vision conditions versus equipment targeting characteristics. Here you'll see that for Open Vision / Everything Else the chance for each fired shot to hit the target in the first place is only 11%. This is the condition in which most early to mid WWII open field battles take place. Then, a modifier based on the RCSB of the equipment being fired upon is multiplied by this percentage, further increasing, or dropping the chance by a percentage proportional to the relative sizes of the equipment. T-34's are the base size, so larger pieces are slightly easier to hit, while smaller pieces are harder. This usually ranges from about 7% for armored cars to about 14% for larger WWII tanks.
After the determination of whether a shot has even hit a target, the chance to defeat armor is checked, going through the algorithm on the bottom of page 69 to determine whether the shot penetrated or not, as well as a further modification in TOAW III, for armor facing. Much of the early WWII AT weaponry was relatively underpowered, compared to the armor protection of the day, and so, many shots are not going to penetrate. As you can see, there are several steps along the way that the potential for destroying an enemy tank is lost, until progressively, the overall chance to destroy one is severely reduced in these cases.
Now, it is actually possible to get direct AP induced losses to hard targets. These bypass the checks for to hit percentages and penetrations and are automatically assumed to be lethal. However, it is based on overall AP strength, and the percentage of that AP strength applied is IMO a bit too low, and should be raised. There are several other changes I want to make to the whole anti-armor routine, so that relative numbers of attackers/defenders will factor into the amount of AP strength being directed toward hard targets, as well as for improving the probablility of side shots being resolved in the armor facing routing. These are above and beyond the already existing parameters used, and they will need to be integrated into a system that is not simply slapped together on the fly, or tweaked without regard for the total performance of the engine.
|
Printable Version
Amrour V Infantry in WII scenarios - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread