|
MikeC_81 -> RE: Dug in tanks! (8/15/2006 8:55:54 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
When we rework the combat routines, we'll address this.
I don't know if this means you already come up with a solution but here is my 2 cents.
I remember back in TOAW I when armor penetration used to work differently since it wasn't done shot by shot but rather in an amalgamated fashion, armor tended to be quite easily destroyed by hordes of infantry making tanks much less valuable.
TOAW seems to have swung the balance a lot farther in the other end by the very harsh penetration calculations. For example an Assault AT+ squad would be representative of a modern day infantry squad armed with assault rifles and light man portable anti-tank weapons like RPGs and AT-4s. These squads in the game might as well have anti-tank strenghts of 0 when on the attack.
Following the calcuation provided in the manual.
Infantry's chance to kill a modest tank. Say a basic T-72 (unimproved model) with a HEAT defense of 39.
PQ= 15*100/39
=38.46
Chance to kill = (38.46^2)/100
=14.8%
Thats for a tank who's unit is deployed in a fortified deployment. If we dig in those tanks they become nigh unkillable.
fortified deployment = defensive strength x3 for vehicles.
PQ= 15*100/39*3
=12.8 < 25
so chance to kill is 0. And this is for a tank that has relatively low on the defense chart. Effectively, infantry have no chance to kill any armor with a defensive strength of 60 if in mobile deployment, 40 if dug in or in a lot of different defensive terrains, and 20!!!! if the armor is fortified or in a fortified hex.
You could have 10,000 infantrymen smash into those tanks with absolutely no effect. In higher level scenarios (division and up) this problem isn't so glaring since units tend to be mixed enough so that even if the tanks don't get destroyed, enough other equipment will be mauled so that it fails a quality check and retreats.
But in battalion level or even regimental/brigade I think you are going to run into a lot of very pure or close to pure armor where even if it is heavily outnumbered, defending armor gets a huge advantage.
My proposed solution.
I understand you can't make infantry anti-armor strength anymore than what it is otherwise we would run into the same problem as earlier versions of TOAW I where tanks were too underpowered.
But what if we assign a range check to all AT fire or other relevant systems and multiply their AT strenghts via quality checks. Here is what I am thinking.
An AT strenght of 15 is a very reasonable AT score for Infantry rolling in to attack some T-72s in well prepared fortifications at the beginning of the attack (could be tucked in by engineers with multiple hulldown firing positions for each tank). As the infantry roll into the maximum engangement range for the tanks, your puny RPG isn't going to hurt those tanks. But in a real life battlefield situation if a unit commander was faced with that situation, he wouldn't continue to stay at standoff range and let the tanks pound his infantry. He would either break off the attack or close rapidly to get into range in which his weapons would be effective. After each round of combat, the attacking unit must already perform a check to see if it breaks off the attack.
I propse an additional quality check. If more than half, for argument's sake (this value could change or other conditions could be suggested) of the attacker's equipment finds itself unable to penetrate (or if it finds the penetration chance too low), it will attempt to close with the enemy to a range in which its weapons would be more effective. If it passes this quality check, all the equipment in the unit recieves a multiplier (2x? 3x? discuss?) to its anti-armor and anti-personel strength. At the same time the defending units anti-armor and anti-personel strenght is increased by the same amount to reflect its ability to kill at a closer range.
If it fails check, then it must continue to fight at "standoff range" and get pounded for another round before it again is allowed to check to see whether it breaks off or whether it can close with the enemy and bring its weapons to bear.
Additionally, this could be combined with recon values as well. A recon check could allow a unit to determine whether it wants to try and close right from the start or if it wants to start off closing in right away. If it fails the recon check a unit must start the engagement off at standoff range and then determine correct course of action after the first round.
This can idea can be used for defense as well. A unit on defense may make a quality check to see if it can avoid detection and ambush the enemy and fight at its desired range. For example: An infantry unit facing attack from a tank heavy force might decide to wait for them to close before really opening fire. In effect simulating ambush conditions or the defenders themselves moving forward to better engage with their weapons.
Or a defending unit of tanks might choose to back off and restablish standoff range after the attacker has managed to close. If both attackers and defenders pass their "ranging" qualiting tests, ties go to attackers which will choose the range.
Whether there would be multiple ranges I don't know. Obviously the devil is in the details. But from pure theorycraft, it would address several problems.
1. You can no longer, especially in WWII scenarios send small units of armor backed by artillery to absolutley slaughter infantrymen with nearly 0 risk.
2. You will no longer have small units of dug in armored vehicles/ mobile AA guns etc. stand up to large masses of infantry simply because they can't penetrate.
3. It will encourage more combined arms and give more power to infantry and or underpowered tanks vs other armored vehicles in very specific instances where this game has a problem without severly hurting the top end of the combat food chain in most situations.
4. While not a problem it does give recon another use besides unit identification and adding a bit of combat power in the first round.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
