ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/22/2008 9:44:21 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Karri quote:
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay I think its an advantage in just about all attacking circumstances. Defenders get to use cover. Attackers are out in the open. Therefore the attacker has to react in just about all situations. A turret would seem to be an edge if you have to react. Yes, but once again when a division attacks a division there's plenty of back and forth, not just one side attacking and the other defending. Hell, that goes down to regimental, battalion and company level. Again, you're going to a level of detail TOAW does not simulate. And besides, while I do not know much of tank tactics, I am fairly sure they don't just drive forwards at full speed until they run into the enemy. Infantry goes first, makes contact, assault guns/tanks support. In fact, why should the assault guns shoot only once in attack. Turning the whole thing a little doesn't take that much time. The thing is, Curtis might even have an argument here. However, I'm inclined to fear that any improvement would make matters worse rather than better. We just lack the analytical tools and data to decide when, how, and to what extent turretted vehicles confer an advantage on units that are nominally 'attacking' in the OPART sense. My inclination is to turn Curtis's suggestion on its head. He wants a box that will be checked by default for 'turretted vehicles' that will improve their combat ability. Why doesn't he just use the Bio-editor to downgrade assault guns as he sees fit? He can even confer on some of them attributes similar to those of AT guns. That'll make them less potent in the attack.
|
|
|
|