• Havoc
  • Caius
  • redboot
  • Rules
  • Chain of Command
  • Members
  • Supported Ladders & Games
  • Downloads


Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Armor Facing Rule
04-05-2011, 08:28 PM,
#11
RE: Armor Facing Rule
(04-05-2011, 07:38 PM)Huib Versloot Wrote: I mean that Panthers would back away, also for 6 pounders/ 57 mm and would not dare to rely on frontal armor against AT guns (as CS players do).

IMO the manoeuvre tactic you mention is NOT represented by playing with AF "on" where is assumed that all tanks have welded turrets and all vehicles in a platoon in a 250 x250 metre area face the same direction. Rather it is better represented in the abstract way of a dice roll and an overall defesive value when played with AF "off".

Well, tank crews relied on their frontal armour quite a lot (especially Tigers crews). I've read many times memories of tank (Tiger) commander that didn't hesitated much to expose his front armour because he knew his advantage to gain better shoot position.

And your right it's hard to speak about realism and maneuverers of single tank in that scale and not all vehicles in a platoon face the same direction ... but I think most of them do and it should be easier for example 65 to 75% easier to inflict losses (by guessing that at least 2/3 of platoon faces in advance direction).

For sure retreating platoon exposing their rear is a serious bug.
Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2011, 09:17 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-05-2011, 09:19 PM by Otto von Blotto.)
#12
RE: Armor Facing Rule
I think having armour facing off negates tactical force positioning, what’s the point of using decoys to draw fire or the terrain and outflanking to get a side or rear shot if you have the same chance of a hit as just standing in two lines apart from each other and bashing away at it head on.

What needs to be addressed is the retreat side of things at the moment the best work around is to set up your tank positions so retreats go into cover or behind elevations.
Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2011, 09:48 PM,
#13
RE: Armor Facing Rule
(04-05-2011, 10:03 AM)Big Dawg Wrote: Can the game be played with one player having the "ASDN" patch installed while the 2nd does not?

Will it give one player an advantage?

Is it JTCS compatible?

I think it will work with only one player using it.......not sure who it gives an advantage to tho......also not sure if it is jtcs compatible or not but the hidden unit feature is similar to what ASDN had in his patch......all units are not always seen or automatically spotted.....this feature can be devastating in scenarios like Cauldron of Fire where there are lots of arty........hidden spotters can wreck havoc :-).......seems they may have done that historically too :-)

VE
"The secret to success is not just doing the things you enjoy but rather enjoying everything that you do."
Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2011, 10:36 PM,
#14
RE: Armor Facing Rule
Which side has the advantage with AF=on depends a lot on the scenario. When engagement ranges are short, the Allies benefit from the retreat factor and their Hard Attack value is getting high enough to cause those retreats. When they are long, the Germans tend to benefit (assuming they have some units with high front armor ratings).

As a new player, I used to consider AF=on much more "realistic" to me, but after playing for years now, reading a lot more detailed history, and playing some other games where AF is handled much differently (CM for one), I would side with AF=Off being more "realistic" on average.

Mike
Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2011, 11:21 PM,
#15
RE: Armor Facing Rule
(04-05-2011, 08:28 PM)von Manstein Wrote: Well, tank crews relied on their frontal armour quite a lot (especially Tigers crews). I've read many times memories of tank (Tiger) commander that didn't hesitated much to expose his front armour because he knew his advantage to gain better shoot position.

This might be true occasionally for long range tank engagements but was not true for these tanks versus AT guns at shorter ranges, where they simply wouldn't risk a disabling hit from a concealed AT gun and being picked off when bailing out. In the game with AF 'off' you cannot simply ignore these AT guns, which is good I think.
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2011, 03:50 AM,
#16
RE: Armor Facing Rule
(04-05-2011, 06:41 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: I tested it for WF a lot. I don't think with AF "off" the tanks overall defense strength is the same as that of the frontal armor when "on". (If it is the ASDN patch would be sufficient to deal with all disadvantages of AF).

To me loss numbers are more realistic with AF "off", as well as tank behaviour. Panthers cannot ignore smaller AT guns, and Shermans have a decent chance to get a kill, but will always be at a realistic disadvantage. Moreover you won't get hilarious high number of kills due to the fact that the tanks suddely show their rear when they retreat.
Conclusion:
1. More realistic combat behaviour.
2. Lower loss numbers.
3. Better ratio of Shermans vs Panthers (even if it sounds a little contradictory to point 2, it isn't)

I have my doubts and still feel that Armor Facing is only for games like Combat Mission, that portray individual vehicles.

I agree with some there is a certain fun factor involved when you manage to sneak around and hit the tanks in the rear armor, but to me it doesn't weigh up to the disadvantages.

Huib

I think if we talking about realistic in this game we should see what was real in wwII. In fact was the most versions of the Sherman tanks absolutly inferior against Panthers or Tigers. For example see this interesting clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBp4eWqXf...re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn2vmpEQb...re=related

or see this serie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcMyVxod...re=related

Especially in a directly duell in front was the advantage total on the german side with the strong front amor and a long distance weapon with a higher penetrating power. But also the Sherman had a chance with a ambush and short ranges and from both sides or the rear.

AF ON simulated this situation and brings realism like the situation in wwII real was. By the way in the war was it normally to made tactical manouvers to come to the side or behind the enemy and not a directly shooting. And of course smaller AT guns they are in front had real not a chance against a Panther or Tiger and was easy overrunning like the T-34 or Shermans overruns a german 37-mm-AT gun. The smaller AT-guns had only a chance from the sides or the rear like in the realism in war and with AF ON in the game.

The allies benefit with tanks in war was the absolutly numeral advantage. This fact i cannot find in most of the scenes in game. I think the "problem" is not the duell Sherman vs. Panther or Tiger with the advantage for the german tanks real in the war and in this game but rather scenes with more Panthers and Tigers as even have had fight in the most battles in wwII. ;-) Thats not realistic and a problem in many scenes and not the real advantage for the german tanks in war and in this game.

Don´t forget that the most of german tanks in wwII also in the last period to the end was the PIV and not Panthers or Tigers. I think the most scenes overrides this point.

So i think thats the problem and not AF ON or OFF. My opinion is that AF ON simulated not a better and fair result for the allies tanks because also the war was not fair. But simulated a realistic and importend fact in wwII, the advantage some weapons against other weapons.
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2011, 05:21 AM,
#17
RE: Armor Facing Rule
(04-06-2011, 03:50 AM)Peiper Wrote: So i think thats the problem and not AF ON or OFF. My opinion is that AF ON simulated not a better and fair result for the allies tanks because also the war was not fair. But simulated a realistic and importend fact in wwII, the advantage some weapons against other weapons.

Agreed.

Jason Petho
Send this user an email
Quote this message in a reply
04-06-2011, 07:06 AM,
#18
RE: Armor Facing Rule
(04-06-2011, 05:21 AM)Jason Petho Wrote:
(04-06-2011, 03:50 AM)Peiper Wrote: So i think thats the problem and not AF ON or OFF. My opinion is that AF ON simulated not a better and fair result for the allies tanks because also the war was not fair. But simulated a realistic and importend fact in wwII, the advantage some weapons against other weapons.

Agreed.

Jason Petho

I think the superiorty of the Panther and Tiger is well simulated with AF "off" as well.
My scns usually have the precise historical numbers of tanks for each model and each side. In these scenarios, where the numbers were correct down to the individual tanks, I looked at the loss rates and compared them to what really happened. I found those played with AF "off" to be far closer to reality, although both with "on" and "off" they were higher than in reality.

I also prefer the "feel" of the combat with AF "off". That is something that developed gradually, as I too started out with a preference for the rule "on". The silly retreat bug remains the biggest issue though and is about 80% of what I don't like about AF "on". AF "on" can only be tested seriously when this bug is corrected.
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2011, 08:13 AM,
#19
RE: Armor Facing Rule
I'm glad everyone has an opinion and that these rules are optional.
Someones cup of tea may be some one else's cup of coffee? :chin:

cheers

HSL
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2011, 02:00 AM,
#20
RE: Armor Facing Rule
Beer please cheers
Quote this message in a reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)