CS game tanks survival rates

[Jumbo]

Hello to all,

I have a question regarding the CS tank survival rates. I would like to see as many veteran and new players to comment as to what you think.

Having played the CS game for many years now. And having conducted many test fires to figure actual kill ratios for weapons attacking a certain tank, I have come to an opinion that there are a large number of tanks within the CS game that are simply alot easier to kill and with regularity than was actually the case in real life. I have and will be working on some CS Matrix updates that will hopefully bring things closer to historical realism without altering anything to much so as to not unbalance any if not most of our current CS scenarios. Potential armor value updates would be treated fairly across the board for all nations and would not be drastic by any means. My idea is simple. Most of us may allready know historically how common it was for say M4(76)Shermans or T34/85's to defeat a tank like a Panther frontally from various ranges. My observation has been that it appears a tank like the Panther gets defeated in frontal attacks in our CS game at greater ranges and with regularity alot more often than was actually the case historically. Another case was test firing 75mm L/48 calibers armed German tanks and anti tank guns at an American M4A3E2 Assault Tanks. I found these heavily armored assault tanks getting KO'd out to even 5 and 6 game hexes ( simulated 1250 and 1500 meters ). when historically a gun like the German Pak 40 only had a remote chance at point blank range and that was only when utilizing heavily rationed APCR ammunition. I will say there has allready been some adjustments made to a number of tanks in the Matrix CS game as we are playing it now in it's present form. My idea would be a formula used for all armored tanks/SP guns across the board rather than just taking a look at a few tanks.

Ideas comments anyone ?

[junk2drive]

Whatever side I am playing loses tanks too easy.

Armour facing rules are generally on, but some people think they should be off. I have trouble killing enemy tanks regardless.

Halftracks should be easier to kill. Open topped and thin armour should not be so tough.

[Bolkonsky]

I suppose things could be tweaked but overall I find that armor has the appropriate relative strength to the other arms. While the graphics give a pretty little fire most of the attrition that happens to tanks is in the form of minor disabling and withdrawal of the weapon. Within the time frame of these tactical battles they are destroy. This is accomplished in a lot of ways mostly by combat prowess. I would be vary concerned about the effect of such tweaking on the balance of scenarios. Nevertheless, I am certainly open to specific tweaks.

[Don Fox]

Bolkonsky makes an excellent point. Eliminating a tank SP doesn't necessarily mean the vehicle is KO'd. It's all rather abstract in terms of the game scale; the attrition represented can't be taken too literally. I wouldn't be in favor of tweaking it in the post-Matrix world.

[The Rattler]

Panthers, if i can get close enough to get a shot in i find hard to score a hit even at close range using t34/m41 and to a lesser degree t34/m43 (front armour facing on).Even rear shots can be unsuccessful about a 40 % chance of a hit.The panther also seems to shoot well . The Tiger on the otherhand does get penetrated a lot easier front armour with facing on and the sides and rear seem most vulnerable to most kinds of fire with a very inconsistent success rate of firing at targets itself considering the 88mm gun.
Success of all types of opfire are a little too inconsistent as well (open fields of fire especially).Amour facing off things change a bit. The tiger performs a bit better as for surviving. The panther dosent.There is of course the random factor.American m4 shermans........... (ronsons).......... seem to do just that :-)
At guns is another story.Others know more of these such things :-) Just my views of my experiences in battle.

[Huib Versloot]

Playing without Armor Facing also helps tanks survive, while on the same time you'd have to be more careful with your tanks because smaller caliber AT guns get more effective. This sounds contradictory, but the high losses when played with AF "on" are ususally caused by the retreat bug, where whole platoons show their vulnerable rear when retreating and thus get destroyed from long range.

A patch to eliminate the retreat bug would boost survival rate when played with the Armor Facing rule.

[Bolkonsky]

I still would have to say that when armor retreats showing their tails and getting hit from behind is not what is being represented. This idea is just a bit of chrome to make the game a little more exciting. Such a concept would be accurate for a smaller battlefield with smaller individual vehicle units like in Squad Leader or Close Combat. When a tank unit retreats and gets hit more easily I look at it as the difficulties inherent in withdrawing, including a variety of factors. Unit cohesion, exposure, loss of chosen ground etc. Facing rules are not completely realistic at this scale. Nevertheless they add a level of complexity to the battle field forcing a good player to more intensely consider terrain, direction of attack, suppression of fire, timing of advance and withdrawal. One can't just rush through and enemy position without considering such factors. And ultimately representing such factors with facing is esthetically appealing and less complex than the alternative. Of course, if this is true, then one wonders why rather than armor facing, isn't morale and experience the deciding factor. If Petho does indeed manage to add in experience as an additional unit quality then perhaps this factor could be referred to instead or in addition to facing when determining unit vulnerability. Still, the opportunities for surprise from a well positioned weapon while not entirely realistic on this level, is still more exciting and I tend to agree with the post that the morale level of a unit is the best way to simulate experience.

[Huib Versloot]

However in CS, tanks are better of NOT retreating ever when played with Armor facing. Completely different to for example to CM were tanks manage to retreat carefully to cover and improve their position compared with NOT retreating, regardless wether they succeed.
In CS the retreats do not simulate anything.... it's a plain bug that they turn and expose their backs. A bug that emerged as a downside from the AF rule (that was added to the game engine later).
I never play with the AF rule, hence i don't have problems with the current armor ratings.

[Bolkonsky]

I have to admit, playing without the armor facing rule is probably more realistic. I am certain that I am rationalizing the AF rule because I like the added complexity added to this little sandbox! Also, with reguard to the original comments, I also have to admit that I tend to play scenarios that are pre 44 so I have less experiance with the many long range tank killing weapons. In fact one of the reasons I like the earlier scenarios is I have never quite mastered the long fields of fire in the later game. To my credit I would say that the tactical problems provided within the more mixed battlefield that the early situations represent are more complex and interesting. But that's just me.

[Nort]

I am not sure, but can the "retreat bug solution" portion of the old ASDN exe patch be used to address this issue?