Disabled Armor-Indirect by the Map-and more about Gardening Later

[Dan Caviness]

Hey everyone been really busy working on some big games but wanted to make a few comments about the game and solicit your inputs.

1. The new artillery tables are (obviously) more effective vs. armor. This type of subject is excellent grist for the mill and can be debated up to and including official army histories providing data on same but I am NOT going to go there. Whew. What I'd like to ask is doesn't a random disable on an unspotted tank seem a bit farfetched? Especially considering I recently disabled an IS-2m (sorry Smed and sorry Guderian) in Borisov with a disrupted one strength 81mm German mortar? Hey...I'm loving it...but they ain't....and I know how it feels on the other end as well having lost a couple of King Tigers now the same way.

I was thinking perhaps the new table would be better served if it handed out these armored results as disrupts rather than disables? Not all the time...but at least some/most of the time? I know you could probably drop a mortar round down an open hatch or something like that...but those points add up on the disables...and this had to be a very rare instance...no? You Army boys out there tell us...

In general we like new rules that increase the skill level required to play, or enhance the games' subtlety and nuance. I think the new arty tables are a bit of a step in the other direction...and they reward the unskilled player who just starts picking unspotted hexes and hoping. OK....I guess...but what about getting disrupts some of the time rather than disables? The old tables threw in the occasional disrupt. Yeah...it was once in a blue moon...but it happened. Since the new tables have been in play I can't recall seeing a single disrupted tank via indirect artillery fire...only disables.


2. Towed Artillery and towing vehicle size matching. I'm noticing in my Aachen test games I can pick up a 240mm Black Dragon US Heavy Divisional artillery piece (~65,000 pounds) with a Weasel (awesome vehicle but small with a 70 HP Studebaker for a power plant) and tow it all over Germany. Even across blue rivers. The crossing blue rivers loaded is probably a coding glitch and a seperate issue...but you see the same thing happening with all the various units in all the armies with some flyweight tow vehicles moving around some large loads. I'm guessing this issue has been raised before but I'm too lazy to search all the forums, and besides, can't resist chewing the fat with my fellow grogs.

Both these are obviously issues I could bring to Jason's attention but I wanted to sound out the faithful to see if I'm on the right track.

Then...lastly...I am relatively new to the ladder system here with the Blitz...but wanted to ask if there is any sort of size modifier for tracking purposes. I play the big scenarios most of the time. I play some 6's and such....but mostly 10's. Having been kicked off the ladder once a couple years ago for not playing...I was thinking someone who spends six months playing Showdown at Borisov or Fight for the Panther Line may deserve more credit than someone else playing quick scenarios?

I'm not denigrating anyone else's performance here guys...I'm just making an appeal for those of us who are hopelessly addicted to the big scenarios. Von Luck and I have spent most of a year now...maybe more...working on one...and with those long delays between reporting game results...it looks like we're slackers!!!

Well...slacker than some anyways...:bow:

By the way...Merry Xmas or Happy Holidays or Kwanzaa or whatever to all you boys....

Regards,

Dan

[John Given]

Hi Dan - the increased effect of artillery to disable armor was increased from 2% to 5% with a JTCS patch...and many players on the blitz, myself included, argued (successfully) that it should be put back down to 2% with the 1.05 patch, due out sometime next year. I saw this in a thread here at the blitz about 6 months ago.

In short, Jason Petho is aware it's not a popular (or realistic) change, thus it's being brought back down to 2%. I have no idea what month the 1.05 patch is due out though.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

I love your idea about different size carriers only being able to carry certain size units.

[Jim von Krieg]

I actually like what I consider the much more realistic ability for artillery to kill armor in the current generation arty routine... until the adjustment, armor was pretty much immune to artillery... VERY unrealistic... If you drive into a village under bombardment bad things can happen.... even to unspotted armor... but we won't even think twice about running those Panzers into a village getting flattened by 203mm HE...

I don't think it should be immune which 2% essentially gives you if Jason and crew are reverting to the old arty regime... Heavy artillery barrages should give a tanker pause... not make them yawn...

I'd also like to see a breakdown roll, especially against Heavy German armor moving long distances...

And I'm a heretic in that I consider the extreme assault rules in the current edition much more realistic than automatic herd and roll up of the whole kit and kaboodle we get without it... it does mess up the balance of scenarios, which probably should be adjusted by additional turns... My opinion is that armor should not be able to bum rush a disrupted unit in a village and wipe it out without breaking a sweat... but that is just me...

My critiques are based on what I think is realistic... but I also realize its just a game... I do love the game and will adjust to whatever Matrix goes with, but I think they are regressing when they make the arty less capable against armor...

Regards and lets keep the debate, if it breaks out, friendly...

Jim

[XLVIII Pz. Korp]

I actually like what I consider the much more realistic ability for artillery to kill armor in the current generation arty routine... until the adjustment, armor was pretty much immune to artillery... VERY unrealistic... If you drive into a village under bombardment bad things can happen.... even to unspotted armor... but we won't even think twice about running those Panzers into a village getting flattened by 203mm HE...

Agreed. My complaint had always been the inability of CS artillery to break up or "disrupt" an armored attack. I think we all at some point have read of situations where artillery was called in and busted up or delayed an armored attack. Old CS artillery routines made these real life situations impossible to recreate. Please note I was not specifically looking for kills vs armor just disrupts.... some effect to show that my opponents tanks weren't just advancing against heavy headwinds. And there should be effects units button, crews get shaken up, tracks get busted from near misses... things should at the least be slowed down a bit.

I think someone suggested at one point that armored targets should at least be made more vulnerable to disruption results from artillery. I agree, as disrupted units inability to advance towards enemy units would nicely simulate an armored attack losing some cohesion and maybe even being broken up by artillery. Be nice if those artillery results could be restricted to only certain calibers and higher but I think that may be a bit much for this old girl of a system so situations like the 81mm I tend to write off with a shrug.

With the current artillery rules I finally have been able to actually hurt some armored attacks with prolonged artillery barrages, nicely simulating situations I've read about in the past.

Perhaps the 5% effect should remain but with 2 or 3% kill and the other 2 or 3% an auto disruption.

[5 Leichte Div]

Hello, Gents !
I gotta say that I'm with Mr. Jim and XLVIII Pz. Korp above concerning artillery effects. All that blast noise , debris, shell splinters has been a bother for tank vision and communication. There should be something bothersome from enough HE blastings. The idea of duel effects is good - some kill ratio and the rest for disruption - I like that, too.
And .. despite my foibles in play .. I do like the extreme assault rule as a bit closer to realistic ( maybe it could be a bit less harsh, tho ? ). What was also kinda nice .. the concept of armour retreat facing from the ASDN EF2 patch ... no goofy easy rear shots frontally ... gotta manuever some for a better angle.
All aside .. what a great game all around .. better than ... other stuff !

Tom S. 5 Leichte Div :chin:[/size]

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Hello All,

I also am with JvK, XLVIII Pz. Korp and 5 Leichte Div with regards to artillery verses armor. The old 2% was just not good enough. I think the 5% is correct.
Keep in mind that the disabled result can represent a number of things that the game engine cannot simulate. A didabled tank could have taken non-killing damage to its sights, engine or a crew member gets wounded or the crew bails out due to panic or the tank simply turns tail and runs. All of these things would take a tank out of a current battle, which IMO is the disabled result.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Dan Caviness]

Great replies guys...good stuff...

Seems I recall a post on another forum not to long ago from a dispirited member about the forums not having much content anyways...well I respectfully ask him to read through this one!

Your points are well made. That is why the old Squid asks you soldier boys...not really knowing. Arty effectiveness vs. armor is an old debate, but a worthy one. I like the idea of keeping the 5%...you guys converted me...but would like to suggest maybe half/or some of those results become disrupts instead of disables?

Regards,

Dan

[Cats]

All,

Being a new guy I can only offer my opinion and that comes from the agony of defeat more so than the thrill of victory. I have noticed in PBEM games and also games against the AI that artillery is a bit weak, both against armor and infantry. From my limited understanding and experience with the game, I would agree that an increase in damage is called for. Not being a techie, would it be possible to do with artillery results, what is being espoused with carriiers. ( heavier carrier can carry more than a lighter carrier) A 150mm HE round would do more damage than a 60mm mortar round? So maybe a higher energy round would disable and a lower energy round only disrupt.

Thats my new guy question for today...........

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Great replies guys...good stuff...

Seems I recall a post on another forum not to long ago from a dispirited member about the forums not having much content anyways...well I respectfully ask him to read through this one!

Your points are well made. That is why the old Squid asks you soldier boys...not really knowing. Arty effectiveness vs. armor is an old debate, but a worthy one. I like the idea of keeping the 5%...you guys converted me...but would like to suggest maybe half/or some of those results become disrupts instead of disables?

Regards,

Dan

Hello Dan,

The 5% disabled chance is in addition to the chance of being disrupted. So to reduce the 5% number would bring us back to where we where before the increase.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Scud]

Any real life stats out there concerning how often tanks got hit by artillery and what the result was?

2% or 5% hasn't made much of a difference in my games, I continue to roll lousy numbers. Think I need to get new dice.