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

[K K Rossokolski]

Your Tom Cruise saying goes much further back in history than that particular 'celebrity.' I was in for a lifetime. If you have a choice of reasons....as is often the case...... why something gets totally f#cked up, choosing "stupidity" is usually a safe bet.

I think your idea is great, Xroads. An optional choice of "bad day at the office" We've all had 'em. Disruption...an existing condition in the game....might serve to simulate the reduced combat efficiency of a formation, unit or subunit affected by FUBAR syndrome.

Could the computer do it..... and for what %age of a given force?
But most importantly, should it be even considered. I am on record as being a strong critic of some JTCS additions which are sheer farce. I think a proportion of "CSers" would see the FUBAR option as heading to the fafarcical end of the viability spectrum

[Crossroads]

Agree 100% everything you said :)

As for Valkyrie, aired yesterday on TV. Found it quite interesting. I knew about the attempts on Hitler's life, but was not aware how particulary well operation Valkyrie had a contingency plan for assuming power after his death.

If what it portrays is even reasonably close to reality we must have been awfully close seeing that mad austrian corporal and his murderous entourage out of the office a year earlier than what actually happened :(

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Surely the key here is not whether people "feel" that a certain outcome is too much/too little, but whether there is actual quantitative battle experience. I draw your attention to Eastern Front II User Guide pp214-5, which cites some British experience, suggesting HE was the cause of of a tank casualty in 3% of cases.

Spot on Rod. :)
There is a ton of data concerning tank casualties from direct and indirect fire dating from World War One. The trouble is assembing it and then using it.
I guess most of us who have read a lot, concerning this topic, remember reading about disabled, destroyed, and disrupted tanks and formations.

I'd like to see the disable effect be reduced to 3% and an added "disrupt" formula to show the "realistic" effect of artillery fire. :smoke:



RR

[Dan Caviness]

Say amen RR...;O)
I think You, KK, myself and many others are trying to say..."we like the new rules...but can we consider some moderation in cases where they maybe they have shifted things a little too far".

I can deal with the tables....this is simply my opinion...but my dice have not seen fit to give me a single disrupt on armor since the disables have started appearing with 1.04. Perhaps this is just probability...and if you guys are saying the disrupt percentage hasn't changed...OK...sounds good...but we could still consider making some of the new disable results become disrupts instead.

The table I dug up did state 4% but it may be a statistic that is misleading. They were referring to 4% as I remembered...but they mean 4% of tanks lost in combat or through breakdown attrition. As in 4 out of every 100 destroyed or disabled. Which speaks to the breakdown ideas above. In actuality mines were the overwhelming majority of casualties for the US Tanks in the Alsace Lorraine Campaign during 1944 for the Spearhead Division. IE, out of some 600 plus tanks destroyed during that period, more than 240 were lost to mines, 150 to direct fire, 115 to anti armor infantry attacks, etc, etc. Breakdowns due to mechanical reasons were the other big contributor. 23 were lost to artillery. No mention as to the caliber of artillery.
While stats don't always lie, in this case many of these were recovered, and the breakdowns were over a 6 week period. So...not really useful for estimating what we are trying to quantify.

Still...looks like over the long run...at least for a division on the offensive in late WWII Western Europe...mines did most of the damage...and that feels about right. I know mines took out an even higher percentage of German tanks during their late war offensives, no doubt in part due to the American Sherman's inability to destroy them with direct fire except in rare instances at close range and with flank shots.

So....keep up the debate guys!
Good stuff.

By the by this was brought up by someone else (Ivan was it?) on a different forum but what do you guys think about a disable (sometimes) simply becoming an immobile pillbox?

Odds are a tank that is in range and not moving won't last long anyways...but it rings true in my opinion.

Regards,

Dan

[Huib Versloot]

When during 1.04 beta testing we determined the new % of artillery effectiveness against armor we used "The Siegfried Line Campaign" by McDonald. It was tested in some of the Hamich scenarios in WestFront until the events roughly matched the losses vs artillery in the real attack made by the American 3rd Armored Division. We chose this attack as we had detailed figures and a very accurate oob in the scenario.

At first we were too high in the loss results, then the % was lowered until the loss rates to arty were historical. One can argue about a percent up or down, but one could do that after each test one would conduct I think.

The problem at the moment is that at that time we didn't take into account that smaller mortars would also be used against armor and can be (over) effective in disabling armor. I'm not sure if it is possible to code them in such a way as to make them less effective, or if the overall % should be lowered because of the mortars. Maybe there are also other weaknesses in the way it was coded. I'm not sure if Jonathan put these forward in earlier board discussions about this subject.

This is about what I remember about the issue. My opinion is that, even if it is not perfect, that it is better than it was before.

Huib

[Hawk Kriegsman]

My opinion is that, even if it is not perfect, that it is better than it was before.

Huib

Agreed 100%. It is much better than before.

When looking at the abstracted nature of what disabled could be (which could be dozens of different things) I am not sure that changing the effectivness of any artillery is warranted.

The commander of a tank (or any other crew member) ridiing in the open is just as vulnerable to 60mm mortar as a anyone else. A tank losing its commander, driver, gunner, etc due to death or injury disables a tank just the same as it losing its track or gun sights for the purposes of CS within it's scale.

Another one of the beauties of CS is some of the abstract nature of how somethings get resolved. Disabled is one of those.

I would suggest to those looking for higher leavels of detail and realism look towards games like Combat Missions or Steel Panthers. Because of the scale (tactical squad level with individual vehicles) of those games it is important how the tank was disabled as crews can bail out and move around the board or they can be imobilized and still fire.

The scale of CS (platoon level tactical / operationsl) is not suited to such fine levels of detail.

Thanx!

Hawk

[dawags]

Gentlemen,

Relative to this topic, the effects of the disable on armor become much more apparent in large games with large volumes of armor being subjected to larger volumes of indirect. The sheer number of "rolls" that you elicit on the tables are going to result in disables that you weren't seeing before.

This has forced a different tactical play, which is for the better.

Previously you could roll up armor with a fair degree of impunity especially if you had spotting range, and your opponent did not have a distance capacity from an anti-tank perspective to impede you from occupying terrain in a given game. At least now you can dissuade your opponent from marching up with impunity into certain hexes that you wouldn't ordinarily be able to touch him in, by dropping a load of indirect on his head, and taking your chances with multiple rolls on the disrupt/disable table.

However, the one penalty that is usually suffered by indirect is NOT affected by these tables and that is the "indirect by map" option. Indirect by map in larger scenarios has little effect on infantry, but it does allow for more random rolls when it hits advancing armor that it is out of LOS. I believe, this to be one of Dan's concerns as it seems a little obtuse for a stray 81mm mortar to be thrown over a hill into the blind, and land on a King Tiger for a resulting disable.

If this is the option of taking the bad with the good, I'm comfortable with this because I do like that armor can't just roll as it did before with no fear of indirect. If there were a means to adjust the percentage on the indirect by map, that seems to be the appropriate option here. If it can't be effectively done, I'm all-right with this.

Lastly, I have found when my rolls are bad, if I shake my computer and blow on it, the rolls improve immensely... :eek1:

dawags
:cool2:

[Dan Caviness]

Good point. The tables do not appear to penalize the chances for disables when firing on unspotted hexes like it penalizes the attack values on unspotted soft targets.
I would think that makes sense...and is "code-able"...as it were.

Alfons...I think we may be looking at the same tables.
I can't find my pdf of that US Army report...but I know it refers to 4 percent of tanks lost. In other words, for every 100 tanks destroyed on average, 4 of those were by artillery fire. Aren't we making a mistake by assuming that means 4 out of every 100 artillery shells land on a tank and disable it?
That may be so...but I haven't found anything that says it's so...yet...

That was my original point...not very well made.

As stated...I can live with it...and obviously some prefer it.

I do stand by my original statement however...that it "dumbs down" the game rather than makes it even more marvelously complex than it is now.
How else are we going to school the nubes???...lol...
It's just my personal style of play...but I will happily shell spotted hexes in "no mans land" between myself and the enemy...only to make sure the turn he does move into them...he pays. With the new tables...I think it's possible to do better just shelling the unspotted hexes in areas your pretty sure they have to be in. OK, but that takes less consideration in my opinion. Probably only because I've been getting the worse of it by others who do it...lol..

The point made by others that it can really effect game balance for existing scenarios and work is well made. I'm playing Von Tirpitz in "Hugh is Coming". Nice little scenario...maybe has a flaw or two...what scenario doesn't...but it's designed to be a quick hitter where the first side Allied player is attempting to make it to an exit hex...trying to help relieve and breakout the encircled Allies in Bastogne. I think it's a lot of fun to play. This last time though, Von Tirp has gotten the bulk of his results by shelling unspotted hexes and taking out Shermans, Hellcats, and anything else with steel skin, using the increased disable percentage to his advantage.
It still plays...but not like it used to! If your going to reach the exit objectives in that scenario...you rolling loaded tracks and trying to deny spots down the "death row" the map requires you to negotiate. There is only one road that can get you there.
Since you know where they have to be...even if you don't spot them...you can make hay simply by shelling by the map even if the Allied player has eliminated your combat units that used to have to spot for you to make that work.

It's all good.

Regards,

Dan

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Good point. The tables do not appear to penalize the chances for disables when firing on unspotted hexes like it penalizes the attack values on unspotted soft targets.
I would think that makes sense...and is "code-able"...as it were.

You are mistaken here. The disable percentage is not a results table. It is a straight percentage chance that a hex hit by artillery fire will cause a disable.

Destroyed tanks are based on the combat results table and they do happen from time to time when armor gets hit by indirect artillery fire.

Alfons...I think we may be looking at the same tables.
I can't find my pdf of that US Army report...but I know it refers to 4 percent of tanks lost. In other words, for every 100 tanks destroyed on average, 4 of those were by artillery fire.

You are confusing destroyed with disabled. A destroyed tank is done kaput, finished while a disabled one is not. Yes for the purposes of CS a disabled is the same as destroyed.

Maybe the answer here is to award 3/4 points for disabled vehicles. However I am not sure if that could be coded.

I do stand by my original statement however...that it "dumbs down" the game rather than makes it even more marvelously complex than it is now.

In my opinion you could not be more wrong. Being able to charge straight at the enemy with your armor with no fear of enemy artilley dumbs down the game. Now if you are facing a foe with quality artillery you have to think.

How else are we going to school the nubes???...lol...

LOL! :kill:

It's just my personal style of play...but I will happily shell spotted hexes in "no mans land" between myself and the enemy...only to make sure the turn he does move into them...he pays.

Most people do this I believe. It is one of the uses of artillery.

With the new tables...I think it's possible to do better just shelling the unspotted hexes in areas your pretty sure they have to be in.

Again it is not a table for disabled. It was 2% and it went to 4%. Nothing more nothing less. It should not have changed anyones use of artillery. It should have changed the behavior of the person with the armor though.

Ultimately it is not that big of a change really. If you get 100 fire missions in a scenario (5 batteries firing 2 times a turn for 10 turns). If every battery hit a hex with armor (spotted or unspotted) you can expect to lose 4 tanks due to being disabled. Before it was 2.

Where is the issue really?

OK, but that takes less consideration in my opinion.

How so? Proper artillery plotting is no different than before.

Probably only because I've been getting the worse of it by others who do it...lol..

The root of the angst perhaps?

The point made by others that it can really effect game balance for existing scenarios and work is well made.

Evey change has done this. No change has had more of an impact on previous existing scenarios (which is the bulk of scenarios) than extreme assault.

You don't see anyong complaing about that do you? :whis:

The easiest answer here is to make it an optional rule. Then everybody wins.

Thanx!

Hawk

[dawags]

"In my opinion you could not be more wrong. Being able to charge straight at the enemy with your armor with no fear of enemy artilley dumbs down the game. Now if you are facing a foe with quality artillery you have to think."-Hawk

Don't think this is a relevant statement relative to the problem...

One does not worry about indirect in this manner...it is indirect.
Charging at the enemy relates more to direct fire. You may actually be better served to "charge" at the enemy in this regard. Indirect only hurts you when it hits you, it is much more likely to do so, when you stay in one place to shoot...:chin:

The issue here is the nature of indirect fire and its results.
My point here, and Dan's assertion to it, is that a result on indirect that is plotted and planned into spotted terrain should get more credit and have more effect than indirect that is thrown "by map" into unspotted terrain, and happens to land on a target (hex).

We do agree on the concept of "landing on a hex" and the result thereof. I just think the application is wrong.

My point here is that a hex represents a large piece of terrain. Your likelihood of actually hitting what is located in it by indirect fire is much better if you can see what you are shooting at...do you dispute this?

I would like to see indirect by map and its results on armor be mitigated in the same manner that indirect by map and its results on infantry are mitigated. Currently you receive the same "roll" on the same table regardless of whether you see what you hit or you don't. The likelihood of disable is thus the same.

Essentially you need to spot infantry to maximize artillery on indirect, you do not however, currently need to spot armor to maximize its effect. It is a "glitch" in the game. It does not reflect any sort of reality, unless you believe that artillery spotting is a waste of time.

dawags
:cool2: