Armor Facing Rule

[RADO]

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.

Just exactly what is the "retreat bug" you refer to?

[Scud]

Just exactly what is the "retreat bug" you refer to?

That's when you shoot at a tank and force it to retreat, but in doing so the tank always turns around exposing it's rear, and thus, most vulnerable spot with AF=on.

As for it being a "bug" has been open to debate for quite awhile.

Dave

[Dragoon]

I think the retreat will be addressed in the next patch.Wish the tanks wouldnt turn in the direction they fire at during the OP fire to simulate the turret moving instead of the whole vehicle.But the turretless tank destroyers may not make it possible.Dunno just dreaming again...

Dragoon

[Huib Versloot]

I think the retreat will be addressed in the next patch.Wish the tanks wouldnt turn in the direction they fire at during the OP fire to simulate the turret moving instead of the whole vehicle.But the turretless tank destroyers may not make it possible.Dunno just dreaming again...

Dragoon

Maybe tanks should not be allowed to automatically retreat at all. There is quite a bit wrong with the way units retreat at the moment. I've had guys walking a marathon when shot at, only to end in a place where they could serve as excellent spotters. IMO there should be more penalties for retreating units, since what they do is basically fleeing.

[Von Earlmann]

Maybe tanks should not be allowed to automatically retreat at all. There is quite a bit wrong with the way units retreat at the moment. I've had guys walking a marathon when shot at, only to end in a place where they could serve as excellent spotters. IMO there should be more penalties for retreating units, since what they do is basically fleeing.

I suspect this is worth looking into.....I think asdn's patch did limit the number of times a unit could retreat but can't remember for sure....seems like they didn't run all over the battlefield while being shot at but haven't used it for quite awhile.

VE

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Just exactly what is the "retreat bug" you refer to?

I'm amused by all the comments about the "retreat bug".
There is no "retreat bug".
As with those who use EA, because they did not like playing the game as intended, there is a thought that the retreat from fire by armored units, and exposing their rear facing to the enemy for a more critical follow up shot, makes the game "unrealistic".
Call something a "bug" for a long time and other people begin to think it is a bug? The AF option works as intended. I can play with it on or off at the request of my opponents. Though, I prefer it on. :smoke:

From my reading, the developers at Talonsoft debated the issue and found that retreat and AF was the way that two players should play the game.
It was written in the manual but, I did not make the effort to find it. Maybe under the FAQ section, if someone wishes to look? :chin:

As with snorkel tanks that can move about just like they were in a normal set up (with no restrictions to move and fire) and engineers that can lay mines, or clear wrecks, in six minutes, it is part of the game as intended by the developers now?
Some see them as drawbacks, others see them as bugs, still others see them as the limitations of the game engine, and some see them as parts of the game?
Seems each person has their own perspective? :)



HSL

[Von Earlmann]

Just exactly what is the "retreat bug" you refer to?

I'm amused by all the comments about the "retreat bug".
There is no "retreat bug".
As with those who use EA, because they did not like playing the game as intended, there is a thought that the retreat from fire by armored units, and exposing their rear facing to the enemy for a more critical follow up shot, makes the game "unrealistic".
Call something a "bug" for a long time and other people begin to think it is a bug? The AF option works as intended. I can play with it on or off at the request of my opponents. Though, I prefer it on. :smoke:

From my reading, the developers at Talonsoft debated the issue and found that retreat and AF was the way that two players should play the game.
It was written in the manual but, I did not make the effort to find it. Maybe under the FAQ section, if someone wishes to look? :chin:

As with snorkel tanks that can move about just like they were in a normal set up (with no restrictions to move and fire) and engineers that can lay mines, or clear wrecks, in six minutes, it is part of the game as intended by the developers now?
Some see them as drawbacks, others see them as bugs, still others see them as the limitations of the game engine, and some see them as parts of the game?
Seems each person has their own perspective? :)



HSL

We are only limited by our own imagination...........that's a famous von Earlmann qoute.........I know you may have heard it before but might not have known I said it :)

VE

[Otto von Blotto]

Personally I don't think it's a bug in the software sense, (a fault in the code) or a glitch in the program that wasn't designed right, just a part of the game that some like and can deal with others don't, as I stated early I have found my ways to negate the issues raised and still prefer to play AF on.

HSL, going to stop reading and posting and get on with Mad Dash expect turn in 30 mins.

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Terry,

I think you have used the AF rule well! :bow:
Too well. :(



HSL

[Death~Dealer]

I prefer the AF rule- I think it adds another aspect of strategy to the game.

In many cases it gives hope to the player commanding inferior armor formations.

The nice thing about it is that it can be turned on or off as desired by players. :soap: