A few armored car musings and misc. requests

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I lean John's way.
Here are specs, video, and pics:

carden loyd carrier

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdo...arrier.asp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtyKlb9bSPE

http://www.google.com/search?q=loyd+carr...44&bih=666

Bren Carrier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Carrier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiE7i9GiWo4

http://www.google.com/search?q=bren+carr...44&bih=666

But, I also agree with Hawk, is it really that important in the long run, if it takes too much to upgrade?
If it is an easy fix to bring it into parity then it should be done?



HSL

[Hawk Kriegsman]

So the Llyod Carrier and Bren Carrier are very similar.

You win John. Make it defense 2 (in red of course) like a Bren Carrier.

Thanx!

Hawk

[John Given]

So the Llyod Carrier and Bren Carrier are very similar.

You win John. Make it defense 2 (in red of course) like a Bren Carrier.

Thanx!

Hawk

Loved the youtube video HSL, This *is* turning into an interesting discussion!

Based on the armor thickness of the "Lloyd plate" and the fully tracked nature of the design, I was thinking either a 'soft' defense of '3' or a 'hard' defense of '1,' Hawk.

I thought I should include this link as well to add yet more info on what Lloyd carriers were all about:

LLoyd carriers at Wikipedia

The earlier point that seems to have been more-or-less lost in this flurry of posts is that we need to have some kind of consensus as to how defensive values are determined. If no one likes my "10mm = 1 defense value etc." rules, then we need to come up with something so that we have have some defense value consistency across the board. I believe it would be great for our game. Then, we can use actual historical data to figure out a reasonable defense rating for every single vehicle in the game with a minimum of research.

As I said in my first post, most of the defense values for actual tanks seem to be accurate (using my own 'formula'), so finding out-of-whack defense values for the remaining units in the game would not be a herculean task.

Almost forgot. It might be fun to have both types of defense for Lloyd's in the OOB, one (soft defense '3') to reflect a Lloyd without the armor plates attached, the other (hard defense '1') to reflect a Lloyd with the supplemental armor installed. Just a thought.

Comments?

[Herr Straße Laufer]

It might be fun to have both types of defense for Lloyd's in the OOB, one (soft defense '3') to reflect a Lloyd without the armor plates attached, the other (hard defense '1') to reflect a Lloyd with the supplemental armor installed. Just a thought.

Comments?

We do have variants of other units, why not the Loyd? :chin:
In a perfect world, with unlimited time, I am sure it would be nice to have it added. But, I would not make it a priority for any upgrade, where it would delay said upgrade. ;)



HSL

[Hawk Kriegsman]

This game has worked just fine for 15 years.

John, you just cannot use your formula. There are too many other factors built into a units defense factor. Armor thicknes is just one component. What you are proposing has already been done by the original designers of the game. Also by Matix when they rereleased the the game.

The defensive values are very good. Perfect no. But there are no glaring errors that require attention.

As I have stated before. The game gives you accurate results the vast majority of the time.

I am sorry, but I have not seen anything that you offer that makes me say yes this needs to be done. Also I don't see any sort of clamoring by the CS community.

Thanx!

Hawk

[John Given]

This game has worked just fine for 15 years.

John, you just cannot use your formula. There are too many other factors built into a units defense factor. Armor thicknes is just one component. What you are proposing has already been done by the original designers of the game. Also by Matix when they rereleased the the game.

The defensive values are very good. Perfect no. But there are no glaring errors that require attention.

As I have stated before. The game gives you accurate results the vast majority of the time.

I am sorry, but I have not seen anything that you offer that makes me say yes this needs to be done. Also I don't see any sort of clamoring by the CS community.

Thanx!

Hawk

You misunderstand me Hawk; I'm not in any kind of hurry for a 'defensive value vehicle rule,' nor am I saying anyone should abide by my ideas or that such is mandatory. I just thought that an easily explained system based on common sense (by somebody) would be a convenient way of ferreting out units with defensive values that were out of whack. Like I said earlier, the vast majority of units in the game seem to have accurate values that are consistent with factors such as armor thickness.

But I do concur that it's not like this needs to be done soon, maybe not ever, but I feel (rather strongly) that some light vehicles in the game need to have their defensive values tweaked - based, if nothing else, on common sense. Example; there's no way an essentially unarmored BA-20 'armored car' (only the turret was armored, and even then just barely) should have a 'hard' defense value of '3,' when many fully tracked, fully enclosed light tanks with substantial armor (up to 30mm) have the same defense value.

Thanks for the comments and suggestions everyone!

[Herr Straße Laufer]

This game has worked just fine for 15 years.

John, you just cannot use your formula. There are too many other factors built into a units defense factor. Armor thicknes is just one component. What you are proposing has already been done by the original designers of the game. Also by Matix when they rereleased the the game.

The defensive values are very good. Perfect no. But there are no glaring errors that require attention.

As I have stated before. The game gives you accurate results the vast majority of the time.

I am sorry, but I have not seen anything that you offer that makes me say yes this needs to be done. Also I don't see any sort of clamoring by the CS community.

Thanx!

Hawk

You misunderstand me Hawk; I'm not in any kind of hurry for a 'defensive value vehicle rule,' nor am I saying anyone should abide by my ideas or that such is mandatory. I just thought that an easily explained system based on common sense (by somebody) would be a convenient way of ferreting out units with defensive values that were out of whack. Like I said earlier, the vast majority of units in the game seem to have accurate values that are consistent with factors such as armor thickness.

But I do concur that it's not like this needs to be done soon, maybe not ever, but I feel (rather strongly) that some light vehicles in the game need to have their defensive values tweaked - based, if nothing else, on common sense. Example; there's no way an essentially unarmored BA-20 'armored car' (only the turret was armored, and even then just barely) should have a 'hard' defense value of '3,' when many fully tracked, fully enclosed light tanks with substantial armor (up to 30mm) have the same defense value.

Thanks for the comments and suggestions everyone!

Besides the simple armor thickness, IIRC, the original designers used a formula that took slope, size, speed, quality of the steel, etc. into account.
I am sure that if one were around they could explain it better.

I guess the biggest problem is how to balance between "can it be hit" and "what happens when you do hit it"?

Does the game have to have the level of detail, in every area, that explains every thing?



HSL

[Hawk Kriegsman]

You misunderstand me Hawk; I'm not in any kind of hurry for a 'defensive value vehicle rule,' nor am I saying anyone should abide by my ideas or that such is mandatory.

No I do not misunderstand you. Nor did I think that you were saying that people should abide by your ideas. You are expressing ideas and I am expressing ideas. Nothing more or less.

I just thought that an easily explained system based on common sense (by somebody) would be a convenient way of ferreting out units with defensive values that were out of whack. Like I said earlier, the vast majority of units in the game seem to have accurate values that are consistent with factors such as armor thickness.

You may never be able to get that explaination. Also there is nothing easy about it. There are so many unique factors (ie. the giant engine air intake grille on the left side of the Char B1, the poor quality steel used in the IS tank series, the PZ III F having a weak spot in the turret ring, the unbreakable rubber filled wheels of the BA20,........etc, etc, etc) that there is no easy formula that can be slapped in place.

But I do concur that it's not like this needs to be done soon, maybe not ever,

Common ground!

but I feel (rather strongly) that some light vehicles in the game need to have their defensive values tweaked - based, if nothing else, on common sense.

On this we do not agree.

Example; there's no way an essentially unarmored BA-20 'armored car' (only the turret was armored, and even then just barely) should have a 'hard' defense value of '3,' when many fully tracked, fully enclosed light tanks with substantial armor (up to 30mm) have the same defense value

This is false. I encourage you to read up on the BA20. The BA20 was fully armored (agreed thinly) steel structure welded onto a civilian car chassis. It has reinforced axles and specially designed unbreakble tires. It was better than a truck. Is it a hard defnse 3? Maybe, maybe not. What I do know is they die like flies in CS. If you lower them to 2, they will die like flies. Net game effect....none.

What light tank has 30mm of armor and only has a 3 defense factor?

Thanks for the comments and suggestions everyone!

Agreed 100%

Thanx!

Erik

[John Given]

You may never be able to get that explaination. Also there is nothing easy about it. There are so many unique factors (ie. the giant engine air intake grille on the left side of the Char B1, the poor quality steel used in the IS tank series, the PZ III F having a weak spot in the turret ring, the unbreakable rubber filled wheels of the BA20,........etc, etc, etc) that there is no easy formula that can be slapped in place.

While I think it would be really cool to have a system that would account for these things, I agree it would not ever happen, as it's out of scope of the game engine. But can you imagine a game engine that did take into account the giant air scoop on the left side of a Char B1 by lowering the defense value of that vehicle when shot from that side for example? But that's not what I'm advocating.

What I am advocating is some consistency in the defense values in the vehicles used in the CS (this horse I'm beating looks pretty much dead by now). I cannot be more clear on this - there are some vehicles in the game that have too high a defense factor for the armor listed.

And, there are also vehicles that are "under" armored, having a defense that is TOO LOW considering the historically accurate armor value. The Marder series comes to mind; the Marder III in particular. It had about 50mm of armor on the front, yet it only has a defense of TWO in game?? I seem to recall I mentioned this to Jason a while back though - he seemed open to revisiting the defense factor of this family of vehicles for the next patch. (and Marder II's had about 35mm of armor).

This is false. I encourage you to read up on the BA20. The BA20 was fully armored (agreed thinly) steel structure welded onto a civilian car chassis. It has reinforced axles and specially designed unbreakble tires. It was better than a truck.

I stand corrected on this one Hawk; the in-game description of the vehicle differs, quite a bit in fact, from the info I've been finding on this machine on the web. In reality, this machine is largely the same as the BA-10 in terms of speed, armor, hell, a lot of things. Pretty much the same vehicle. But in game, the two vehicles have different icons and very different pictures.

I will also concur that the speed of a vehicle seems to have something to do with its defense, but I can't pin down to what extent.

What light tank has 30mm of armor and only has a 3 defense factor?

a. The British A-13 and A-13CS tanks have a defense of 3, and 30mm of armor, for starters. However, I have not checked the entire CS light tank oob roster for all the various nations and time periods for WF / EF / RS (too much work).

Here's a few runners up that I did spot 'on the fly' though;

b. French AMD35 Armored Car, defense 3, 26mm of armor.

c. French FT-17 tank, defense 3, 22mm of armor (and it's sooo slow)

Yet, many of the light armored vehicles in the game with a defense of 3 have barely 10mm of armor max, and often less. Something is wrong here!

...lower them to 2, they will die like flies. Net game effect....none.

No, we disagree. Indeed, that's the whole *point* of this thread Hawk. If we're going to play a tactical simulation game, then we might as well have defensive armor values that are consistent with one another.

I certainly understand your point - you think that minor changes to defensive value for the sake of realism won't make a difference. We'll just have to agree to disagree, as I think they'll make a big difference in the performance and survivability of light armor.

To all you trollers viewing the thread, I sure would like your input on this!

[Kool Kat]

And, there are also vehicles that are "under" armored, having a defense that is TOO LOW considering the historically accurate armor value. The Marder series comes to mind; the Marder III in particular. It had about 50mm of armor on the front, yet it only has a defense of TWO in game?? I seem to recall I mentioned this to Jason a while back though - he seemed open to revisiting the defense factor of this family of vehicles for the next patch. (and Marder II's had about 35mm of armor).

John:

I understand your desire to have a consistent and uniform method of assigning defensive strength to units based primarily on armor thickness... but in reality it can't be done? :chin:

Let's look at your Marder III example. The Marder was a variant design based on the Czech-supplied 38(t) chassis. In EF, the Aufkl 38(t) has a 5 defense.

Historically, the Marder III had the following armor thickness:

Front: Superstructure = 10mm / Hull = 20mm / Gun shield = 6mm
Side: Superstructure = 10mm / Hull = 15mm / Gun shield = 10mm
Rear: Superstructure = 10mm / Hull = 10mm / Gun shield = 10mm

So... adding up the front armor, you get a value of 36mm (highest value possible)... not sure how you arrived at 50mm for the Marder III? But even that is an abstraction since a shell fired at the front end of a Marder would hit either the superstructure (10mm) or hull (20mm)... not "both" simultaneously? In most cases, because of the high silhouette of the vehicle, most shells would hit either the very thin armored superstructure (10mm) or gun shield (6mm) - very thin armor indeed.

Also, since the Marder III had weak side / rear armor + an open top and only a partially closed rear compartment... a shell striking either the side or rear armor (or for that matter... an air burst near the open crew compartment... would prove lethal for this AFV.

So, I see nothing "wrong" with assigning a defense value of 2 for this self-propelled anti-tank gun.

Again, there are numerous factors that go into generating an overall defense number for CS AFVs... some of these factors are armor thickness, but one must also understand both the vehicle characteristics and how it was deployed / utilized on the various battlefronts.