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

[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