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

[Hawk Kriegsman]

"This is where you are incorrect. It is not a combat results table. It is not based on the odds of attack verses defense. It is a staight 4% chance." -Hawk

Hawk,
I am totally flummoxed by this statement...

Yes I can see that you are flummoxed based on your responses.

I have basically said you get the same roll regardless.

Not exactly. You have made incorrect statements IMHO in which it appears that you are lumping an indirect fire attack on armor (which is reduced when the indirect fire is unspotted) and Random Armor Disablement which has a slight percentage chance of disabling armor when indirect fire hits any hex containing armor.

It is two seperate rules that you are appear to be combining.

You tell me I am incorrect, because it is a staight (sic) 4% chance. :conf:

Yes you are incorrect and I agree with your smilie icon that you appear to be confused.

Essentially, you are saying my assertion is incorrect because there is no difference between whether armor is spotted or not because the % chance to hit is the same...which was my point!

No that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that Indirect Fire Verses Amor and Random Armor Disablement are two different concepts resolved in two different ways.

Your points did not address these seperate items. You lumped all indirect fire verses armor into a series of incorrect statements.

I have to give up on you here Hawk.

That is your choice.

Obviously, you don't see my point, which is fine.

Yes I did see your point, I understood your point and I pointed out the incorrectness of your point. I would like to point out that it appears you did not understand my points.

However, arguing with counter-intuitive logic is a waste of time.

I could not agree more on arguing with people who don't understand the game engine, don't read posts and misquote as being a waste of time.

It has a certain school-yard feel to it, which doesn't have much appeal in an intellectual debate.

A thinly veiled attempt to question my intelligence? You understand that personal attacks are against the posting rules correct?

I only post on this forum to make the point...and I seem to be losing sight of it, so let me re-form and clarify... Most who have weighed in, don't agree, but that is part of what this is about...I'm good with that. It is the nature of this form of dialogue, or at least that was my impression.

Yes everyone is posting and debating without issue. I am unsure of what you are trying to say here.

1) I like the new indirect table and greater percentage chance to disable armor. It adds a nuance to the game that forces you to protect armor against indirect that you did not have to previously.

Again it is not a new indirect fire table. Per Jason P. the fire tables have not changed.

The Random Armor Disablement percentage changed from 2% to 4%.

2) The only aspect of this I dislike, because it lacks a certain "realistic" feel to me, is that indirect by map (which I do realize is an optional rule) hitting unspotted armor has the same general effect as spotted armor. It should NOT, but I leave that to the designers at Matrix to decide fully.
and, relative to that...

Again no you are incorrect. Indirect fire by map is reduced verses all target types.

Random Armor Disablement is something totally different.

3) the caliber of indirect has no basic impact on the likelihood of result on armor. High caliber has no add nor does low caliber subtract. This also feels less than realistic to me.

Incorrect. Larger calibur guns with their higher attack factor do have a greater affect on armor then smaller calibur guns.

Here's a little experiment you can do. Create a sceanrio. Open ground nothing fancy. Put some PZIV's on it. Give the Allies some off board artillery say 16inch naval guns and 81mm mortars. Fire the naval guns at one PZIVH platoon and the 81mm mortars at the other.

You will find the 16 inch naval guns will give you more results than the 81mm mortars.

Regardless, I continue to play this game, as it is the best game engine available for wargame simulation on a tactical/strategic level.

Total agreement here!

Frankly, due to this change, I indirect by map more, especially if I believe advancing armor is located in the general vicinity of where I am dropping said "load". I rarely did this before, as I did not deem it to be as effective (except when as Von Krieg put it..."loaded in a truck could get results"). Now it appears to be over-effective. It changes how I play in this regard, as I see it as enhancing my likelihood of success.

Good gaming to you!

Hawk