A few armored car musings and misc. requests

[John Given]

Well, the last several games I played in I have made large numbers of truck kills, and I have come to the conclusion that trucks are swaying the point score more than they should be. I'm convinced that VP's for trucks should be a consistent 2 points each, across the board, to make it easier on the programmers and to help prevent 'truck victories' - games where the final score, once truck kills were factored in, made a victory occur where otherwise a draw or loss would have happened.

That's not a designer issue. That's a poor play issue. I play scenarios with lots of trucks in them. I don't lose them. Keep your trucks safe and their point value is a non-issue.
[/quote]

I agree with Hawk on this one! :thumbs_up:
Just move those trucks to the map edge and get them out of there. :chin:
If you and your opponent agreed not to remove trucks from the battlefield, find a good hiding place and protect them. :smoke:



HSL

Heh, it's not *me* that's losing all the trucks, it's my opponents.

I have noticed a few things about some armored cars (and a few other vehicles) that I thought could be tweaked for the CS, especially EF. I mention this because there seems to be some real inconsistency between the armored values, and in some cases the point values, of some vehicles in game.

Keep in mind that it is not armored values. It is defense value. All units have a defense value. Unit in red are considered hard targets and can only be attacked by another units hard attack factor. This is a important consideration when looking a units defense value. I will address victory point values latter.

I considered this before I posted, but I just wasn't able to tell how much of a defense that

a. size,
b. mobility,
c. an enclosed design (vs. open topped), and
d. armor slope

...was taken into account when determining defensive values. I thought it would be interesting to see what others think. However, I so far am still of the opinion that armor thickness makes up the bulk of an armored vehicle's defensive value. It's interesting pondering this though.

I don't think you mean the PSW 233. That has a 75mm howitzer is open topped and has a max armor of 30mm. It has an armor of 3. Big Grin

Whoops! I'm referring to the PSW 231, not 233, my bad. It's an 8 wheel radial axis armored car with a 4 defense and a 20mm gun. One of the most common units in the game - Since many light TANKS have a defense of 3, I don't feel this vehicle should have a defense of 4, especially considering this vehicle has about 18mm or armor, and many early war light tanks had about 25mm or armor, and were fully tracked to boot. And you make an interesting point - since both the 231 and 233 were based on the same chassis, shouldn't they both have the same defense?

I seem to recall a few months ago, pointing out how the rhino and hummel are basically the same vehicle except for the armament, yet the poor rhino only has a '3' defense, while the Hummel has a '4.'

There's probably a whole slew of vehicles in the CS that have defenses that are inconsistent with their armor thickness, but I mainly posted this because the above vehicles seemed especially out of whack.


I resectfully disagree. I think they designers got the bulk of it correct. The game reflects what should be the majority of the time.

Well, I'll give you this - looking at the stats of the various vehicles so far seems to show inconsistencies with *some* of the lighter vehicles, like the ones I mentioned. The "10mm armor = 1 defense value" thing seems to be a rough rule of thumb with regard to the vehicles. I'm sticking to my guns so to speak on this because it seems to apply to many of the armored vehicles in the game. I can't recall offhand any out-of-whack defense stats of any larger vehicles, otherwise I would have mentioned it.

As far as the truck value points, I'm kinda surprised you guys are defending it so far. It's not a major issue with me, but I do believe the values should be reduced to 2 per vehicle. Nice points however about double capacity and recent scenario design taking the recent changes into account.

Keep the comments coming guys. :)