(06-12-2021, 01:15 AM)Jeff Conner Wrote: I don't think there is an answer to your question. John Tiller determined the mechanics and wrote the code to support it. I don't think it was his intention to make armor invincible, but I don't know that for sure. When this issue was brought forward, the only effort to correct it was the addition of the chance for immobilization in covered terrain. John spent much of his time working on his Air Force projects and once the games were developed, coding changes were infrequent. Other changes that were asked for were multi-elevation buildings and modifiers for flanking assaults. Both would have added to the game, but the biggest issue was the one being discussed.
Jeff
Thanks, Jeff. That's a surprise, I didn't know the Immobilization penalty was a later addition.
On the one hand, the fact that the change was intended to alleviate the issue of tank invulnerability but didn't directly address it makes me lean towards the "deliberate design decision" option.
But then, the manual does include a section titled "Hard Vehicle Morale Check" which applies to infantry assaulting Hard vehicles. Knowing that an infantry assault on a Hard vehicle will have no effect (other than a minimal loss of effectiveness), essentially making it a suicide mission, I can't think of many situations where this rule would be relevant. Of course I may be wrong.
Yet another inconsistency pulling me towards the "bug" side is that even when a vehicle with an Armor value of 24 is considered by the game to be a "hard vehicle" under stock parameters (we know that's the case because Anti-tank mines will immobilize it instead of destroying it) it will take assault losses normally, unlike its higher armored (>24) siblings.
Multi-elevation buildings and flanking mechanics sound more like nice features that would require a more substantial rework of the game system, so I can see how those could be deemed lower priority.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}