A few armored car musings and misc. requests

[John Given]

Thanks for the comments, kool Kat!

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.

Yes! You're basically saying that there are factors going beyond simple armor thickness that must be taken into account - I agree completely. Well, what are they? And how much of an effect do they have on defense? That's exactly what I was getting at before - the difference of opinion seems to be whether it is possible to use some kind of 'rating' system or some other method to determine how vehicle defense is shown for armored vehicles in the game. I think it can be done, in part because I'm an old veteran of tabletop wargames and roleplaying games - rules systems which can involve THOUSANDS of pages of data to fully explain the game rules (anyone here ever play Star Fleet Battles?), but again, I'm not advocating high complexity, just a generic system to help us figure out what a vehicle's defense should be.

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?

My apologies Kool Kat - I have checked several other sites regarding the armor thickness of the Marder Series, and it looks like I may have been looking at an entry that listed the thickness in inches (") for a few armor entries, and thought it was in millimeters - and knowing me, immediately thought "ah, that explains why its defense in Panzerblitz is a '5!' So you got me on that one - double checking is a good thing. And thanks again for catching that.

However, I'm having trouble believing that this machine is as fragile as a halftrack (but HT's are smaller and faster?). In Panzerblitz, the Panther tank had a defense of '13' and the Marder '5.' Yet in this game, the Panther retains its '13' rating, while the Marder defense was lowered to a '2' which, according to my home-grown system, (10mm of armor = 1 defense, + 1 if fully tracked & fully enclosed) the JTCS rating is actually more accurate. Interesting to think about and ponder Imo.

Perhaps this all comes down to a difference of opinion - it is just a game - but I suppose what I'm struggling with is, what are all the parameters used to determine the defense factor of our armored vehicles? I cannot believe we would just leave things up in the air, at the whim of some random designer, for want of an actual system used to determine such values.

Perhaps I should add to / modify my system a bit;

in addition to "10mm of armor = 1 defense, + 1 if fully tracked & fully enclosed"

a. -1 to defense if classified as 'high silhouette' (ex. Marder Series)
b. +1 if classified as a 'fast vehicle' (ex. M3 halftrack)
c. +2 if classified as a 'very fast' vehicle (ex. Psw 231 armored car)
d. +2 if vehicle has 'sloped' armor (ex. panther, t-34/76)
e. +3 if vehicle has 'extremely well sloped' armor (ex. Hetzer, JgpzV)

I'm just musing / thinking out loud at this point guys - the above is an example of how simplistic a formula for determining defensive values for our favorite game would look like, that's all.

This is giving me a headache though... :bang:

[Kool Kat]

Yes! You're basically saying that there are factors going beyond simple armor thickness that must be taken into account - I agree completely. Well, what are they? And how much of an effect do they have on defense?

Only the original developers can answer that question? :chin:

However, I'm having trouble believing that this machine is as fragile as a halftrack (but HT's are smaller and faster?). In Panzerblitz, the Panther tank had a defense of '13' and the Marder '5.' Yet in this game, the Panther retains its '13' rating, while the Marder defense was lowered to a '2' which, according to my home-grown system, (10mm of armor = 1 defense, + 1 if fully tracked & fully enclosed) the JTCS rating is actually more accurate. Interesting to think about and ponder Imo.

"The entire Marder series suffered from a rather high profile, making them vulnerable, and their crews were not effectively protected against anything heavier than small-arms fire. All vehicles were open at the top and carried canvas covers for protection from weather during rest and transport."

"Due to weight and space constraints of these small chassis, Marder series were not fully armored. Weak armor protection was provided only for the front and sides. All Marder series had open tops. Some were issued with canvas tops to protect the crew from the elements."

Again, every armor resource that I have referenced has similar quotes as the above ones... so again I have no difficulty with the Marder being assigned a 2 defense.

Perhaps this all comes down to a difference of opinion - it is just a game - but I suppose what I'm struggling with is, what are all the parameters used to determine the defense factor of our armored vehicles? I cannot believe we would just leave things up in the air, at the whim of some random designer, for want of an actual system used to determine such values.

Bottom line - Either an original developer or someone in the know over at Matrix needs to weigh in on this thread and post the formula / method / system (whatever?) was (and is?) being utilized to generate unit combat factors (including defense factors)... or we can just keep "guessing" :whis:

I think that "dead horse" is starting to stink? :eek1:

[Glint]

I can understand where you are coming from John.
I remember the days of tabletop gaming, long before the
computer technology.
I read many rule booklets and, the main calculation with the dice rolls was, -
a die roll for chance of a hit, a die roll for the hit spot, (i.e, turret, side/rear/front armour, a die roll for chance of penetration based on 'firing gun barrel' against defensive armour factor. Whether the target was moving or stationary, etc., etc.
When I came across CS many years ago I thought, wow! No more stacking all the units and tables away and, all the calculations calculated in a second, lol!
I must admit, I thought the game was based on these sort of calculations myself.
Indeed, some rule books were what NATO used in their battle planning for the 'cold war'.
I agree with KK, (for once, lol ;-) ) that it would be good for some input from the designers to elaborate on this.
An interesting thread, John !

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Perhaps this all comes down to a difference of opinion - it is just a game -

I think that's all that is happening here. Discusion with differing view points.

but I suppose what I'm struggling with is, what are all the parameters used to determine the defense factor of our armored vehicles?

Unless an original designer steps up. We may never know. I looked in my Talonsoft EF, EFII, WF and RS manuals and there are no desiner notes. :hissy:

I cannot believe we would just leave things up in the air, at the whim of some random designer, for want of an actual system used to determine such values.

They did not do this. I do not see that they left anything up in the air in this regard (difference of opinion) and I see it well though out and consistent. Unfortunately you don't, and that is not a bad thing at all. Thoughtful questioning makes people think. :chin:

I'm just musing / thinking out loud at this point guys - the above is an example of how simplistic a formula for determining defensive values for our favorite game would look like, that's all.

While thinking / musing is good, I do not believe there is (or was) a simple formula at all. Vehicles are too unique and dessigners / playtesters to opinionated (admit it..we have all questioned unit values in any and all wargames) for a simple system.

This is giving me a headache though... :bang:

I would not go that far myself. I have enjoyed it.

Thanx!

Hawk