Forums

In a recent scenario discussion, someone mentioned they play with armor facing rules off, to negate the advantage German tanks had against allies. Doesn't turning that option off have just the opposite effect?

I was under the impression that playing with armor facing on, the allied player could negate the frontal axis advantage by getting in close as possible and hitting the German tanks from the rear. With it off, they're murder to destroy from any position.

Am I missing something?

This, from the manual:

The Campaign Series Optional Rule for Armor Facing introduces individual front, side, and rear defense values for each armored unit. These values are based on the standard defense values and hard status, weighted by the actual armor thickness of the vehicles themselves. Hence, they do not represent armor thickness per se, but rather the influence of individual armor thickness in conjunction with the game’s existing values.

Dave

(04-05-2011, 05:03 AM)Scud Wrote: [ -> ]In a recent scenario discussion, someone mentioned they play with armor facing rules off, to negate the advantage German tanks had against allies. Doesn't turning that option off have just the opposite effect?

I was under the impression that playing with armor facing on, the allied player could negate the frontal axis advantage by getting in close as possible and hitting the German tanks from the rear. With it off, they're murder to destroy from any position.

Am I missing something?

This, from the manual:

The Campaign Series Optional Rule for Armor Facing introduces individual front, side, and rear defense values for each armored unit. These values are based on the standard defense values and hard status, weighted by the actual armor thickness of the vehicles themselves. Hence, they do not represent armor thickness per se, but rather the influence of individual armor thickness in conjunction with the game’s existing values.

Dave

I tested it for WF a lot. I don't think with AF "off" the tanks overall defense strength is the same as that of the frontal armor when "on". (If it is the ASDN patch would be sufficient to deal with all disadvantages of AF).

To me loss numbers are more realistic with AF "off", as well as tank behaviour. Panthers cannot ignore smaller AT guns, and Shermans have a decent chance to get a kill, but will always be at a realistic disadvantage. Moreover you won't get hilarious high number of kills due to the fact that the tanks suddely show their rear when they retreat.
Conclusion:
1. More realistic combat behaviour.
2. Lower loss numbers.
3. Better ratio of Shermans vs Panthers (even if it sounds a little contradictory to point 2, it isn't)

With the so called "ADSN" patch (I believe it is called) that deals with the silly retreats, it could be worthwhile to do some more tests and see if the loss numbers are better (lower).
I have my doubts and still feel that Armor Facing is only for games like Combat Mission, that portray individual vehicles.

I agree with some there is a certain fun factor involved when you manage to sneak around and hit the tanks in the rear armor, but to me it doesn't weigh up to the disadvantages.

Huib

(04-05-2011, 06:41 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-05-2011, 05:03 AM)Scud Wrote: [ -> ]In a recent scenario discussion, someone mentioned they play with armor facing rules off, to negate the advantage German tanks had against allies. Doesn't turning that option off have just the opposite effect?

I was under the impression that playing with armor facing on, the allied player could negate the frontal axis advantage by getting in close as possible and hitting the German tanks from the rear. With it off, they're murder to destroy from any position.

Am I missing something?

This, from the manual:

The Campaign Series Optional Rule for Armor Facing introduces individual front, side, and rear defense values for each armored unit. These values are based on the standard defense values and hard status, weighted by the actual armor thickness of the vehicles themselves. Hence, they do not represent armor thickness per se, but rather the influence of individual armor thickness in conjunction with the game’s existing values.

Dave

I tested it for WF a lot. I don't think with AF "off" the tanks overall defense strength is the same as that of the frontal armor when "on". (If it is the ASDN patch would be sufficient to deal with all disadvantages of AF).

To me loss numbers are more realistic with AF "off", as well as tank behaviour. Panthers cannot ignore smaller AT guns, and Shermans have a decent chance to get a kill, but will always be at a realistic disadvantage. Moreover you won't get hilarious high number of kills due to the fact that the tanks suddely show their rear when they retreat.
Conclusion:
1. More realistic combat behaviour.
2. Lower loss numbers.
3. Better ratio of Shermans vs Panthers (even if it sounds a little contradictory to point 2, it isn't)

With the so called "ADSN" patch (I believe it is called) that deals with the silly retreats, it could be worthwhile to do some more tests and see if the loss numbers are better (lower).
I have my doubts and still feel that Armor Facing is only for games like Combat Mission, that portray individual vehicles.

I agree with some there is a certain fun factor involved when you manage to sneak around and hit the tanks in the rear armor, but to me it doesn't weigh up to the disadvantages.

Huib

What Huib said!!!!!!!!!!

Hello,

I thought I read somewhere that playing with "AF off" is like assuming the platoon of tanks is in a combat position kinda.Not all pointing in the same direction kind of thing.There is a picture of my Father standing in front of his Staghound and behind him on both sides of the road are shermans as far as you can see.All of them with their butts parked tight against the tree line.To protect the thin armor of the rear I assume.As a column of tanks advance up a road they are all pointed in the same direction and not in a combat postion.In this game our tanks arent always in combat sometimes we advance up a road or keep them parked....Maybe a solution is to give a full tank company's units a strength point of 1 for each individual tank then we could park them anyway we want and still have to watch our butts....Just a thought


Cheers,

Dragoon

Can the game be played with one player having the "ASDN" patch installed while the 2nd does not?

Will it give one player an advantage?

Is it JTCS compatible?

Hello,

I played one game (Not Matrix) where my opponent must have had the ASDN patch...I thought I was seeing things when his tanks retreated then spun around.I have never used it...The only time I seen that happen.

Dragoon

(04-05-2011, 10:03 AM)Big Dawg Wrote: [ -> ]Can the game be played with one player having the "ASDN" patch installed while the 2nd does not?

Will it give one player an advantage?

Is it JTCS compatible?

I read in the manual that the new game uses encyption to make sure everyone was using the same version. I'd like to believe one player couldn't use a patch if the other player didn't have it too, but I don't know if that's true.

(04-05-2011, 06:41 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: [ -> ]...I have my doubts and still feel that Armor Facing is only for games like Combat Mission, that portray individual vehicles.

I agree with some there is a certain fun factor involved when you manage to sneak around and hit the tanks in the rear armor, but to me it doesn't weigh up to the disadvantages.

Huib

Thanks Huib and Earl. I have to admit I played a scenario recently with it off (designer recommendation) and it certainly didn't have any negative impact on the playability of the game. Although fun to get off a rear shot from an ambush position, that doesn't seem to happen all that often against veteren players anyway. So at least I get it now. I thought after all this time I'd completely missed something.

Dave

(04-05-2011, 05:03 AM)Scud Wrote: [ -> ]In a recent scenario discussion, someone mentioned they play with armor facing rules off, to negate the advantage German tanks had against allies. Doesn't turning that option off have just the opposite effect?

Great discussion

I believe you are referring to this thread about A Legend Is Born.

As it happens, I am now playing it as the Allied player, pitting my Shermans against a legion of Panthers and Mk IVs.

My dislike about the AF has to do with the "retreat bug", that totally destroys the option IMO. With Legend, havig a visibility of 2 because of the heavy fog, this is actually much less of a problem, as a retreating tank disappears often into fog.

Arracourt was historically a battle where the 4th AD used their superior tactics and manouveribility (sp?) to kill hordes of enemy armour. This much is obvious based on the books and The Greatest Tank Battles series from TV.

I guess what I am saying is that I used to simply judge AF=on to be "unrealistic" for the sake there's a number of tanks involved, but I have come into conclusion that view is too simplistic as well. There are several occasions where a platoon or similar number of tanks were ambushed from the flanks, for an example. Manouvering around does happeen at platoon level as well.

Especially with the few Hellcats the US player has available he can cause havoc to Nazi panzers, engaging them first with Shermans, and once sure OP is exhausted manovering the Hellcats to flank or rear shots.

At least for that scenario AF on would thus actually make some sense... Although I believe Huib mentioned it is supposed to be played with AF off.

Facing Panthers head on from one to two hex range is a stupid tactic anyway ;)

Having said all this, I do prefer AF=off. Because of the retreat bug.

Edit: I would love to see the ADSN patch in Matrix JTCS. Never seen it with TS version either though.

Edit 2: On another note, unit facing would make a lot of sense on all units as well, doesn't it. Flanking an infantry platoon surely causes them a lot of problems, let alone if you can attack them from their rear :smoke:

(04-05-2011, 06:41 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: [ -> ]Better ratio of Shermans vs Panthers

What do you mean by that? Because Shermans only what could do against Panthers to score a hit was to use manoeuvre tactic. During long distance range duels they didn't had much chance even with additional front armour mounted by crews.

So I don't think reducing Panthers advantage and making them more vulnerable to smaller AT guns (what could do 45mm or even 50mm gun against 110 mm thick sloping armour?) has something with making it more realistic.

(04-05-2011, 05:33 PM)von Manstein Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-05-2011, 06:41 AM)Huib Versloot Wrote: [ -> ]Better ratio of Shermans vs Panthers

What do you mean by that? Because Shermans only what could do against Panthers to score a hit was to use manoeuvre tactic. During long distance range duels they didn't had much chance even with additional front armour mounted by crews.

So I don't think reducing Panthers advantage and making them more vulnerable to smaller AT guns (what could do 45mm or even 50mm gun against 110 mm thick sloping armour?) has something with making it more realistic.

I mean better chance for Shermans to get a kill on a Panther (more in line with historical figures)
I mean that Panthers would back away, also for 6 pounders/ 57 mm and would not dare to rely on frontal armor against AT guns (as CS players do). See battles on Hell's Highway 107th Pz Brig vs 101st AB Div in 1944.

IMO the manoeuvre tactic you mention is NOT represented by playing with AF "on" where is assumed that all tanks have welded turrets and all vehicles in a platoon in a 250 x250 metre area face the same direction. Rather it is better represented in the abstract way of a dice roll and an overall defesive value when played with AF "off".