The Competition & Teaser Thread

[Nitram Draw]

I don't have a problem with how this is handled in these games. A kill doesn't necessarily mean destroyed, unless of course it is the last strength point. It can just mean disabled, knocking out a tread, causing the vehicle to become stuck, etc.

True, and the greater the scale, the less of a problem it becomes as you can see it as a form of abstraction of the examples you mention.

However, on a lower scale closer to representing tactical battles, it can be problematic.

Examples: in a tactical level wargame, a tank is using a low hill as cover and only its turret is visible. The majority of the tank can't be seen or hit by direct fire. Assuming the enemy vehicle has enough elevation on the gun to be able to hit the turret of the enemy tank, it will have to pierce the front turret armour which is often one of the most well protected parts of the armour. Some weapons that might be able to pierce the side armour of a tank can't inflict any damage in this situation, because the side isn't exposed.

In a more operational level simulation, even if the game has a sort of bonus for being hulldown or in a position as described above, it tends to be a modifier to defensive strength. As it's a numerical value placed against another numerical value, the possibility of knocking out the tank is generally there due to variation in the outcome. There might also be various modifiers that influence the firepower of a certain weapon system, such as quality improving damage.

In a tactical level wargame, infantry gets physical protection from bunkers or from being in buildings. The bunkers or buildings themselves will stop many or most hits from low to medium calibre weapons.

In a more operational level wargame, infantry might get a defensive strength bonus, but won't actually be invulnerable to certain hits, so for example weapons that have high soft attack and reasonable hard attack values but low accuracy like rocket- or projectile launchers can still be quite lethal, even though normally they wouldn't be. Game example: Infantry in concrete or thick brickwork buildings, or cellars, would be nearly impossible to hit with a Katyusha salvo but urban terrain in PzC gives a numerical defensive bonus, which only reduces effectiveness.

There's also the problem of IGOUGO when simulating more or less tactical battles using a more operational system: if units can get 3 opportunity fire chances per turn, it's possible to draw fire at a certain range and then simply move up and hit the unit without it being able to defend itself. In a tactical wargame, the unit will keep firing back as the distance closes until ammunition runs out (if the target is spotted and can be hit).

I'm actually sort of afraid of that at the 250m scale: the Soviets driving some weak low value units in front of the German tanks to draw their fire a couple of times and then moving the T-34's in to kill the helpless German armour.

Yes on a tactical scale where you are keeping track of disabled vehicle vs. destroyed vehicle it does become a problem.

But the fact is the big cats were beaten somehow. They were not invincible. There were about 1,700 Tigers of both type produced and ~7,000 Panthers of all types so the Allies figured some way to counter them. Unless the game takes into account ALL the ways they were countered, either running out of fuel, mechanical breakdown, air power, rear shots, assaults, IED's or just plain luck, then it is hard to be totally accurate in a game. I wouldn't want to play a game where the biggest reason I lost my Panthers was due to a bad drive train or running out of diesel so if occasionally one get's off'ed by a Sherman on a front shot from 1000 yards I just can rationalize it as flawed metal or the winning the lottery shot!