Some questions for Volcano Man

[Volcano Man]

Elxaime,

Thanks for your points, but I think you might be over thinking the issue. These are definately valid, but the scale and size of unit is irrelevant. What I mean is, I only used CS values as a "spectrum" per se. I took one constant, set in stone value, (the PzC 88mm FLAK gun that was finally decided on after years of adjustments) and then looked at the same rating in the CS database. From that I came up with a ratio that I could apply, through different formulas, for the "spectrum" based around that PzC number. So basically, I only used the CS series as a sort of guage to measure the distances between each value, from say a King Tiger to a Sherman or a Pz III vs. a T34.

So the mechanics of either system (or the differences there of) play no real factor in it as I didnt just simply take the values from CS and plug it in because it wouldn't be relevant. Also, most of the values (defense and hard and soft attacks) remained the same. Since this is true then it was the first clue to me that the data was narrowing in and refining and not creating a whole new animal.

As far as the artillery, much of the artillery remained the same as it was before. There are only a few exceptions where some artillery went higher or lower in soft attack strength and most of these had to do with increases in SA strength of rocket artillery. But, as you say, most of the change was in the hard attack factors. Again, I merely used the "spectrum" approach, averaging out the firepower of the CS value along its entire range and then taking that average and comparing it to a known PzC value. The result is, any way you cut it, WW2 artillery was not very effective vs armor. I recognize that everyone has grown accustomed to what I have called "the indirect anti-tank guns", but there resided one of the issues some had with the system. Artillery could be used on just about anything you saw, be it tank or man, and the effect was usually just as effective. However, taking the spectrum approach, the difference in effectiveness of the SA vs the HA in WW2 artillery it was almost 10 or 15:1 in difference. That is not to say that ALL artillery is not effective against armored units, just that they are not as effective as before. Of course this is all relevant to the target type. If you are talking about lighter tanks, scout cars and halftracks then artillery is still effective against them.

Truth be told, it is only during the modern times (1980's) that artillery became truely effective against armored units (with DPICM type munitions).

In regards to lower armored TDs and scout cars... I think (from testing) that the result will instead be a more realistic use of such assets instead of the traditional use of them right now (the front line units that they are used for). Have you played any of the modern campaigns with the BRDMs? These lightly armored vehicles stand no real chance on the modern battlefield if you constantly leave them on the front line, taking fire, so you have to use them for the intentional purpose; to move about using recon spotting, or to move and bump into an enemy (or take fire from unspotted enemies) and then move to the rear. They should NOT be used like we are used to using them, regardless of the mechanics of the system. As for the TD's, the lighter armored ones are purely standoff weapons. The light armored ones (Marders, M18s etc) are intended to be somewhat of a "self propelled anti-tank gun". Their strength is in their range and mobility. That is not to say that ALL opened topped TDs have low armor, in my database the M36 is opened topped but has a defense of 20. So opened topped only really plays a role in its assault factor (vulnerability) where as the defense factor is related to its armor and defense. So it doesnt quite matter if the scale is different... at least in my rationale behind the changes.

Now I admit (and I mentioned this in the other post) that a lot of habits would have to change, but I think it promotes more realistic behavior. But your points are definately valid... lets see how it turns out.