WW2 Artillery vs. Armor

[Elxaime]

There has been discussion in a number of threads about whether the game system is overly harsh or just right concerning the effect of indirect fire on armored vehicles. One of the main changes, for example, of Volcano Man's McNamara database was to drastically reduce the armor-killing power of indirect fire.

My own opinion is that the stock system, which gives medium and heavy artillery a decent chance to not only disrupt, but knock out, tanks is fine. This is based on two things: 1) readings of history, which seem to indicate from WW2 battle reports that enemy artillery fire was regarded as having tank-killing potential; 2) the broad numbers of factors that can go into rendering an armored vehicle no longer combat-worthy.

It seems to me that even a near-miss, for example, can impact on the mechanical systems of these vehicles. A direct hit by a 105mm HE round on a medium tank like a PzKwIII should by no means be considered trivial. This is not to mention the impact on the crew inside. We need to remember that WW2 tanks were developed only thirty or so years after the automobile itself had been invented.

WW2 tanks already seem somewhat overrated in their portrayal in PzC, namely how often you see players driving masses of tanks unsupported through built-up urban areas, bocage, forests, etc. There was an excellent post on the Wargamer forums awhile back on the Tiger 2, pointing out how captured models revealed the inferior materials it was made of and the propensity it had to break-down even in clear unobstructed terrain.

So my vote is that the current values are fine, and if any tweaking should be done it would be on armor/infantry coordination in covered terrain.

Have the designers ever opined on this? I would also be interested in hearing their views on the values they chose for the stock combat systems.

Also, does anyone have information on actual tests run during or after on the vehicles themselves?

[Huib Versloot]

I don't even know the reasoning behind the original stock arty values. I do know that in real life it was very difficult to lay down succesful arty on armor concentrations and yes sometimes a massive arty concentration would break up an armored attack. In the game it is very easy to do so.
I'm very much in favor of Volcano Man's values since he has backed them up with research while the stock ratings have mysterious reasoning behind it. If we knew on "what" the stock values were based, it may be easier to compare them.

I also don't agree with your statement that tanks are overpresented in PzC, on the contrary I think they should be more powerful against infantry; forcing the players to make good use of his AT guns..... this is where Volcano Man's more realistic AT gun ratings come into view....punishing those tanks etc.

I don't think one can look at any of the changes Volcano Man made separately, but one has to view the big picture (which I think you haven't done) and compare these results with historical facts.
My conclusion is that VM managed to optimise the PzC system and thus ensuring that it is still interesting to historical purists such as me.

[Volcano Man]

Hello Elxaime,

As Huib said, you must take everything as a whole first and not just one change. You mention players massing tanks usupported to hold built up areas, bocage and forests but this is clearly not possible with the McNamara based db, or else you will end up with a lot of dead armor when infantry assault you in these places.

So the question is, is anyone actually playing the ALT scenarios or are we just doing what we love to do; sharp shooting the numbers?

Armor is still plenty vulnerable. I think the problem is that some people may need to unlearn some ahistorical habits in order to play the ALT scenarios. You cannot rely on massed artillery alone to stop enemy armor but lone armor units are vulnerable to infantry assaults and AT guns, tank destroyers and other armor is an effective counter as well. If anything, armor is stronger in the stock scenario OOB because their high assault values allow them to take and hold objectives where as in the ALT scenarios you need infantry support.

[Al]

I'm all for adjustments that will reward players for using armor as it was historically. From my readings WW2 armor rarely, if ever at the operational level acted alone, without supporting infantry. I think the temptation is to use armor's superior mobility to the max, whether the supporting infantry can keep up or not. That's why motorized/mechanized infantry is such a valuable asset when you have to move far & fast to achieve an objective(s) & coincidentally, a win. Armor hits hard, the mech infantry secures the objective. The challenge of using the units together successfully is what will keep PzC interesting to me for some time to come.

OTOH, I'm not ready condemn the stock scenarios. I'm currently in the middle of one of VM's ALT scenarios (Stalingard '42) & have already noted some operational adjustments I needed to make. But this is my first PBEM foray into the McNamara DB & I don't think it's unreasonable to allow for more time for the general PzC gaming population to see how it works before pronouncement is made on one system over the other.

:soap:

[Elxaime]

I agree it is hard to debate what the values should be when we really don't know why the designers chose to make the stock artillery hard attack values as they are.

And I admit I haven't tried the McNamara DB ALT scenarios yet, so I cannot judge fairly. I encourage people to try them and I will do so as well. VM does incredible work with his alternatives and he may be completely right here.

My initial reaction was based on the fact that, in stock scenarios, with a few exceptions, AT guns are a joke. People knew this and kept them behind the lines digging trenches. This has changed a little with the new AT gun rules. But you still commonly see tanks operating without any infantry support, charging up wooded hillsides, into city streets, etc. against enemy infantry and without any adverse consequences.

So, if the McNamara changes alter that, it could make the difference.

[Rev Rico]

Al said, "From my readings WW2 armor rarely, if ever at the operational level acted alone, without supporting infantry." and a similar point was implied by most others.

I agree, but my question is just because I have a tank unit in PzC does that mean it has no infantry at all in it? Are tanks all that are represented by that unit?

For example, the 280 StuG Bgd in MG44 had it's own infantry complement that worked with the StuGs (as did all StuG Bgds and Tiger Btls TOE-wise). But we don't see these inherent infantry in many of the PzC games.

That makes me wonder if we're imposing too much tactical detail on an abstract operational system
OR
that we need more detail to represent these TOE nuances.

Just another take,
Bob

BTW, another example would include the infantry complement of recon btls.

[Al]

[Rev Rico]

[Volcano Man]

Yes, a tank unit in PzC does indeed represent only tanks but there are a few rare exceptions where recon / armored car units have factored in infantry platoons and such but really, I think that is a wee bit nit picky.

Speaking from a OOB designer's point of view, any armored unit that has an infantry component should have a seperate unit of infantry somewhere in the OOB if the infantry component is company sized or greater. Otherwise it is too small to be useful and is out of the game's scope.

[Volcano Man]

That said... an OOB designer could "factor in" such components but in most cases it is not worth the trouble to add 1 point here and 1 point there when, in the end, you will see no noticable differences.