Armor Facing Effect?

[Dragoon]

It would be so nice if the turret turned towards the enemy and not the tank unit itself and still have the armor facing rules,,Even nicer if the tank units had reverse.

One can only dream


Dragoon

[Von Earlmann]

Ah!!! the annual armor facing rule debate.............the halftracks are sure to be close behind :-)

[Smedley]

It sure is a good thing that halftracks don't have turrets! That would be some debate!!! :-)

[The Rattler]

playing against a human opponent brings this game to the fore and agree with some that A/Facing affects are better on for tactical gameplay. personally i like to set op fire and this of course dosent always work due to an enemy not being spotted on movement and not firing or sometimes hitting a halftrack thats travelling alongside in same hex instead of the real threat of a tank. to componsate i will set individual op fire for units....some on/some off...some for hard targets some for soft etc. I believe this does give my opponent some challenge and makes for an enjoyable game which is what its all about win or lose. sometimes it works just dandy and others not. hope you all are around for a long time to come as have enjoyed my experience here greatly. thanks.

[Don Fox]

<<Don't forget, tanks really do have relatively thin side and rear armor, so where's the problem?>>

The problem (if you can call it that) is that the game isn't a vehicle level simulation. In the space of any particular six minute turn, within any given hex, the presumption is (or should be) that a lot is happening, in terms of movement and fire.

IMO, the overall defensive strength reflects the relative strength of the AFV unit. The armor facing rule ends up reflecting very unrealistic tactics (and results). Huib said it best... it makes the simulation "gamey".

Playgni with armor facing on certainly introduces another set of tactics for game-play, and is fun in its own right. I don't condemn the use of it, for those who enjoy it. But if your interest in playing includes maintainin as much simulation quality as possbile, then my recommendation is to play with it "off".

[Jason Petho]

Although I have an infinite amount of respect for both Don and Huib, I have to disagree.

My preference is to use the Armour Facing Effect rule.

The primary reasons for this are:

1. Like John, I believe that the general facing of the platoon is being represented. Those familiar with World War II armoured warfare understand the concepts of typical platoon formations such as "Line", "Column", "Double Column" and "Wedge". Although the turrets may all be facing different directions to cover their allocated Field of Fire, the platoon is still facing a general direction.

While I agree, a lot is happening in a six minute turn in regards to moving and firing, I believe there is more often order than chaos.


2. I tend to play East Front II a lot, and more of the early war scenarios than anything. As we all know, early infantry for Germany and the Soviets has little effect on most armour, unless you can ambush them and attack from the side or rear. Even the light tanks will use the front armour strength (their base defence value) if not using Armour Facing Effects - virtually nullifying any chance of success.

A brilliant example of this would be try playing D. Bevards "Zhukov Strikes at Yelnia" as the Germans against a human opponent first with the Armour Facing Effects off and then with the Armour Facing Effect on.


3. Speaking of ambushing, I am a huge fan of it and use it as often as I can when playing larger scenarios. Hiding an anti-tank gun with a machinegun in a position that will give a side or rear shot against armoured vehicles generally brings more joy than not against impatient opponents.


4. I would argue that using Armour Facing Effects provides a more realistic simulation, tactics wise.

Leaving ones armour in a position where it can be fired upon and then retreat into a hex that is still in LOS of ones opponent could be regarded as poor tactics. Is this always possible to avoid? No, of course not, but can be minimalized by using the terrain to the best of ones ability.

With the inherent weaker armour in the rear and sides of vehicles, it teaches the players how to use manuever (flanking, surrounding) to overcome obstacles. The T-34, KV-1 and KV-2 come to mind.

As noted by John above, one would tend to be more cautious with their armour as they realize they have weaknesses in themselves. Unsupported armoured assaults tend to be rarer.


Anyway, my two bits.

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho

[Huib Versloot]

Even the light tanks will use the front armour strength (their base defence value) if not using Armour Facing Effects - virtually nullifying any chance of success.

As far as I know the base defense value is lower than the frontal defense value with the option on. (13 and 21 in case of a Panther)

One of the many things I have against AF is that in case of Panthers, the player can make them invulnerable to 57mm guns just by facing them frontally over a long period of time, a risk no real tanker would take and would be very hard to do in reality if there were several 57mm guns spread somewhere 250 meters in front. In a game with the AF rule on, this is only "balanced" out by the very gamey/ silly retreats showing the rear, which again have nothing to do with reality.
The dances (or tactics) towards the sides and rears to the enemy tanks, and other tricks to make the enemy change their facing have little to do IMO with a simulation of wartime tactics. It looks particularly funny if you just played a individual vehicle based game such as CM, where Armor Facing actually works flawlessly, including retreating vehicles. Never seen one turn around and retreat 250 meters there...

I think we'll contnue to disagree on this subject.... halftracks on the other hand ....

Huib

[Jason Petho]

Even the light tanks will use the front armour strength (their base defence value) if not using Armour Facing Effects - virtually nullifying any chance of success.

As far as I know the base defense value is lower than the frontal defense value with the option on. (13 and 21 in case of a Panther)

You missed my notation of light tanks. :)

It begins to vary with the T-34 M40 and M41 with a defensive value of 10 and a frontal armour of 11, side and rear being 6.

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho

[Jason Petho]

It looks particularly funny if you just played a individual vehicle based game such as CM, where Armor Facing actually works flawlessly, including retreating vehicles. Never seen one turn around and retreat 250 meters there...

On the same token, have you ever seen a whole platoon reverse 250 metres when retreating?

Take care and good luck
Jason Petho

[Von Earlmann]

Bottom line is this a platoon level game and with the game engine as is armor facing is not really a good option.I must agree with Don and Huib on this one it does nothing to enhance game play and actually leads to unrealistic tactics.(darn theres that R word again)......not only that in large scenarios it wastes my time spinning things around and I don't have that much time to play to begin with........but it's like taxes..no body really wants them but were stuck with them anyway :-)