Bug or feature? (bis)

[Xerxes77]

Hey folks, you may have seen the recent discussion about the assaulting capabilities of hard vehicles in titles like Red Victory.

In a nutshell, the issue is that "hard" vehicles are invulnerable in assaults, i.e. they cannot be killed. Although not always feasible depending on the scenario, this makes the simple tactic of running tanks up to the nearest infantry cluster and chain-assault them a very profitable one.

First off, I need to point out that I think this is not a Red Victory issue but likely affects all titles in the series. If it's more noticeable in Red Victory it's because the "Vehicle Infantry Value" parameter is set to 20 in the main.pdt, which increases the lethality of assaulting tanks by one order of magnitude over other titles like Advance of the Reich (10), and hence it can yield results more likely to leave a player scratching his head.

Leaving the matter of overall lethality aside, I'm currently working on a general overhaul to the assault system so I wanted to put out this question: 

** How likely is it that this hard vehicle invulnerability is not a bug, but a deliberate —if undocumented— design decision? **

At first I thought of an issue with the calculations (especially after discovering the other issue affecting infantry), but now I wonder-- maybe it's just that medium-heavy vehicles are intended to overrun infantry in the context of a 40-m hex? Vehicles are still very vulnerable to AP fire from one hex away, and yet e.g. Panzerfausts have an Assault Value of 0, so they're useless in an assault.

Another example: a Stuart tank (Armor 30) can steamroll a full 13-strong squad and potentially wipe them out without worrying about taking casualties. Is it maybe because a close assault (< 40m) by a medium tank is SUPPOSSED to be unstoppable and devastating to defending infantry? (note that assaults ignore terrain, so this applies to flatlands and cities. The only difference being that the vehicle has a chance to become immobile in the latter, and is more likely to produce a retreat in the former).

I really would like to know the opinion of more knowledgeable folks, especially from a historical perspective.

[jmlima]

Vehicles can still become immobilized during assaults, particularly in urban terrain. From memory they are not invulnerable, certainly not supposed to be so by design.

[Xerxes77]

Vehicles can still become immobilized during assaults, particularly in urban terrain. From memory they are not invulnerable, certainly not supposed to be so by design.

To clarify, "soft" vehicles (i.e. those with an Armor value less than the Hard Vehicle Value parameter) are still (very) vulnerable. Only "hard" vehicles appear to be invincible. Chance of immobilization based on terrain still affects both types correctly.

If you see a hard vehicle take losses during an assault, I appreciate that you let me know!

[Warhorse]

In my SBWW2 Mod, AoTR origin, they are not invincible, strong, but definitely want to think before doing that!

[Xerxes77]

In my SBWW2 Mod, AoTR origin, they are not invincible, strong, but definitely want to think before doing that!

Hey Mike, not saying you're wrong, just that this can be actually easy to miss if you're not testing specifically for it.

I have launched the mod and tried the "Assault on the Albert" scenario. I simply can't get a kill on those Suoma 35 tanks (Armor 30) after many assaults.

If you can point me in the direction of any other tank-heavy scenario, I'll be happy to do further tests on it. I typically set up my tests using the scenario editor.

[Warhorse]

Try The Hannut, takes awhile to close for combat, but there are multiple tank battalions, was trying to get a team game together for it awhile back. Stonne also has a lot of French tanks, H-39 and Char B.

[Jeff Conner]

I don't think there is an answer to your question. John Tiller determined the mechanics and wrote the code to support it. I don't think it was his intention to make armor invincible, but I don't know that for sure. When this issue was brought forward, the only effort to correct it was the addition of the chance for immobilization in covered terrain. John spent much of his time working on his Air Force projects and once the games were developed, coding changes were infrequent. Other changes that were asked for were multi-elevation buildings and modifiers for flanking assaults. Both would have added to the game, but the biggest issue was the one being discussed.

Jeff

[Xerxes77]

I don't think there is an answer to  your question.  John Tiller determined the mechanics and wrote the code to support it.  I don't think it was his intention to make armor invincible, but I don't know that for sure.  When this issue was brought forward, the only effort to correct it was the addition of the chance for immobilization in covered terrain.  John spent much of his time working on his Air Force projects and once the games were developed, coding changes were infrequent.  Other changes that were asked for were multi-elevation buildings and modifiers for flanking assaults.  Both would have added to the game, but the biggest issue was the one being discussed.

Jeff

Thanks, Jeff. That's a surprise, I didn't know the Immobilization penalty was a later addition.

On the one hand, the fact that the change was intended to alleviate the issue of tank invulnerability but didn't directly address it makes me lean towards the "deliberate design decision" option.

But then, the manual does include a section titled "Hard Vehicle Morale Check" which applies to infantry assaulting Hard vehicles. Knowing that an infantry assault on a Hard vehicle will have no effect (other than a minimal loss of effectiveness), essentially making it a suicide mission, I can't think of many situations where this rule would be relevant. Of course I may be wrong.

Yet another inconsistency pulling me towards the "bug" side is that even when a vehicle with an Armor value of 24 is considered by the game to be a "hard vehicle" under stock parameters (we know that's the case because Anti-tank mines will immobilize it instead of destroying it) it will take assault losses normally, unlike its higher armored (>24) siblings.

Multi-elevation buildings and flanking mechanics sound more like nice features that would require a more substantial rework of the game system, so I can see how those could be deemed lower priority.