Anti-armor hit chance

[damezzi]

I was going through the manual (once again) when I first paid attention to the table listing the chances for anti-armor fire to hit the target. It is based on visibility and I had some difficulty to understand it's logic.
Based on the table, primitive systems have better chances to hit with poor visibility, so that in forest or heavy rain hexes chances would be greater than in open terrain hexes. This will be inverted with more sophisticated equipment (targeting ++++). Since it seems weird that targeting with poor visibility would be more precise, I think it has something to do with evasive maneuvers being more probable when enemy is seen. If someone knows the reason...

[noxious]

I think the logic is that primitive systems have dumb missiles while more modern ones use IR, etc to target. Those latter systems missiles are way more affected by bad visibility than a dumb missile, which doesn't care about smoke on its way to the target, etc. You aim,you fire, take your chance.
The advanced ones need to be able to "see" the target all the way in.
Or so the logic goes, or something like it.
If I understood correctly
HTH

[damezzi]

That's ok, but still, what causes primitive systems to be more precise with bad weather or bad visibility terrain (forest, urban) than with good visibility (open terrain)? That is what the table shows.

[rhinobones]

Wonder if this might be a case where the shooter can get closer to the target due to the bad weather and/or visibility conditions. Just a guess at Norm’s Air Force logic.

Regards, RhinoBones

[el cid]

I agree with Rhinobones.

In the city, in the forest, when you shoot you are probably closer to the target when you shoot, and the target is probably moving slower.

If you ever played Close Combat you are better off trying to destroy tanks in forest and in cities than in the open.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: el cid

I agree with Rhinobones.

In the city, in the forest, when you shoot you are probably closer to the target when you shoot, and the target is probably moving slower.

If you ever played Close Combat you are better off trying to destroy tanks in forest and in cities than in the open.

Good old Close Combat.

[damezzi]

Well, that's a simple and good explanation, thanks.

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: damezzi

I was going through the manual (once again) when I first paid attention to the table listing the chances for anti-armor fire to hit the target. It is based on visibility and I had some difficulty to understand it's logic.
Based on the table, primitive systems have better chances to hit with poor visibility, so that in forest or heavy rain hexes chances would be greater than in open terrain hexes. This will be inverted with more sophisticated equipment (targeting ++++). Since it seems weird that targeting with poor visibility would be more precise, I think it has something to do with evasive maneuvers being more probable when enemy is seen. If someone knows the reason...

It was made to make a difference between World War II wepoans and modern weapons. Norm knew that WW2 scenarios will be played more but he also added to TOAW modern battle logic all under one engine (since TOAW COW).