Destruction or Disruption?

[simovitch]

I'm curious to know whether the "random armor disable" 5% probability applies to each armoured unit in a hex, such that a hex with 5 armored platoons gets checked 5 times when bombarded? I believe this is the case.

If so then it now really makes sense to disperse your tanks. Although I'm still tempted to move the entire company (20+/- tanks) as a single group (thats about 1 tank spaced every 50m), the odds are that 1 of those 20 tanks (5% or 1/20) will become disabled if hit by artillery IF.

Also the lighter armor can still be killed conventionally by indirect fire, and if a hex contains 5 platoons, that's 5 seperate attacks on the hex in addition to the random armor disable.

Just to establish my own humble opinion on this, kills by IF mortars and any HE<100mm should not occur at all in this game.

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

I'm curious to know whether the "random armor disable" 5% probability applies to each armoured unit in a hex, such that a hex with 5 armored platoons gets checked 5 times when bombarded? I believe this is the case.

If so then it now really makes sense to disperse your tanks. Although I'm still tempted to move the entire company (20+/- tanks) as a single group (thats about 1 tank spaced every 50m), the odds are that 1 of those 20 tanks (5% or 1/20) will become disabled if hit by artillery IF.

Also the lighter armor can still be killed conventionally by indirect fire, and if a hex contains 5 platoons, that's 5 seperate attacks on the hex in addition to the random armor disable.

Just to establish my own humble opinion on this, kills by IF mortars and any HE<100mm should not occur at all in this game.

Good question! If 5 armored platoons are in a single hex, do they each get affected individually with that 5%? How about if there is just one armored unit in a hex, does that whole 5% jump go all against that one armored unit?
Even further...are all armored units considered as "equal" when artillery hits that hex? Meaning does a Mark III tank get the same armor consideration as a King Tiger tank?? [&:]

I'm not sure about the effectiveness of 150 vs 105MM artillery. I had heard that the 105 was actually more destructive/effective than the 150 for certain applications. But I could be wrong. So many times guys are saying "I heard this" or "I read that", that we can't be sure. Certainly naval artillery of the 11 inch and larger size would be devestating against anything. But what about 5 inch naval guns on destroyers? And nobody has talked about Field Guns, which are different from medium range howitzers. Is the US 155MM Long Tom even in the game? It's probably not something you would run into as on-map artillery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/155_mm_Long_Tom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M40_Gun_Motor_Carriage

[1925frank]

If I understand this correctly, if I take a 60 mm mortar and direct fire it at a tank, we use the normal combat tables, and the odds of my disrupting, much less destroying, a tank would be very remote, but if I take the same 60 mm mortar and drop indirect rounds on the same tank, I've a 5 percent chance of destroying a tank?&nbsp;
&nbsp;
Even 81 mm mortars would have only minimal chances of disrupting, much less distroying, a tank by direct fire.&nbsp; You can see the hard target values, and for most mortar and artillery pieces, they are minimal.&nbsp; With direct fire, factors such terrain and elevation also play a role.&nbsp; For indirect fire, it seems to be a flat 4 or 5 percent, regardless of the artillery or mortar being used&nbsp;and regardless of the armoured strength&nbsp;of the target.&nbsp; If this is true, I would agree with Deputy that something seems amiss.
&nbsp;
I think at some point Matrix will tinker with this issue, but it may be a while off.
&nbsp;
Regarding whether indirect artillery works differently for the human player than for the AI, others have made the same complaint, but I don't know from experience.&nbsp; It seems to occur only in Dynamic Campaign games from what I read.&nbsp;

[TAIL GUNNER]

There's also that little algorithm for targeted hexes with greater than 12SPs to take more damage due to unit density.

Deputy, when you lose so many tanks to arty fire, generally how many are in the hex?

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

There's also that little algorithm for targeted hexes with greater than 12SPs to take more damage due to unit density.

Deputy, when you lose so many tanks to arty fire, generally how many are in the hex?

It varies. I generally keep 3-4 platoons in a hex to start out with. When I get closer to the objective hex, and usually before I encounter enemy fire, I reduce it to two platoons per hex max. I am aware of the density issue [;)] But even with just two or one tank platoons in a hex, the damage is staggering. And to lose a Tiger tank to a 60 MM mortar REALLY hurts bad [:(] If I don't get any replacements, which happens more often that not, arty damage to already reduced power units is terrible. After 5 turns I have whole platoons of tanks with "0" for strength.
Even more upsetting is to lose tanks to indirect arty fire that isn't even targeted to the hex it drops in.

[TAIL GUNNER]

Well I gotta see it to believe it...[:o]


Which DCG are you playing?
I'll give it a spin tonight...

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Juggalo

Well I gotta see it to believe it...[:o]


Which DCG are you playing?
I'll give it a spin tonight...

Actually, I am back to 1.02b. In 1.04 beta I was playing a late war East Front DCG with a Tiger tank Battalion. Can't remember the name of it offhand. I have no campaign currently in progress. I removed 1.04 beta after most of my tank command was obliterated by both hidden anti-tank guns and anti-tank artillery.

[steelrain60]

Can we please close this thread out? It's getting repetitive.

You don't like 1.04 because of hidden a-t guns and the higher percentage of tanks killed by arty and 1.02 is the s***; thanks, got it.

Move on!

BTW, I don't know why anyone would continue to play DCGs; definitely my least favorite format. And frankly, the AI ceased being a challenge for me back in '98 when I first got the game. Predictable fire patterns, predictable movements and - worst of all - unable to think strategically enough to mass troops for coordinated attacks.

Chacun a son gout, I guess.

[marcbarker]

Well Steel we are not you....I enjoy the DCG's it is more comprehensive then you know....did you know you can edit the Random maps and and add to the foray to give a better flair of true random...also you can get more historical in Unit composition by adding or deleting some syntax&nbsp; for units for example you can say give a regiment horse trans in 44, trucks in 42 mis in 43 etc..assign escort company's etc...in the game and you can even transfer units that are embedded in a division etc...so don't say it is redundundant...what about the almighty single shot scenario that you already know what forces are there, etc...tweek the ammo, added a variable etc...that is one shot, for one instance, in a dcg you can add that flavor to the total scope...that is what is fun....how many times can you assault a bridge and the outcome is already known....i have played a ton of 1 shots....same with LCG's...there is a finitie number of battles....DCG's aren't

[Deputy]

Geez...seven posts on this forum and you are already trying to call the shots. [8|]
If you don't like the thread, just leave. Nobody is aiming an anti-tank mortar at your head and forcing you to read it!!!

[marcbarker]

i just think you get better game play from DCG's....add foriegn units to the core div and bam NATO...lol

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

Geez...seven posts on this forum and you are already trying to call the shots. [8|]

200 posts of repetitions of the same point is any better?

Jason Petho

[marcbarker]

sounds familiar with the favored ones anyhow...I respect and admire him for he said his opinion...Kudos to him...some people don't post their opinions or voice any concern.....they just won't buy or upgrade with no rhyme or reason....