Armor Effects?

[vmajetic]

I loved the original WiR and I'm now enjoying immensely WiTE. However, one thing that bugs me is the apparent lack of armor effect simulation.

I'm currently playing the Russians, and I seem to have no incentive for putting tank brigades into the front line (other than when nothing else is available [:'(]) because of their lack of CV compared to an INF division at full TOE. I seem to get more punch or defensive value in putting three full strength INF divisions into a hex than say 2 INF divs and one tank brigade.

Does anyone know whether armor effects are simulated in any way?

[jomni]

What armor effect are you talking about in particular? Do you mean how tanks can dominate infantry?  The Germans can do it easily with their Panzer units.
I think it's in the game, individual gun value and armor is considered. It's just that the (early) Soviet Tank Brigade really lacks the punch with just so few T34s and KVs in the TOE. Wait till you are able to combine them into Tank Corps. CV is also misleading. It is a decent general indicator but things can still go the other way. For example, the Soviet Tank Divisions at the start of the war has lots of tanks but most are obsolete. They can have very high CV when in full TOE but will wither away quickly after some battles.

As for tactics, I put 3 INF DIVs in front and 1 Tank Brigade at the rear in Reserve mode for support.

[vmajetic]

The "armor effects" I was referring to is that in a combat the side with armor assets would get a combat multiplier effect if the other side does not have any armor (or AT guns if in defense). This is due to the disruptive effects of tanks against (mostly) pure infantry. I am coming at this from a Europa (the board game) background where armor was much more powerful than its face combat value against opponents with no armor.

The tip for putting a Tank brigade in reserve behind 3 INF divs is a great one, thanks.

[jomni]

I guess that's left for the devs to answer in detail. [:'(]

[amatteucci]

ORIGINAL: Zot

The "armor effects" I was referring to is that in a combat the side with armor assets would get a combat multiplier effect if the other side does not have any armor (or AT guns if in defense). This is due to the disruptive effects of tanks against (mostly) pure infantry. I am coming at this from a Europa (the board game) background where armor was much more powerful than its face combat value against opponents with no armor.

The game engine considers things like armour penetration capabilities of the various weapons so, if you happen to attack an enemy formation that is poorly equipped with AT weapons you'll see that your AFVs will take less losses and inflict more damage to the enemy. Don't judge the effect of a unit olny looking at it's CV. The CV is only an overall ballpark assessment of the unit's strength, it's not actually used in combat resolution.

[ComradeP]

Adding tanks to a battle against infantry with little to no (long range) AT equipment will quickly lead to higher losses for the infantry. It will also lead to less friendly losses, as the battles go from a maximum engagement range to the smallest engagement range, so tanks will get shots in before the infantry can do anything.

[findmeifyoucan]

Europa (board game) yes I remember that game along with "War in Europe" by SPI!

I just bought this game and it looks awesome. Too early to say or judge anything about the game right now as it seems to be a lot more detailed than Europa or War in Europe by comparison.

I will wait till I get into mid 1943 before judging the overall armor effects. As indicated previously most Russian Armor at the beginning of the war was quite weak and obsolete amongst most of what the Russians had in the beginning including their infantry. lol

[FredSanford3]

One of the problems historically with early war armored formations, besides the low quality of tanks, was lack of appreciation of combined arms.  This was true for many nations, not just the Soviet Union.  Tanks are fine in open country, but there's nothing magical about them that gives them an automatic bonus.  It depends on the terrrain and the mix of units on both attack and defense.  A buttoned up tank is damn near blind, and is very vulnerable to close-in infantry.  An attacker can exploit this by simply attacking at night or restricted terrain, thus negating a tank's range and firepower advantage.  Notice that as time goes on, the TOE of everone's armored formations puts less emphasis on raw numbers of tanks, and adds in a mix of infantry, artillery, engineers, etc.  Early war Soviet tank formations have plenty of tanks of varying quality, but suffer from a relative lack of infantry support, and other arms as well. This makes them fairly weak on defense, unless combined with infantry. It's far from just a numbers game.

[PMCN]

It is also worth pointing out a few things. The win-loss thing is largely determined by who doubles and who halves their final CV when the battle is not a one sided slaughter fest. Or in other words the leadership values of the COs in question. Armour has a huge advantage when the enemy can't kill it, and when it can actually shoot (has a good experience). Having hundreds of T26 tanks adds a lot to your CV value but in combat they will be destroyed or disabled by everything from machine guns to anti-tank rifles to actual anti-tank guns. A mixed unit will enjoy benifits in the combat itself, so to see this you need to crank the message level up to 4 and watch the fight.

You will see which tanks are damaged or destroyed by which weapons if you do this. Early war soviets will get most of their tank kills with close assaults by sappers with flame throwers. The game does not prioritize the 45mm AT gun to shoot at enemy tanks it seems. Also you will see the damage done by fighting, before the retreat/route losses hit. Soviet forces will take serious casualties even when they win just because of their relative lack of experience. Even attacking Rumanian infantry divsions with 4:1 numeric odds my actual battle losses were significantly higher then the enemy, only the retreat losses pushed the Rumanian losses higher.

Here are two battles with a mix of units:

Rhzev

German:
12th Pz Div (117)
18th Inf(M) Div (63)
110th Inf Div (94)
III/111 Mnt Hwz Bn (0)
151st & 427 Gun Bn (0)
47th Pioneer Bn (3)
160 bombers
(44K, 495, 77)

Soviet:
250th Rifle Div (200)
31st F.R. (14)
142nd Tank Bde (70)
168th AA Bn (0)
7th Sapper Bn (0)-attached to 31st F.R.
17th Motar Bn (0)-attached to 31st F.R.
7 IL-2 bombers
(12K, 247,54)
Fort level: 5

Result:
Losses German: 1340, 36, 4
Initial CV/Command Mod/Final CV: 221/80%/391

Losses Soviet: 836, 29, 6
Initial CV/Command Mod/Final: 284/100%/242

Odds: 1.6:1 Held Fort Level: 5->3

Near Vyazma
German:
10th Inf(M) Div (111)
6th Inf Div (108)
7th Inf Div (123)
736th Hwz Bn (0)
II/69th Gun Bn (0)
221st Pioneer Bn (3)
0 bombers
(48K, 576, 0)

Soviet:
106th Rifle Div (127)
91st Cav Div (43)
104th Tank Bde (55)
546 Art Rgt RVGK (0)
141st AT Art Rgt(0)
19 Pe-2 bombers
(17K, 209,34)
Fort level: 4

Result:
Losses German: 1405, 26, 0
Initial CV/Command Mod/Final CV: 276/80%/652
Losses Soviet: 3017, 55, 7
Initial CV/Command Mod/Final: 225/100%/182

Odds: 3.5:1 All Soviet Forces Retreat Fort Level: 4->4

What realy determined the win-loss in these cases was the doubling or lack thereof. In the second example virtually every German unit doubled. Also the CV of the Tank Bde exceeded that of a more or less full strength Cav Division and it lost very few of its tanks, likely only its light ones (confirmed it has 21 ready and 2 damaged T34s and 7 ready KV1 after the battle). The doubling can have a dramatic effect as well when the enemy doubles and your side halves. Without the doubling the second battle would have been very close but only 1:8:1 and no retreat for example, the first would likely have been much closer to 1 to 1, as it was they nearly took the city by main force even though they started out at a disadvantage.

So compared to that, armour bonuses are small beer. But still most of the Bde's CV would have been around at the end of the fight which is a net benifit. It is also worth noting I've never seen a unit take 10% casaulties in a battle and not retreat or rout.