Tank losses

[governato]

In designing a scenario I am trying to increase the tank/AFV losses due to infantry (flamethrowers, mines, explosives,
falling into a ditch, engine exploding, acts of God etc etc ) Is decreasing the DF (not the `DF value', I am aware of the difference) in the editor the way to go? Or does the engine override the value in the editor and just uses DF=5+armor/10 formula as mentioned by Bob Cross in one of his posts?

Any other suggestions?

[Lobster]

A vehicle reliability setting is something that people have asked for before. I would wager the Second Coming will happen first.

As for combat losses, maybe you could increase the AT value of infantry, etc. As for mines, I don't think the game has any. It should but I have never seen any mention of them.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

A vehicle reliability setting is something that people have asked for before. I would wager the Second Coming will happen first.

As for combat losses, maybe you could increase the AT value of infantry, etc. As for mines, I don't think the game has any. It should but I have never seen any mention of them.

Large minefields can be 'simulated' by the contermination hex; but they can't be cleared of course.

Klink, Oberst

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

A vehicle reliability setting is something that people have asked for before. I would wager the Second Coming will happen first.

As for combat losses, maybe you could increase the AT value of infantry, etc. As for mines, I don't think the game has any. It should but I have never seen any mention of them.

Altering the DF figure 'd achieve something close to that, IF that is possible by the engine. Has anybody tried? I am likely going to set up
a little test scenario to try it.

...where is Bob Cross when you need him

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: governato


In designing a scenario I am trying to increase the tank/AFV losses due to infantry (flamethrowers, mines, explosives,
falling into a ditch, engine exploding, acts of God etc etc ) Is decreasing the DF (not the `DF value', I am aware of the difference) in the editor the way to go? Or does the engine override the value in the editor and just uses DF=5+armor/10 formula as mentioned by Bob Cross in one of his posts?

You're decreasing the "DF" but not the "DF value"? I'm not sure what that means.

Regardless, the DF for armored equipment is set by the 5+armor/10 formula found in my "How to edit the equipment database" article in the Manuals folder. So the armor value sets the DF for armored equipment. The DF value on the BioED page 1 determines the equipment's weight, not any strength.

Any other suggestions?

Increase the infantry AT values. That's what I do in late war scenarios for front-line infantry that should have close assault ability.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: governato

ORIGINAL: Lobster

A vehicle reliability setting is something that people have asked for before. I would wager the Second Coming will happen first.

As for combat losses, maybe you could increase the AT value of infantry, etc. As for mines, I don't think the game has any. It should but I have never seen any mention of them.

Altering the DF figure 'd achieve something close to that, IF that is possible by the engine. Has anybody tried? I am likely going to set up
a little test scenario to try it.

...where is Bob Cross when you need him

Looking at the formula that Norm provided in the manual's appendix (19.2.1), I don't see any effect of DF in tank losses. That doesn't mean that there isn't any, just that good ol' Norm didn't mention any. It appears to be entirely a matter of Attacker AT vs Defender Armor. But I've never done rigorous tests.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Lobster

A vehicle reliability setting is something that people have asked for before. I would wager the Second Coming will happen first.

As for combat losses, maybe you could increase the AT value of infantry, etc. As for mines, I don't think the game has any. It should but I have never seen any mention of them.

Large minefields can be 'simulated' by the contermination hex; but they can't be cleared of course.

Klink, Oberst

Actually, as far as I can tell, contamination hexes don't cause losses. Their effect is entirely a movement penalty. And, they expire randomly.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Lobster

A vehicle reliability setting is something that people have asked for before. I would wager the Second Coming will happen first.

As for combat losses, maybe you could increase the AT value of infantry, etc. As for mines, I don't think the game has any. It should but I have never seen any mention of them.

Large minefields can be 'simulated' by the contermination hex; but they can't be cleared of course.

Klink, Oberst

Actually, as far as I can tell, contamination hexes don't cause losses. Their effect is entirely a movement penalty. And, they expire randomly.

I think they also reduce readiness each turn you are in a contaminated hex. I gave this very brief consideration and at first glance someone might think this is the way to go but then when you consider the scale, the defender would be in the contaminated hex. What is the purpose of a minefield?

1. Deny ground
2. Funnel enemy
3. Fix them in place
4. Disrupt

Now you have to figure a way to model this in the game. Good luck with that.

[Oberst_Klink]

[/quote]

I think they also reduce readiness each turn you are in a contaminated hex. I gave this very brief consideration and at first glance someone might think this is the way to go but then when you consider the scale, the defender would be in the contaminated hex. What is the purpose of a minefield?

1. Deny ground
2. Funnel enemy
3. Fix them in place
4. Disrupt

Now you have to figure a way to model this in the game. Good luck with that.
[/quote]
Indeed the purpose(s) of large minefields; at Gazala only the 'box strong-points' were surrounded by mines. At El Alamein there was no option to 'swing South' due to the Quattara Depression; hence frontal attacks were the only option 1st for Rommel and later on in October 42 for the 8th Army.

There is a .PNG file where the contamination symbol was replaced with a symbolized death-head minefield one.

Recommended reading(s):
http://www.merriam-press.com/thecompara ... warii.aspx
https://ospreypublishing.com/world-war- ... nk-tactics
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/26/on-a ... n-the-eto/

Klink, Oberst

[ogar]

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

A vehicle reliability setting is something that people have asked for before. I would wager the Second Coming will happen first.

As for combat losses, maybe you could increase the AT value of infantry, etc. As for mines, I don't think the game has any. It should but I have never seen any mention of them.



Altering the DF figure 'd achieve something close to that, IF that is possible by the engine. Has anybody tried? I am likely going to set up
a little test scenario to try it.

...where is Bob Cross when you need him



Looking at the formula that Norm provided in the manual's appendix (19.2.1), I don't see any effect of DF in tank losses. That doesn't mean that there isn't any, just that good ol' Norm didn't mention any. It appears to be entirely a matter of Attacker AT vs Defender Armor. But I've never done rigorous tests.

Getting back to the OP - my limited testing/analysis makes me agree with Curtis. Increase the infantry AT values (and if needed, decrease ALL tank/SU/stug armor values, so the armor vs armor is still balanced). I'd look at the eqp Snefens designed for Operation Neva. There are many, many different infantry types and some have high AT values, others not so much. Just be advised that the Neva .eqp has revised values for most entries in it, and these values are usually higher than in most other scenarios.

@Lobster
Agree with your list of purposes. I've toyed with using marsh/flooded marsh bordered by escarpments, and triggering mine-engineer capable (ferry-bridging teams) units to arrive in the next turn. And that only gets two (maybe, three) out of four on the list.
PITA to do even for small scenario.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: ogar


Getting back to the OP - my limited testing/analysis makes me agree with Curtis. Increase the infantry AT values (and if needed, decrease ALL tank/SU/stug armor values, so the armor vs armor is still balanced). I'd look at the eqp Snefens designed for Operation Neva. There are many, many different infantry types and some have high AT values, others not so much. Just be advised that the Neva .eqp has revised values for most entries in it, and these values are usually higher than in most other scenarios.

Makes sense. What I am seeing is that the Soviet tanks losses are a bit too too low, most likely because the tanks do not 'wear down' as fast as they should.
the `East Front 41-45' scenario has sink units to model tank attrition, and it really helps to get rid of obsolete equipment, but it is not sufficient by itself.
So increasing tank losses due to the ubiquitous infantry is the closest I can get to 'attrition'.


I have set up a little test scenario and will report. I am also toying with the AT capabilities specific of pioneers/engineers/sappers. They have 'kinetic anti-armor' capabilities ON in the stock eqp, but I would imagine that they 'd deal with tanks with mines, hollow charges flamethrowers etc, RPGs, so I will see what happens when its turned OFF.
Variables I plan to test:

- infantry AT values
- AFV armor values
-optics (for Panthers and other late models)
- 'kinetic anti-armor' for engineer squads (or pioneers/sappers in modified eqp values.).


Yes, I agree a vehicle reliability variable 'd be perfect. In fact TOAW has something similar implemented: as units move some equipment is returned to the pool. Implementing a scenario variable where only XX % of this 'broken down' equipment comes back 'd help.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

I think they also reduce readiness each turn you are in a contaminated hex. I gave this very brief consideration and at first glance someone might think this is the way to go but then when you consider the scale, the defender would be in the contaminated hex. What is the purpose of a minefield?

1. Deny ground
2. Funnel enemy
3. Fix them in place
4. Disrupt

Now you have to figure a way to model this in the game. Good luck with that.
[/quote]
Indeed the purpose(s) of large minefields; at Gazala only the 'box strong-points' were surrounded by mines. At El Alamein there was no option to 'swing South' due to the Quattara Depression; hence frontal attacks were the only option 1st for Rommel and later on in October 42 for the 8th Army.

There is a .PNG file where the contamination symbol was replaced with a symbolized death-head minefield one.

Recommended reading(s):
http://www.merriam-press.com/thecompara ... warii.aspx
https://ospreypublishing.com/world-war- ... nk-tactics
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/26/on-a ... n-the-eto/

Klink, Oberst



[/quote]

But simply changing an icon and calling it good does not correctly represent a minefield. In the case of a 5km or greater hex the defender and the minefield have to be in the same hex. Otherwise the minefield would be over represented. That would put the defender in the contaminated hex which would impose unhealthy effects on the defender instead of the attacker. Now, if we were allowed to edit the effects of terrain it would be an entirely different story.

[Oberst_Klink]

I never implied it can model the effects of a mine field. More like a cosmetic solution and maybe our old friend Kapitan Klose can find some lines in the code to
at least model some of the effects

Klink, Oberst

[Grognard]

falling into a ditch, engine exploding, acts of God etc etc

These are not losses due to infantry.... assuming some % level of attrition is turned on - AFV's will go away due to maneuver attrition - how about just reducing on hand inventory and lower replacement priority in the editor. This, at least, would minus a good chunk.

DID fall into a ditch once and threw a track - fixed it on the spot but it was one link shorter than the other side.... darn thing always wanted to turn right after that..... bye bye NASCAR

[Lobster]

Since not every piece of equipment is created equal a way to make one piece less reliable than another is worth the time. In 1941 on the East Front much of the losses in Soviet tanks was due to their old age and lack of reliability. There were times when half of a units tanks broke down on the way to the battle. But it was the older tanks that suffered most. You can't sort that out with pestilence. I see a lot of people posting about how to kinda sorta in a way it almost looks right stuff. They are redoing the game. Why not get it right? Why do people continue to insist on this work around CRAP when it can all be made to work as it should? Very frustrating.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Since not every piece of equipment is created equal a way to make one piece less reliable than another is worth the time. In 1941 on the East Front much of the losses in Soviet tanks was due to their old age and lack of reliability. There were times when half of a units tanks broke down on the way to the battle. But it was the older tanks that suffered most. You can't sort that out with pestilence. I see a lot of people posting about how to kinda sorta in a way it almost looks right stuff. They are redoing the game. Why not get it right? Why do people continue to insist on this work around CRAP when it can all be made to work as it should? Very frustrating.

I agree completely.