Hvy Walkers vs Hvy Armor

[solops]

Which do you prefer? Why and what do you use each for? Discussion....

[newageofpower]

Right now you can't efficiently use large numbers of Heavy Walkers because they currently don't have OOBs, while pure armor OOBs are some of the strongest offensive formations in game.

Most Postures do not affect Heavy Walkers, or even only have a negative effect.

Furthermore, Heavy Tanks can mount 300mm armor which significantly mitigates Heavy Guided RPGs, requiring large Vehicles or Nuke RPG to overmatch. Meanwhile, Heavy Walkers mount 200mm maximal armor, so are still very vulnerable to Heavy Guided RPGs.

They have better (-massively- better with the optimizations) attack/defense stats and are great for Mountain/Jungle/City combat, but until we get a pure Walker OOB they're not going to outright replace armor.

[zgrssd]

Let us see, Walkers when compared to tanks:
- "Due to their high stature they are excellent tank killers. Hard Attack Value gets +50% and Hard Defence Value gets +25%"
- they only carry much weaker armor and weapons. Note however that this maters less for energy weapons - Laser counts as 100mm/Level, Plasma as 200mm/Level
- suffer terrain penalties around infantry or halfway between infanty and vehicles
- gets automatic entrenchment and max entrenchment about half of the infantry

Basically Walkers are a step between Infantry and Tanks. For most terrain*:
- get the AP cost, combat modifier and entrenchment for Infantry and Vehicles.
- use either the better one of halfway between the two

*Noticeably Marshes are not kind to Walkers

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Let us see, Walkers when compared to tanks:
- "Due to their high stature they are excellent tank killers. Hard Attack Value gets +50% and Hard Defence Value gets +25%"
- they only carry much weaker armor and weapons. Note however that this maters less for energy weapons - Laser counts as 100mm/Level, Plasma as 200mm/Level
- suffer terrain penalties around infantry or halfway between infanty and vehicles
- gets automatic entrenchment and max entrenchment about half of the infantry

Basically Walkers are a step between Infantry and Tanks. For most terrain*:
- get the AP cost, combat modifier and entrenchment for Infantry and Vehicles.
- use either the better one of halfway between the two

*Noticeably Marshes are not kind to Walkers

IMO they should not be better at defense compared to tanks. Since they are higher from the ground they are also easier targets.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Let us see, Walkers when compared to tanks:
- "Due to their high stature they are excellent tank killers. Hard Attack Value gets +50% and Hard Defence Value gets +25%"
- they only carry much weaker armor and weapons. Note however that this maters less for energy weapons - Laser counts as 100mm/Level, Plasma as 200mm/Level
- suffer terrain penalties around infantry or halfway between infanty and vehicles
- gets automatic entrenchment and max entrenchment about half of the infantry

Basically Walkers are a step between Infantry and Tanks. For most terrain*:
- get the AP cost, combat modifier and entrenchment for Infantry and Vehicles.
- use either the better one of halfway between the two

*Noticeably Marshes are not kind to Walkers

IMO they should not be better at defense compared to tanks. Since they are higher from the ground they are also easier targets.

Keep in mind that HP is about not dying to enemy fire.
Soft/Hard Defense is about killing enemies when being the guy defending a Hex. Stuff like the ability to lie in Ambush/avalible defensive positions.

Even during a defense of a Hex, a MG will be ocassionally used for a counterattack. However most of the time, it is placed in a defensive position to kill infantry that walk into it's line of fire. Which is why it's soft defense damage is 4 times soft attack.

The best way to make a Tank into a defensive weapon include:
- do not put the gun onto a tank chassis to begin with
- dig in the tank, literally to the turret
- move the turret over to a bunker

[Sieppo]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

Let us see, Walkers when compared to tanks:
- "Due to their high stature they are excellent tank killers. Hard Attack Value gets +50% and Hard Defence Value gets +25%"
- they only carry much weaker armor and weapons. Note however that this maters less for energy weapons - Laser counts as 100mm/Level, Plasma as 200mm/Level
- suffer terrain penalties around infantry or halfway between infanty and vehicles
- gets automatic entrenchment and max entrenchment about half of the infantry

Basically Walkers are a step between Infantry and Tanks. For most terrain*:
- get the AP cost, combat modifier and entrenchment for Infantry and Vehicles.
- use either the better one of halfway between the two

*Noticeably Marshes are not kind to Walkers

IMO they should not be better at defense compared to tanks. Since they are higher from the ground they are also easier targets.

Keep in mind that HP is about not dying to enemy fire.
Soft/Hard Defense is about killing enemies when being the guy defending a Hex. Stuff like the ability to lie in Ambush/avalible defensive positions.

Even during a defense of a Hex, a MG will be ocassionally used for a counterattack. However most of the time, it is placed in a defensive position to kill infantry that walk into it's line of fire. Which is why it's soft defense damage is 4 times soft attack.

The best way to make a Tank into a defensive weapon include:
- do not put the gun onto a tank chassis to begin with
- dig in the tank, literally to the turret
- move the turret over to a bunker

So you use different rules for them? For a tank its good to be in cover but a walker not?

[Sieppo]

Also to add, I think people do not realize how fragile walkers can be (because we have never seen them in use). One small hit into a leg and the hydraulics, the walker falls over and is basically useless. Or just becomes a very fragile and high standing target.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Sieppo

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

ORIGINAL: Sieppo




IMO they should not be better at defense compared to tanks. Since they are higher from the ground they are also easier targets.

Keep in mind that HP is about not dying to enemy fire.
Soft/Hard Defense is about killing enemies when being the guy defending a Hex. Stuff like the ability to lie in Ambush/avalible defensive positions.

Even during a defense of a Hex, a MG will be ocassionally used for a counterattack. However most of the time, it is placed in a defensive position to kill infantry that walk into it's line of fire. Which is why it's soft defense damage is 4 times soft attack.

The best way to make a Tank into a defensive weapon include:
- do not put the gun onto a tank chassis to begin with
- dig in the tank, literally to the turret
- move the turret over to a bunker

So you use different rules for them? For a tank its good to be in cover but a walker not?

No.
And I have no idea how you can to that conclusion?

It is just a whole lot harder for a tank to take cover, move between cover or make cover then for a human soldiers.

[DeltaV112]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
The best way to make a Tank into a defensive weapon include:
- do not put the gun onto a tank chassis to begin with
- dig in the tank, literally to the turret
- move the turret over to a bunker

No, not really. Tanks in general perform quite well on the operational defense, by virtue of being able to reposition quickly to cut off lines of advance and to avoid being pinned down(similarly being immune to small arms and most artillery is a huge help). Finding cover or concealment is not hard for a tank- plenty of buildings or terrain variation can be exploited, and again mobility plays a big role in letting a tank pick whatever cover is best against the incoming threat.

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
No.
And I have no idea how you can to that conclusion?

It is just a whole lot harder for a tank to take cover, move between cover or make cover then for a human soldiers.

If infantry had the sort of mobility and protection tanks do, you'd be right, but alas they do not. Infantry therefore have serious limits on the types of cover they can exploit. Tanks have their own of course, but real life isn't a video game where we need to make things fair.

[BlueTemplar]

But then, in *this* video game you can *almost* replicate Starship Trooper's Mobile Infantry armed with Micro-Nukes and (Jetpacks or Powered Armor) !

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

But then, in *this* video game you can *almost* replicate Starship Trooper's Mobile Infantry armed with Micro-Nukes and (Jetpacks or Powered Armor) !

But you can make nuclear RPG's in the game, wich is pretty close to what they used to close bugholes.

[Uemon]

Versus AI heavy walkers are useless in 99% of situations. Just stick with normal ones.

I personally stop making tanks completely once i get walkers, tanks just seem completely obsolete. If i encounter strong AIs with good armor i make some heavy walkers here and there, but i find that walkers work just fine in vast majority of cases. So whats the point of making tanks?

[Uemon]

ORIGINAL: newageofpower

Right now you can't efficiently use large numbers of Heavy Walkers because they currently don't have OOBs, while pure armor OOBs are some of the strongest offensive formations in game.

Most Postures do not affect Heavy Walkers, or even only have a negative effect.

Furthermore, Heavy Tanks can mount 300mm armor which significantly mitigates Heavy Guided RPGs, requiring large Vehicles or Nuke RPG to overmatch. Meanwhile, Heavy Walkers mount 200mm maximal armor, so are still very vulnerable to Heavy Guided RPGs.

They have better (-massively- better with the optimizations) attack/defense stats and are great for Mountain/Jungle/City combat, but until we get a pure Walker OOB they're not going to outright replace armor.

They have better (-massively- better with the optimizations) attack/defense stats and are great for Mountain/Jungle/City combat, but until we get a pure Walker OOB they're not going to outright replace armor.

How does fuel use compare? (heavy walkers vs heavy armor)

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Uemon

ORIGINAL: newageofpower

Right now you can't efficiently use large numbers of Heavy Walkers because they currently don't have OOBs, while pure armor OOBs are some of the strongest offensive formations in game.

Most Postures do not affect Heavy Walkers, or even only have a negative effect.

Furthermore, Heavy Tanks can mount 300mm armor which significantly mitigates Heavy Guided RPGs, requiring large Vehicles or Nuke RPG to overmatch. Meanwhile, Heavy Walkers mount 200mm maximal armor, so are still very vulnerable to Heavy Guided RPGs.

They have better (-massively- better with the optimizations) attack/defense stats and are great for Mountain/Jungle/City combat, but until we get a pure Walker OOB they're not going to outright replace armor.

They have better (-massively- better with the optimizations) attack/defense stats and are great for Mountain/Jungle/City combat, but until we get a pure Walker OOB they're not going to outright replace armor.

How does fuel use compare? (heavy walkers vs heavy armor)

I am trying to get some data on how fuel consumption is calculated. Currently it appears that the primary factor is total weight. The engine itself has a surprisingly low impact on total fuel consumption.

And in weight the Walker should have a advantage, with the lighter armor and weaponry.