So I created a little tank battle...

[Nikademus]

Was anyone really expecting Steel panthers type results? Land combat in the game is abstracted to a large degree despite the presence of devices with specific attributes. WiR has a similar setup and the results there tended to 'even out' more times than not in terms of losses (not counting retreat losses) because despite the attack/defense ratings of the individual AFV's, in the end, they go into a combat formula that calculates an overall odds level. I remember there was a big flap about similar type 'tests' for Norm's Operational Art of War.

Does that mean a tank is a tank is a tank in WitP? Lets see.


Two units.....clear terrain hex.

100 JS-III tanks vs 100 Type 89A medium tanks (each exp/morale 70/75)


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/09/45


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 65,26

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1000 troops, 0 guns, 100 vehicles

Defending force 3200 troops, 0 guns, 100 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
127 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 11

Allied ground losses:
34 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 65,26

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 3168 troops, 0 guns, 99 vehicles

Defending force 900 troops, 0 guns, 90 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 6 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
688 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 63


Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Actual losses:

Japan - 57 (+18 more disabled)
USSR - 1 (none disabled)

[tsimmonds]

Damn Jap fanboys! No way the USSR should have lost a JSIII. Yet another example of the designers' bogus biased slant[:'(][;)]

[Nikademus]

1 excited Soviet tank driver stuck his head out to get a view of the action, got decapitated by a Japanese shell, fell back into the tank and leaned against the accelerator.

The driverless tank then drove itself into a ditch....a total loss.

[:'(] [:'(] [:'(] [:'(] [:'(] [:'(]

[tsimmonds]

Damn Jap fanboys....Allied materiel should be invincible! Or at least come back as an Essex class.[;)]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Feinder


Anyway, the odds were surprising. I set them both to deliberate attack.

Japan got 1 to 1 odds.

Then Russia attacked. And got 0 to 1 odds. I couldn't write fast enough for the base and adjusted for the second attack. But I remember that Japan's defense was adjusted up considerably, which is why Russia got 0-1.

<snip>

The japanese unit had very little disruption/morale/fatigue loss however. And Russia had has something like 90 disruption (probably from the 0-1 attack).

-F-

Not really, when you think about it. (puts on his CSI hat)

Note the assault value of the two units if you set up identical outfitted armored units (only with different vehicle devices) The assault value for example in my quick little test was 100 for the 100 x Type 89's and 100 for the Soviet heavies. This nearness in assault value helps explain the combat odds. The device specifics help determine actual disablement/losses but not necessarily the combat odds unless the disperity is extreme (such as with the JS-III test). The better protected AFV's tend to stand up better to damage and inflict more actual damage on the light Japanese AFV's however actual combat resolution may not always match losses in battle. i.e. Tank unit A could "win" the battle and force/rout a retreat but still end up losing more AFV's doing so vs. Tank unit 'B'

However even when preforming such artifical tests (just afv's fighting) there are still other variables at work besides the disablement/destruction. whatever the weapon being used, a result of 0-1 (modified) means a failed attack and that will result in a high dose of disruption. An attacker which scores 1:1 or better in the modified odds 'technically' has succeeded in it's attack (irregardless of it's losses) and will suffer minor disruption.

Disruption and fatigue remain the most important factors. 100 T-34's heavily disrupted will preform poorly even against lightly protected tanks.

In a way the test shows how much more thought has to go into one's attack/defense strategy. I reset up my little test, this time using less extreme examples and put 100 Sherman V's into the Sov unit.

This time i opted to have the Sov unit defend to avoid the risk of a disrupted attack failing causing major add'l disruption which would set up the unit for a retreat next turn.

Japanese unit attack turn 1: 1:1 odds. "a successful" attack but only a local one, no retreat. No serious disruption but actual tank losses heavy in doing so.

Russian unit after turn 1. Since it didn't also attack, but only defended that round it's disruption was also low on a par with the Japanese unit. No Shermans were destroyed or disabled.

Repeat attack turn 2. Japan again carves out a local victory 1:1 modified odds but loses another batch of tanks.

Russian unit Turn 2. again...low disruption and more substantially.... NO lost or disabled Shermans.

Turn 3. Russia opts to attack while Japan opts to defend.

Here is the result:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/11/45


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 65,26

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 4260 troops, 0 guns, 198 vehicles

Defending force 2700 troops, 0 guns, 170 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
264 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 21

Allied ground losses:
37 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 4


This time Russian attack succeeds locally but doesn't force a retreat....but again it's tank losses are miniscule compared to the more vulnerable Japanese unit.

status after 3 turns: (disabled)operational

Japan
(42)40 Type 89A
(2)98 Motorized support

Russia
(3)97 Sherman V
(1)99 Motorized support

Japan lost 18 Type 89A's outright (total loss) with 42 more knocked out. (but recoverable since no retreat yet)
Russia lost 0 tanks in terms of total loss but suffered 3 tanks knocked out or disabled (also recoverable)

So what does this mean?

A tank is most certainly not a tank is most certainly not a tank in this game.....

but....

neither is a tank a Get out of Jail free card either. Your own strategy + terrain + exp + leadership etc etc can override the stats of your tank and mean the difference between a failed (0-1) and a successful attack(1-1 or higher)

and of course a forced retreat will result in additional losses that will tip the balance. Being made to retreat should be costly. In tank terms as one poster already mentioned, they can abstractly represent abandoned vehicles left behind to the enemy.