| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject: AI Values
|
 |
|
Proposed baselines (feel free to modify to conform to AV range boxes)
75/L24 (0-3) 8/ (4-8) 7/ (9-10) 6
M4A1 Sherman (0-2) 9/ (3-5) 8/ (6-10) 7
105mm (0-4) 9/ (5-10) 8/ (11-20) 7
-1 to Cover Rolls vs soldiers
150mm (0-4) 10/ (5-10) 9/ (11-20) 8
-1 to Cover Rolls vs soldiers
All attacks with range 11+ must have a spotter and are resolved as Indirect Fire.
Am I on the right track?
_________________
 |
|
 Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:03 am |
|
|
Posts: 885
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Looks good. |
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:10 am |
|
|
Posts: 9281
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
At short range, tanks typically use their MGs. HE ammo is used against static positions, such as entrenched MGs and of course against Anti-Tank Guns. Most tanks, such as M4A1 Sherman and Stug, had no more than 12 HE rounds and they couldn't spend them against infantry unless in exceptional situations. When a tank entered an enemy town it would usually work its MGs.
Would you consider having two Anti-Soldier values (like the two Anti-air values of aircraft)? One Vs. Soldier-Infantry and one Vs. Soldier-Artillery, with the latter including Anti-tanks, Anti-air, entrenched MGs and other practically stationary units?
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:16 am |
|
|
Posts: 89
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Why the difference between a Panzer IV and a Sherman? They both fired a 75mm HE shell, with almost equal explosive filler, and both had coaxial and hull-mounted MGs, so even if you combine main gun and MG's into a single AI stat they should be the same AI-wise.
BTW the hull mounted MG could only fire forward obviously, so if you combine it into the main attack stats, it should only apply when attacking a target in front of the tank.
In gun-armed tanks, the MG's were mainly meant for close-in defense against infantry, while the main gun was the main offensive weapon. Maybe it's an idea to have a "Turret MG" ability allowing Vehicles to make defensive fire attacks against enemy infantry moving into their hex (using MG-only stats)? This would give them some defense against enemy infantry swarming in to close assault it - exactly what the MG's were meant for! You could choose to only allow it if the tank is in a clear hex, to represent it being a lot easier for infantry to close with an enemy tank under cover of buildings, trees or whatever.
The recommended ratio of the StuG's total of 44 rounds was 12% (5) AT, 65% (29) HE and 23% (10) smoke, according to Osprey's New Vanguard 019. This sounds a bit more believeable than only 12 HE shells  , as after all it's an assault gun - it was meant mainly to deal with enemy infantry and fixed positions, and if possible leave enemy tanks to the high velocity gun equipped tanks.
The Sherman and Panzer IV (up to F1) had the infantry support role as well, so while I can't find exact figures right now, I doubt that less than 50% of their ammunition would be of the HE type. (New Vanguard 028 does mention that while a full range of ammunition types was developed for the 75mm L/24 howitzer (HE, AP, smoke, cannister), it essentially remained an HE weapon system. |
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:54 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9281
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I'll come back with exact numbers or HE shells, because I had StugB, not G in mind. Let me see...
Also, IMO the hull-mounted MG should be ignored. It just had too narrow front view to be of much use IMO.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:12 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9281
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
My sources have the following initial configurations:
Tiger: AP 46, HE 46
Pz4G: AP 72, HE 15
Pz3H: AP 99, HE 24
M10: AP 45, HE 10
Sherman 76: AP 56, HE 15
Char B1 (not the hull-mounted gun) : AP 29, He 45
Stuart: AP 144, HE 30
S-35: AP 90, HE 28
R-35: AP 30, HE 40
H-39: AP 38, HE 42
These are the initial, average recommended numbers of shells for each tank. Of course, a tank commander could decide to take different distribution of shells depending on mission.
I don't have a strong opinion on this subject. I just wanted the other side of the matter to be heard. E.g. do we really want Panhards and 232s to be worse than stugs against mobile infantry ? Especially at distance 0-1.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:50 pm |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Zeus wrote: | | Why the difference between a Panzer IV and a Sherman? They both fired a 75mm HE shell, with almost equal explosive filler, and both had coaxial and hull-mounted MGs, so even if you combine main gun and MG's into a single AI stat they should be the same AI-wise. |
More accurate gun. The differences are slight.
_________________
|
|
| Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:42 pm |
|
|
Posts: 89
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | I'll come back with exact numbers or HE shells, because I had StugB, not G in mind. |
I was talking about the early 75mm L/24 armed StuGs as well... Don't let the capital "G" fool you  .
| Quote: | | Also, IMO the hull-mounted MG should be ignored. It just had too narrow front view to be of much use IMO. |
I agree it had very limited use, but it was a consistent feature of most tanks for the whole of the war, so it must have found some use . What about giving it a short range attack only (with the front-side-rear rules, this means exactly one hex can be targeted, the one straight in front of the tank), and only allowing it to attack when not disrupted? Or, if you combine MG's into the main attack stat, allow an extra die to be rolled when attacking a target in that hex while not disrupted?
| Quote: | Tiger: AP 46, HE 46
Pz4G: AP 72, HE 15
Pz3H: AP 99, HE 24
M10: AP 45, HE 10
Sherman 76: AP 56, HE 15
Char B1 (not the hull-mounted gun) : AP 29, He 45
Stuart: AP 144, HE 30
S-35: AP 90, HE 28
R-35: AP 30, HE 40
H-39: AP 38, HE 42
|
These numbers sound pretty believeable for the most part, as they are mostly high velocity guns, meant for attacking tanks more than for attacking infantry and positions.
The exceptions in the list are the French guns - I wonder how effective the 37mm or 47mm HE shells were, when compared to an MG. The UK didn't even bother issuing HE for their 40mm 2-pounders, considering them ineffective, but if all other countries did issue them, they probably did have some use. Although the velocity with which an HE shell is fired is important too; when fired with relatively high velocity, the shell tended to bury itself into soft ground before exploding, limiting the effect. |
|
| Mon Feb 09, 2009 6:32 am |
|
|
Posts: 9281
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Zeus wrote: | | The exceptions in the list are the French guns - I wonder how effective the 37mm or 47mm HE shells were, when compared to an MG. The UK didn't even bother issuing HE for their 40mm 2-pounders, considering them ineffective, but if all other countries did issue them, they probably did have some use. |
The MG doesn't always kill the crew of an Anti-Tank Gun, because of their protection. I think that's the actual role of the HE.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:44 am |
|
|
Posts: 9281
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
So, do we go with one combined Anti-Soldier attack or one Anti-Infantry & one Anti-Artillery like we did for the aircraft? The latter is easier to stat, because Sharpe has already prepared the HE-based stats I had prepared the MG-based stats. The former could also be done somehow, I guess.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:45 am |
|
|
AHF Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 2936
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I'd prefer one value. Use MG values out to 400m if those are higher than HE.
_________________
|
|
| Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:52 pm |
|
|
Posts: 89
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Let's try to get this sorted !
What are the decisions to be made before vehicle's AI stats can be determined? Some may already have been made but haven't been published yet, or I just didn't see them  , and in some cases, I might be stating the obvious.
1. Have a single anti-Soldier stat line, or an anti-Infantry and an anti-Artillery stat line?
2. Model separate weapons separately (coaxial MG's, hull mounted MG's, rear turret/hull MG's), or make a single attack value representing the overall firepower? Or model all turret weapons as one combined stat, and model other weapons separately?
3. If modeling all weapons separately, you'll need to determine which weapon is considered the main weapon (the one that is represented by the attack stats). Then you'll need to determine how to handle the other weapons the tank has, if at all (turret guns, hull mounted guns, coaxial MG's, hull mounted MG's, rear turret/hull MG's).
4. If modeling turret weapons or the complete armament as one combined stat, you'll need to determine the main weapon (usually the only non-MG weapon it has), and use its stats as a base. Then, there should be a rule how much any additional weapon (usually MG's) adds to the stats. There should be a difference, however small, between a tank with only a 75mm low velocity gun, one with that gun and a coaxial MG, and one with those guns and a hull-mounted MG etc etc.
5. Of course, you could also model each and every gun separately, with multiple attack stat lines, and have rules for how many guns can be fired when moving or remaining stationary.
In all cases, it would come in handy to have a list of all guns, including MG's (some vehicles and even tanks only had MG's), with their AI stats. These are the stats a vehicle would get if that gun was the only weapon it carried. Then you can either add the effects of any additional weapons (ie their separate abilities or whatever if they're handled separately, or their bonus to the main attack stats).
To illustrate: I myself chose to model each weapon separately, using the following guidelines:
-- a single MG in the front turret has 7/6/5, and dual MG's in the front turret have 8/7/6.
-- the main attack stat always represents the best of any front turret gun (even if a heavier gun is carried in the hull). So if a turret has a 37mm gun which I statted at 6/5/4, it gets those stats if it's the only gun in the turret, but it gets 7/6/5 if it also has a coaxial MG, or 8/7/6 if it has 2 coaxial MG's.
-- if a turret has one MG (front or rear), it gets an SA allowing it to make def fire with 7 dice against enemy Soldiers entering its hex, IF it is on a clear hex. If it has 2 front turret MG's, it gets def fire vs Soldiers with 8 dice, and if it has a rear turret MG in addition to 1 or 2 front turret MG's, it gets +1 on def fire against Soldiers.
-- any hull mounted weapons get an appropriate SA, ie. "Hull Mounted MG" or "Dual Hull MG's" and/or "Rear Hull MG". These give an extra attack against a target in front of (or behind) the unit at 7/5/-, IF the unit is not disrupted (the hull MG's were low priority). And of course I have a "Hull Mounted XXX" (where XXX is the actual gun) for tanks like the B1 bis, M11/39, M3 Lee etc.
I think that this way, any combination of guns and MG's (that I encountered in WW2 tanks that is) is covered and different from each other.
Sorry for the long post, I can get carried away sometimes  . |
|
| Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:12 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
why don't you give armour that is capable of HE a SA
SA High Explosive- once per game my target infantry with HE out to maximum range of gun using 8? dice -1 cover save.
(i know they had many Rounds of HE but use the motto, Keep it simple)
_________________
 |
|
| Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:40 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9281
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Apart from the British tanks, all other tanks had HE. From 9 to 50 rounds each. E.g. the Tiger had over 40 rounds and its HE was devastating.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:52 pm |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I would only allow once per game per vehicle.
The biggest problem for a tank crew is actually spotting the target (infantry) in the first place.
SA High Explosive 10 (or what ever modified for gun) may target infantry using AT ranges for X dice -1 cover.
_________________
|
|
| Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:02 am |
|
|
Posts: 885
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Should HE rounds ignore cover? I think they should. I agree with just once a game. |
|
| Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:40 am |
|
|
SOCCEROO FEVER
Posts: 6808
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
the problem is that some cover is designed to aviod shrapnel. i.e bunkers.
_________________
|
|
| Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:28 am |
|
|
Posts: 585
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | the problem is that some cover is designed to aviod shrapnel. i.e bunkers. |
Then don't make bunkers that only add cover.
We use bunkers in our games that are basically immobilized tanks / fighting platforms.
That's way more interesting then a 'pillbox' that adds +1 to cover.
Still, I disagree with the once per game thing. It's not special issue ammo like the 17 pounder armor piercing round SA (they meant the Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot by that).
As for an High Explosive SA : only if it diversifies in dice and saves : that way differences in gun types and accuracy can be accounted for.
For instance :
HE 7/-2 : when attacking soldiers at range 1-8 this unit can substitute its anti soldier attack for a single anti soldier attack that rolls 7 dice and forces a minus 2 to cover saves.
(heavy but somewhat inaccurate shell)
HE 8/-1 : when attacking soldiers at range 1-8 this unit can substitute its anti soldier attack for a single anti soldier attack that rolls 8 dice and forces a minus 1 to cover saves.
(lighter but very accurate shell)
This only deals with direct fire. Indirect fire is more for the vehicle/artillery section.
To still have use for the machineguns on Tanks, one could give tank machineguns the ability to double shot / grazing fire. That would up their cost a bit, but I think that would be good anyways. Well built tanks should be more capable and more expensive then most soldiers. I dread the situation where rifle armed soldiers on an open battlefield would be able to make fun of an approaching Tiger / Sherman, or even a Pz II.
_________________
There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people.
Heinz Guderian |
|
| Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:14 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9281
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
With these last comments by AoD, I think I have a good suggestion:
HE and MG as two different attacks. MG gets +1 on each attack die vs soldiers that are not in cover (and generally has less range than HE), while HE has no attack modifier, but reduces the cover roll of the target (or something like that). HE 800-1800m max depending on gun, while MG only 800m max.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:14 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9281
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
An example would be:
Tiger
----- (0 - 4) (5 - 8) (9 - 14) (15 - 18) or something like that
MG___9_____7_____0______0________ [ with +1 on each die against enemies not in cover ]
HE___9_____8_____7______5_________ [ with -1 for enemy cover rolls ]
Any comments?
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:31 pm |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Donations are used for Forumini Olympics awards (donations admin: Aquarius)
| Forumini Gallery |
 |
|
