Some issues?

[Charles22]

snake said:
Charles,
My gripe is more along these lines:
My tanks move in close and blaze away with minor effect. Folks say thats OK, it's the way it should be - fair enough. I don't know, I guess tanks in WW2 weren't very good against infantry.......
Except, in the exact same game turn (replay a save), I don't move the tanks up but rather fire my infantry at the same targets at much longer ranges and the enemy gets chewed up.
So how come the tank main guns and MG's at 1 hex can't cause casualties but rifle and mg fire from several hexes distant can?
I figure it's the act of moving and shooting - not weapons. So I replay the save where I don't move the tanks and fire their guns and mg's.
Gee, same results.....why are the tank mg's not the equivalent of infantry rifles and mg's at the same targets?

My guess is the code that says 1 unit (the tank) fires so gets X times 1 shooter kills per shot where the infantry is X times 10 (10 men for instance) shooter kills per shot.
So do the tanks not do as well as an infantry unit with the same mg weapon because the casualty routine takes into account the number of men firing a weapon at a hex in which case a squad of ten men will get more results than a single man in a tank?

Is it one tank fires one main gun and one mg compared to ten men firing ten rifles and ten men firing ten mg's or something similar?
The reason I ask is because this was exactly an issue in some earlier versions of the 'other' steel panthers game. The fix was too adjust the values of the secondary weapons slots.

I'm sorry snake, but in all my experience playing the various versions of SP, I've never seen that tanks were worse off than rifle fire. I'm just pleased to be hosing them down pretty much to any extent. Though if you're correct, be that a good thign or not I cannot say, but one of the things you may be seeing is taking account of the number of guns. Perhaps out of proportion, but perhaps that all the same. Is it reasonable at very close range that you can kill more men with 13 pistols (though we're not talking them here, I'm just trying to exaggerate the point more) from 13 men than with one MG? The end result is the same, but if the targets scatter the 13 pistols will do the job quicker. Why? Well part of the reason is the MG mount itself, as it has a very limited arc (as a BMG anyway) and the tank will have to turn to shoot all the scattered guys. Same with a CMG though with less restriction. OTOH, an AAMG comes pretty close to the pistols and in some cases might exceed them. If the men all stay together then the AAMG has the quickest kill, but if they do then you have the problem of only one gun though it shoots very rapidly. Sometimes, of course, the 13 guns having 13 shooters cam be a problem, as some of them can be really bad shots.

Naturally, you're wanting to say that these guys are at 50m and not a 0m (but of course they're never truly at 0m, but for the hex description this will pass for an adequate description), such that there is little angle and the tank has to turn very little if any. Well, then again, it may not be right, but the formula may have too high a respect for the advantage of having 13 guns as opposed to the more rapid one MG.

BTW, just for the respect that people would hav for MG's you would figure that it would have diminishing returns (sort of odd) for the longer it fires at the same target, because the surviving targets will be more apt to scatter and find cover, as opposed to mere pistols for example. The aim on the gunner will get better, but the men sometimes harder to hit (of course some could find decent cover, see MG shots closeby, panic, and then get out into the open again) with more shots.

You might be on to something, but for what little I've had of range 1 MG's firing off, not that much, I don't see a problem, but then again if I do any range 1 fighting it's almost always with AFV MG's and very little with rifle fire. I have had very little, if any, rifle fire at range 1 in this version.

[narwan]

Charles22 said:
Naturally, you're wanting to say that these guys are at 50m and not a 0m (but of course they're never truly at 0m, but for the hex description this will pass for an adequate description), such that there is little angle and the tank has to turn very little if any.

Wrong conclusion I'm afraid. You're assuming that although both units are in the same hex all the enemy are still in front of your unit. Not so. They can (and more often than not are) all around your tank, front, rear, side, possibly even up and under. So the tank has extreme angles to deal with at range 0.

Narwan

[Charles22]

narwan said:

Wrong conclusion I'm afraid. You're assuming that although both units are in the same hex all the enemy are still in front of your unit. Not so. They can (and more often than not are) all around your tank, front, rear, side, possibly even up and under. So the tank has extreme angles to deal with at range 0.

Narwan

I think I mixed you up on that one. I was triyng to make a point that gunning down men with a BMG, if they scattered, would not work as well as with pistols, BUT that would only be true at 0m. I was trying to then imagine that who I was responding to would then say "but we're not talking about 0m, we're talking about 50m."

In other words:

0m - good for pistols or rifles, no so good for BMG's.
50m - Not quite as good for pistols or rifles, better for BMG's.

[snake]

I suppose I should have mentioned that all the enemy infantry were routed. I would expect that AFV's chasing routed men at 0-50 meters would somehow have more effect than men shooting at them from 200-400 meters. I would expect more surrenders or dispersals from the remaning enemy squads from the tanks proximity and ability to pursue yet it's actually quite quicker to 'eliminate' the enemy by shooting at long range with infantry rifles rather than closing in and surrounding/overruning? them.

Certainly all the points mentioned earlier are excellent concerning infantry not running for the hills and only a fool would close with AFV's against entrenched/determined or well-supported infantry.

[narwan]

snake said:
Certainly all the points mentioned earlier are excellent concerning infantry not running for the hills and only a fool would close with AFV's against entrenched/determined or well-supported infantry.

Just to make it clear, routed units are not the equivalent of 'troops running for the hill', at least not if that means what I think it does. Casualties in this game are not just kills but also include WIA, MIA, those surrendering individually (so without the whole unit giving up), and those fleeing on their own probably without weapons anymore, being shellshocked, dazed, etc.
In other words, when units are retreating or routing, they are still exactly that, a UNIT, not a collection of individuals. They are still more or less functioning as a group of soldiers. The ones running off on their own, are part of the 'casualties' inflicted earlier.


Charles:
Okay, I see what you mean. I do think though that up to 10 rifles are probably more useful than a BMG for ranges up to several hundreds of metres when it comes to taking out multiple enemy troops per game shot.


Narwan

[snake]

Narwan Said:
Just to make it clear, routed units are not the equivalent of 'troops running for the hill', at least not if that means what I think it does. Casualties in this game are not just kills but also include WIA, MIA, those surrendering individually (so without the whole unit giving up), and those fleeing on their own probably without weapons anymore, being shellshocked, dazed, etc.
In other words, when units are retreating or routing, they are still exactly that, a UNIT, not a collection of individuals. They are still more or less functioning as a group of soldiers. The ones running off on their own, are part of the 'casualties' inflicted earlier.

I agree with you for the most part except routed troops (supressed enough to be listed as 'routing') can't move or fire without successful rally by their leader. So yes, they are still cohesive enough to be called a unit and any 'casualties' have already left but, are they not on the verge of collapse only salvageble by the possible force of leadership of the officer/NCO's? And if so, wouldn't the appearance of tanks chasing/firing at them from VERY close range make that rally a great challenge compared to taking cover from long range rifle fire?

What I'm hinting at is that given a 'routing' units state of existence, why does rifle fire from 200-400 meters cause more men to run away/surrender (become casualties) than tanks bearing down on them (scary enough if you aren't already retreating/routing)at 0-50 meters?

Let's remember these are not troops just supressed a little or retreating but routing. A retreat implies some rearguard retrograde movement to better cover/terrain as oppossed to rout which implies the unit is getting the hell out of Dodge City even if they are running close enough together to be called a unit. If left alone after army morale goes the units usually keep on routing right off the map!

It's just a game engine and you play with what can be accomplished - my hat is off to all the programmers and contributors.
I'm just trying to understand why there seems to be an inabilty for armor to 'persuade' routing infantry to give up either by surrender or fire (casualties) when the army is running and I'm all over these guys with my tanks. They give up just fine (casualties) from long range rifle fire, why not close range tank fire?
Where is the armor "shock value" factored in? I'm not seeing it. Perhaps I am but it does not have the effect that I thought blitzkrieg doctrine suggests.

Love the game BTW......