Jump to content



Photo

tank flank/rear armour values


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Aussie_Digger

Aussie_Digger

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 06 November 2011 - 05:01 PM

Hey there everyone,

Im in the process of planing a custom scenario on the eastern front

Im looking at modifiying the combine fire rule when firing on a unit with an armour value (armour 0 still counts)

It will be the active units full F/P plus 1 die for each unit combining fire (eg active unit T34 plus 2 T34's combine fire so 8 + 1 + 1 so fire power of 10) I think this helps represent the armour values of tanks much better.

Also i want to introduce facing for vehcles in the scenario to add more options tacticlly in the game, so will need to come up with flank armour values (this will take into account flank and rear armour)

The two tanks that will feature in the scenario are the T34 and Panther

For the Panther I was thinking of making it Flank armour 4 as the front of the panther was the part that was heavily armoured

For the T34 im unsure i was thinking of leaving it the same as its normal value at 5 but its armour was not as slopped as the front but around the same thickness on average.

Love to hear your thoughts



#2 KlausFritsch

KlausFritsch

    Member

  • Members
  • 734 posts

Posted 06 November 2011 - 06:26 PM

I think for the T-34 you are correct.

For the Panther, you would actually have to increase the front armor and decrease side/rear armor.

Something like front 6 with Thick Armor and side/rear 4.



#3 Aussie_Digger

Aussie_Digger

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 06 November 2011 - 09:59 PM

hmm yea i think you might be right with the panther as i guess the tank armour values have been worked out taking into account all the front, side and rear into one value so I guess alot of the tanks front armour will increase if there are going to be 2 values



#4 Grand Stone

Grand Stone

    Member

  • Members
  • 425 posts

Posted 07 November 2011 - 12:35 AM

Combined fire is tricky. +1 die per contributing unit would make combined fire useless, as it would be far better to attack twice instead of using combined fire. But, if you introduce facing, you dont need the combined fire rule.  Cuz then, if you have x3 T34 versus 1 panther, it would be difficult for the panther to face all 3 tanks simultainiusly.

 

And, what abour fire&movement actions. Should a tank be able to change facing during the enemies turn or not?  The question is how difficult should it be to optain a shot from the flank/rear

 

Just a note: heavy armor trait is worth atleast 3 dices. So a 6 armor+panthers heavy armor trait is atleast equal to 9 in armor, while the rear is only at 4 (or something)  So, the effect of front/rear would be dramatical. Which I guess might fit nicely.



#5 Aussie_Digger

Aussie_Digger

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 07 November 2011 - 01:15 AM

Grand Stone said:

Combined fire is tricky. +1 die per contributing unit would make combined fire useless, as it would be far better to attack twice instead of using combined fire. But, if you introduce facing, you dont need the combined fire rule.  Cuz then, if you have x3 T34 versus 1 panther, it would be difficult for the panther to face all 3 tanks simultainiusly.

Combine fire wouldn't be useless it will slightly increase the odds as you can increase the number of dice slightly against one defence roll.

(1 t34 plus 2 in combine fire would be 10FP against 5 + HA (panther) , other wise it would be 8FP and and 5 +HA would be rolled everytime)

(not taking into account thick armour ability, 3 T34's with the modified combine fire would be 10FP / 5armour = 2:1 odds in attacking. If all 3 fired on their own it would in effect become 24 / 15 slightly less odds 1.6:1

This way of dealing with combine fire/ firegroups is how most war games deal with it. It also adds another decision making aspect to the game (do i use those tanks to help increase my odds in an attack or do i need them to make their own action) also i find this way attacks on heavy vehicles will become alot more realistic

also in the last example you give, only the active units line of fire will determine if it is a front or flank shot (combining tanks will still add their +1 dice)

 

 

Grand Stone said:

 

And, what abour fire&movement actions. Should a tank be able to change facing during the enemies turn or not?  The question is how difficult should it be to optain a shot from the flank/rear

Well this is what i will be working out this post was only to see what peoples thoughts on the armour values should be.

I don't think changing facing on an enemies turn is the way to go as op fire can be a good defence in stoping your enemy out flanking you

 

 

 


Grand Stone said:

 
 

Just a note: heavy armor trait is worth atleast 3 dices. So a 6 armor+panthers heavy armor trait is atleast equal to 9 in armor, while the rear is only at 4 (or something)  So, the effect of front/rear would be dramatical. Which I guess might fit nicely.

Thast how i want things to be flanking and taking flank shots on tanks was a major tactic used throughout the war so it should be a tactic that can be used in the game



#6 Kingtiger

Kingtiger

    Member

  • Members
  • 458 posts

Posted 07 November 2011 - 03:05 AM

KlausFritsch said:

I think for the T-34 you are correct.

For the Panther, you would actually have to increase the front armor and decrease side/rear armor.

Something like front 6 with Thick Armor and side/rear 4.

Good points.

I really, really, really hope we'll get an advanced ruleset one day with front and rear armour values for all tanks! (perhaps even top and side armour as well). There's a game due for release in March 2012 or so called "Red Storm: pocket armies. It'll boast all of the above while at the same time still looking to be very playable. The only problem with introducing top armor in TOI ( which in RS seems to be "1" consistently and understandably) would be that the airpower cards would be extremely powerful. Well, I guess an op-card could solve that problem: When attacking a vehicle's top armor, roll for drift as you would for an artillery card. The drift number is always 4 unless otherwise specified (E.g. dive-bombers could have a drift number of three). I believe that in RS 4 and 5 are soft hits (suppressed etc.) while 6's are needed for "kills". 4's and 5's would then be "near" misses (or a nearby tank just got destroyed...) and 1-3 were complete misses. A 6 would be spot on. 



#7 Grand Stone

Grand Stone

    Member

  • Members
  • 425 posts

Posted 07 November 2011 - 09:02 PM

Aussie_Digger:

Your probability calculation are incorrect.   The thing is, if you roll three sets of 5dices, the probability that one of them would roll "less" than average is very high.  You dont roll 15 dices. You roll 5 dices three times. Not to speak of the fact that if the first one does some damage, armor is reduced by one and next hit will make the tank heavy damaged. Calculate the probability (correctly, including heavy armor trait)

1) lightly damaged

2) heavily damaged

and I will bet that you will see that with +1 dice only, combined fire will be rather useless.  Maybe not for infanteri attacking another infanteri in pillbox/bunker, or infanteri attacking a tank. I'm not sure about that one. But, I personaly hate combine fire rule anyway, and would love to remove it completly from the game. I realy dont see any reason why to keep it. It would both improve and simplifiy the rules. Shermans can still destroy tigers, it just would not be as easy as it used to be. And with facing rules, you realy dont need a combined fire rules, as a swarm of tanks would easier outflank the enemy anyway.

 

Yes, I might agree with you that allowing you to set the facing of the unit when moving it only might be a good ide. Then fast tanks would have an advantage as they can more easily move to the flank and fire. A slow KV-1 would have a very hard time outflanking a Tiger, but the T34 might have easier time.



#8 Aussie_Digger

Aussie_Digger

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 07 November 2011 - 10:10 PM

I was just showing what the dice look like when all added, i wasnt taking other factors into account. I have tried using no combine fire and then have added my version of combine fire to the game. i have found that my version adds more tactical decisions to the game while not making an attack overpowing (alla 24 dice). As it can be a though descision weather to use the tanks to add a small bonus to an attack (which has paid off in some attacks i have made) this also allows more options to be utilised on your turn by using your 3 tanks to attack, you then still have 2 more actions for your turn ( if 3 actions per turn). There will be times when using your tanks for their own actions will be better, but there are times where the extra dice would be. This is what makes it good its desicion making giving the player options. By completly removing combine fire you take away a level of tactical decision making which in my opion is a negative for this game

I think by having combine fire rules this way it is important to have facing rules. As the combine fire rule makes the armour more realistic. this then encourges the player to get tanks behind then enemy and pepper it from all directions and those extra dice can help.

In the end this is a rule that can be used it dose not have to be used, thats the good thing its up to the player, giving options. Trust me I have be using the +1 dice rule and there are times when its good to use (1 example is when firing at a tank in cover providing terrain) and there are times when its not.

 

Just a side note it is also highly likely that the attack dice will roll less than average

 

 



#9 Grand Stone

Grand Stone

    Member

  • Members
  • 425 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 12:21 AM

By all means, I hate combined fire. So yes, I do enjoy your methode much better. But, simply removing it can also be a valid option.



#10 VolksCamper

VolksCamper

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 07:13 PM

Combined fire represents platoon level coordinated fire (IMO), so should be limited to 3 armor vehicles with a potential of up to 6 vehicles(max) which represents the range of vehicles that would make up a platoon (3 for Russians, 4 for Brits, 5 for Americans, 4 for regular German Wehrmacht, 5 for SS , and 6 for the special Tiger I platoon., or an assault gun platoon. (I get this from TO&E from PZleader game)

Particularly for the Russians, it was standard tactic for each platoon of 3 vehicles to engage one target simultaneously., as their optics and rangefinders(if they even were equiped with one) were inferior, so the theory was that 3 tanks increased the first round hit probability up to at least 50% which is what was the average for a single German tank with better trained crew, better optics, flatter trajectory(and more accurate) main gun, and excellent rangefinding devices.

+1 per/unit is okay for unlimited no. of units allowed, as per normal CF rule.

If limiting no. of units to the no. of actions allowed  per action phase by scenario, and also each unit expends an action, so that after the CF attack, the active players action phase is over, and it is now opposing players action phase, then +2 Sherman,+3 for M10, Panther, Tiger I, and +4 for KingTiger may balance out for having a limit. The max single die roll would be 16 for American (3 M10s) and 21 for German (3 KingTigers)

Not sure how to work out CF with Facing rules. CF abstractly represents mulitple attacks form different angles, so maybe should not be allowed if Facing is used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



#11 Aussie_Digger

Aussie_Digger

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 08 November 2011 - 11:48 PM

The unit making the attack will draw its los to see if its a front or flank shot the other units combining fire will still add their +1 no matter where they are. As this will be confusing for the enemy anyway as it is taking hits from all sides.



#12 Aussie_Digger

Aussie_Digger

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 09 November 2011 - 03:40 PM

Ok i have been think about this for a bit and I have decided to take a simpler approach as it will be alot of work re doing armour values and facing rules which may only suit this scenario. If I look at doing it I want to beable to fit any scenario so alot of testing will need to be done. Atm im working on this one scenario so I have come up with a new type of operations card.

I will make a new thred for it (Lack of tank radios - russian command tanks)



#13 freddieyu

freddieyu

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 03 June 2012 - 01:15 PM

 To simplify things, i would just say that attacks where at least 1 shot comes from the flank/ rear gets the m10's penetration rule, Even in a combined fire where others shoot from the front direction. After all, a knocked out result isn't only due to armor penetration, but it could be that the crew gets spooked and abandons the tank.



#14 VolksCamper

VolksCamper

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 08 June 2012 - 12:25 AM

would be interesting if  non turreted SPG, or  AT gun had an arc of fire limited to within a certain area of hexes relative to the units front facing, and would have to change facing to fire at a unit outside that arc. And if having to change facing, maybe -1 attack value per hexside it has to rotate  to align with target hex.

Turreted tanks would not have this penalty unless player wanted to rotate tank to have front armor facing target hex.

AT guns like 57mm, german pak 75 mm would have limited arc, while 88 flak has no limited arc, being able to rotate on its base 360.

 

 

 

 



#15 freddieyu

freddieyu

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 08 June 2012 - 04:00 AM

 i agree. My idea is that they maybe given a fire and move order in order to pivot on the spot and fire within their arc (the 3 hexsides to their front) at targets who were initially outside this said arc. To further align with the basic game rules, they get the same penalties as any other unit who can Fire and move (ie. half FP and no long range fire).

I would do this also for the 88. it is already powerful as it is, and it would be good to reward the unit who managed to outflank the damn gun…



#16 KlausFritsch

KlausFritsch

    Member

  • Members
  • 734 posts

Posted 09 June 2012 - 09:27 PM

freddieyu said:

I would do this also for the 88. it is already powerful as it is, and it would be good to reward the unit who managed to outflank the damn gun…

I wouldn't. The thing is mounted on a turntable.



#17 freddieyu

freddieyu

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 10 June 2012 - 01:48 AM

 Well, my opinion is that the moment we have special rules for individual units (as compared to a class of units) then that would detract from the overall idea of ToI (as opposed to ASL or even Conflict of Heroes), which is that as much as possible rules are "fudged" in, to avoid to much "memory recall".

But then again, as these are unofficial anyway, anyone can pretty much adopt any rule as they please….

 



#18 Bloopertrooper

Bloopertrooper

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 10:24 AM

There are already some excellent tank rules posted by András Kopcsik on Boardgame Geek. They incorporate turning, facing and firing arcs for turreted tanks and SPGs. Flank and rear hits are covered by attacking re-rolls, one for a flank and two for rear etc.

Personally, I have no problem with combined fire rules. If there are six units combining to kill one Tiger there is plenty of historical precedent for that. Some of the German armor requires that attention to take down. How many times have we seen three Shermans combine fire and not even scratch the thing? Then, the return fire always seems to get one Sherm to blow, even in a woods hex. The big cats also clean up at range. The best way to deal with them is two tanks at one hex.

I have not seen the Fury scenarios though. I am curious as to why combined fire is such a threat to the game mechanics? There are many scenarios that need some "serious lovin" (playtesting). The first Squad Leader game had heaps of play-testing and even then, some scenarios were nearly impossible to win by one side or another. The original SQLeader had a great point buy system for scenario design though. Tide of Iron really needs this and I mean one that scores wire, mines, pillboxes, even terrain features alongside all the armor and units.

Decks can be point scored but many operation cards will scale an entire force's point value up or down.



#19 Sami K

Sami K

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts

Posted 16 October 2012 - 06:30 AM

 Well, in my rules, posted above, armor values are as follows (front / flank (inc. rear): Tiger I: 6/ 4 thick armor //// Panzer IV: 5 / 2 //// M4 Sherman: 4 / 3

Don't have the expansions, so haven't statted them out yet, but you can see that usually back armor is 2 less, but can be 3 or 1 if there's a historical reason for it. 

 

I just add half the defense of the target for combined fire per supporting unit. I'd do away with it entirely, but it's there as an option in case you need to do more in less actions, especially against units in the open.



#20 VolksCamper

VolksCamper

    Member

  • Members
  • 56 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 11:42 AM

Bloopertrooper said:

 

There are already some excellent tank rules posted by András Kopcsik on Boardgame Geek. They incorporate turning, facing and firing arcs for turreted tanks and SPGs. Flank and rear hits are covered by attacking re-rolls, one for a flank and two for rear etc.

Personally, I have no problem with combined fire rules. If there are six units combining to kill one Tiger there is plenty of historical precedent for that. Some of the German armor requires that attention to take down. How many times have we seen three Shermans combine fire and not even scratch the thing? Then, the return fire always seems to get one Sherm to blow, even in a woods hex. The big cats also clean up at range. The best way to deal with them is two tanks at one hex.

I have not seen the Fury scenarios though. I am curious as to why combined fire is such a threat to the game mechanics? There are many scenarios that need some "serious lovin" (playtesting). The first Squad Leader game had heaps of play-testing and even then, some scenarios were nearly impossible to win by one side or another. The original SQLeader had a great point buy system for scenario design though. Tide of Iron really needs this and I mean one that scores wire, mines, pillboxes, even terrain features alongside all the armor and units.

Decks can be point scored but many operation cards will scale an entire force's point value up or down.

 

 

 

5 Shermans firing in perfect unison at the front plate of a Tiger II would do little better than 5 Shermans firing independently one after the other in approximately the same time frame.

It is purely a function of the main gun velocity, shell penetration, vs the slope angle and thickness of armor plate which determines the capabilities of each vehicles main armament.

.The only spot on the Tiger II that the typical Sherman 75 or 76.2mm main gun AP round could penetrate was the rear plate armor. So a couple of Shermans would try to shoot and break the tracks of the Tiger while the remaining Shermans would circle around behind and attempt to get penetrating hits to the engine compartment, hopefully causing fuel explosion and fire.

During that action, however, if the Tiger turret was not jammed, and main gun still operational, all 5 of those Shermans would most likely be hit and a high probability that all 5 are knocked out or heavily damaged. In fact, kill ratios for Tigers vs most other medium Allied tanks was 5:1. With a Tiger Ace, like Wittman, that ratio goes up as high as 17:1. On the Russian front, 10:1 kill ratios were not at all uncommon.

This is not that well reflected in TOI, probably because of game design  balance. But it is TOTALLY BS to design an action phase segment representing on average the time it takes for 3 units to engage in combat, and then BREAK that rule completely, creating a time warp option that allows for one sides ENTIRE force to engage before the opposing side can respond. Not only is it illogical in the game design, but it also did not happen in real life engagment either.

 

My solution for the Combined Fire rule, is to require that each unit which participates with the "Lead" unit must each expend a concentrated fire action, just as they would if they had fired separately at the same target. This fits with the concept of the Action phase limit of no. of units allowed per phase and then alternating to the opposing player. It still allows for an increased Attack value by adding 1/2 AS for each of the participation units, to the full AS of the Lead unit. So 3 Shermans would still have a more potent total Attack die roll of 16 dice, which is a better odds roll than 3 separate 8 dice rolls. It prevents, however, the totally unrealistic notion of a "virtual super gun" far exceeding the Attack value of the 88 Flak gun, the highest Attack value in the game.

Additionally, as it still allows a limited CF, it also allows for a card to be played that gives one player an extra action, without that resulting in another CF attack in the same players action phase. In this case, the extra action just allows for 1 additional unit to participate with the Lead unit, so the resulting CF will be 4 units rather than the typical 3. Not an overkill, but still an improvement, increasing the 16 dice roll to a 20 dice roll.

 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS