Hi Don
I have done some tests.
I let the AI play both sides of the 'Omaha Beach' senario (009)
First with the SPCAMO armour for the LVTs etc
The Result for SPCAMO armour values
Losses
LCA________________2
LCVP______________28
LCM________________6
LCI________________1
score USA 546 Germany 6450
The Result for "correct" armour values of 1 all round for all amphibious vehicle types.
Losses
LCA________________4
LCVP______________16
LCM________________7
LCI________________2
score USA 815 Germany 6279
So both senarios played out the same with the current game and the "correct" values
I tried to do the same for 'IwO jimi: first ashore' senario (063)
BUt only 3 LCP and 1 lcm survived with SPCAMO armour values so no point testing AI vs AI with the "correct" armour values.
So I am currently playing 'IwO jimi: first ashore' as the Marines as a PBEM. Im currently up to turn 18, and havnt noticed any problems with using 1 and 0 rear armour instead of 2 armour values for the LVTs etc. theve been shot at by mortars AA and infantry and seem to survive just fine. when the larger bunker guns fire the have such high penetration values that 1 or 2 armour would make little difference. I have managed to get past the beaches but have been a bit to careless and lost a lot of equipment. The game looks to be a draw. Congratulations to the designers this and tarawa are both excellent senarios.
I then tried 'stark and bitter hours' senario. (049)
The Result for SPCAMO armour values
Losses
LCVP_______________9
LCM________________5
LVT________________34 (13 imobilised)
with "correct" values
Losses
LCVP_______________7
LCM________________2
LVT________________71
So the unarmoured LVT suffered severly from having there armour removed mainly due to Mortar fire.
However
I then played the AI myself,
LCVP_______________0
LCM________________0
LVT________________31
Score of 3142 v 577 my way.
Unlike the AI I unloaded all the mortars on the coral fringe and used them to smoke out the beach this allowed me to land all the troops in -1 depth water who could then puff more smoke if required and the LVTs could then retire I did leave some lying around though and these did get sunk but they wouldnt have if I hadnt been so lazy and had moved them out of the way. Obviously the AI has trouble guessing where to fire his mortar rounds. I will now play this one PBEM and see how I go against a human opponent. If Im still here that is
Generally re the unarmoured LVTs, it still takes a few hits to kill/sink one.
In the real tarawa there was massive prebombardment 30000 tonne I believe, apparently the whole atol was on fire from end to end and covered in smoke this is probably why the unarmoured Amtracks got to the shore.
So I would say that giving the 2 armour value LVTs ect the 1 values and 0 at the rear makes little difference. I certainly couldnt locate what aspect of playability was enhanced by doubling the armour value of these vehicles.
I havnt tested this but for the unarmoured variety a value of 0 probably does make them to easy too sink but giving them 1 then results in overperformance once landed. I think the a better solution would be that indirect fire when landing in water is greatly reduced in effect, just a thought.
I think an argument can be made for the larger LCM to have the 1 values they would be hard to sink as they probably have a bilge pump and are quite large. Note that in British usage LCMs had "extra" bullet proof matresses installed.
LCI's also warrent a higher armour value again because of their bulk.
Best regards Chuck