Quote:
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.