Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? - 3/23/2014 1:12:57 PM   
dgk196

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline
Hello....

I've installed the 2.0 update... a lot of nice additions there. But, in three different scenario's, the 'infantry units'
have conducted 'ranged anti-armor' attacks. By 'ranged', I mean not a close-assault attack, but a 'fire' attack at a
range of one hex distance. We are using 'armor facing' rule options. All of these scenarios are 'pre-late 1942'.

These scenarios where two 'French / German' of 1940 time-frame and the third was 'British / German' of mid 1942.
So, we where wondering if this is some kind of 'glitch' or something. None of us could figure out just what
'anti-armor' ranged weapons are being simulated to give this ability to 'infantry' of that era by the 'troops' involved?

All three instances resulted in a 'successful' attack on the tanks, in that a vehicle was destroyed / eliminated
and the unit disrupted resulting in a retreat. For the era these scenarios cover, this ability really changes the
relationship / balance between armor and infantry.

So, has anyone else noticed this situation? Maybe we just haven't been paying close attention to it before, but all
of the participants in the gaming session took immediate notice of the event as being something we hadn't seen before.

Dennis
Post #: 1
RE: 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? - 3/23/2014 2:17:02 PM   
Crossroads


Posts: 14458
Joined: 7/5/2009
Status: online
I am not sure if I understood you correctly... Many of the units do have a hard attack value of some sort, for a range of 1. For an example Schutzen 41 has a hard attack value of "2" valid for a range of 1 hex.

If you want them not to Op Fire at enemy tanks, set the Op fire setting of Other Units anything less than Long, and they won't fire. If the Op Fire setting is set on Long, however, they might engage any hard targets per die rolls.

Edit: Long vs Hard Targets, in this case of course.

The anti-armor weapons portrayed would be the satchel charges etc. Remember, range of 1 hex means they will fire only to adjacent hex. So in effect the units might be next to one other.

Is this what you are seeing? Nothing new here though?

< Message edited by Crossroads -- 3/23/2014 3:17:44 PM >


_____________________________

Visit us at: Campaign Series Legion
---
CS: Vietnam | CS: East Front 1939-1941 IN-THE-WORKS
CS: Middle East 1948-1985 Fully reimaged v2.0 available now!

(in reply to dgk196)
Post #: 2
RE: 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? - 3/23/2014 3:46:29 PM   
Warhorse


Posts: 5607
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Status: offline
Do you remember what type of unit did the attack?

_____________________________

Mike Amos

Meine Ehre heißt Treue
www.cslegion.com

(in reply to Crossroads)
Post #: 3
RE: 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? - 3/23/2014 4:58:04 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 12387
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: online
In addition to satchel charges there are rifle grenades and anti-tank rifles in early war organizations.

You'll notice the effectiveness of most infantry unit against armour is very minimal (usually attacking with or 1 or 2 against hard targets) while later in the war most are around 10 to account for improvements in anti-armour weapons.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


(in reply to Warhorse)
Post #: 4
RE: 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? - 3/23/2014 9:54:40 PM   
dgk196

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline
Hello...

Here is some information related to the instances I had mentioned. The first scenario was 'The French Stand and Fight'
and involved a 'French Rifle Platoon' and a Pz IVD. The second scenario was 'The Fall of Tobruk' and involved a
'British Rifle Platoon 30' and a Pz IVD. In both instances a 'ranged' attack was conducted by the 'infantry' units
against the tank. An 'assault attack' was not used in either case. Both of these resulted in the loss of one tank.

I realize it may be my understanding of range is incorrect as regards the factors assigned to units. And as a result of that
all of this is much ado about nothing. But, then again, maybe not. If a range factor allotment of one, is reliant on a unit to be able to 'fire'
its weapon out to a distance of 250 meters (the scale of the game) then it has a range of one. And all multiples of this metric
result in larger range factors for a unit. By extension then, units that cannot fire their weapons to a distance of 250 meters
do not have a range of one, and must(?) conduct attacks by using 'assault'.

The conditional aspect of 'where' in the hexes the attacker and the target are, certainly would be variable. But, some standard
has to be used to determine ranges. And this has already been done in the game, I believe. So, on 'average' the distance from
one hex to the next is 250 meters. And as such any ranged attack has to be conducted by weapons that meet that standard.
Sure the 'units' might be right next to each other, but on the other hand they also could be at the extreme opposite resulting
in a distance of almost 500 meters, even though they occupy adjacent hexes. So, I guess for me that is a 'circular' discussion.

Having to have a constant applied to all similar situations may not be desirable. But, its the nature of the beast and pretty much
has to be accepted in order to have a functional game. Is it perfect, no... but some sacrifices have to be made. I'm familiar
with the standard types of 'infanty' anti-tank weapons available at the time concerned and pretty much they are 'assault' type weapons.
So, I think that maybe assigning 'hard attack factors' with a range of one may not be appropriate to the era being discussed.
This being said, I guess that maybe this should be added to the 'wish-list' on my part. Specifically, 'infantry' units may only
conduct attacks against 'hard targets' using the assault mode of attack. Maybe this could be one of those 'options' that can be
set at the start of a scenario!?

Thanks for listening...

Dennis

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 5
RE: 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? - 3/23/2014 11:00:14 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 12387
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: online
Good day, Dennis.

The infantry is modelled based on how Talonsoft originally designed them (circa 1997). As are their hard and attack soft attack values and ranges.

Yes, satchel charges would be more an assault type weapon and are included in the assault calculations for the overall assault value of the infantry unit. The ATR and rifle grenades are typically range weapons and are included in the hard attack value at a range of up to 1 hex.

I do understand your position. There is an option for you to turn off hard attack values of your infantry units.

If you have armour facing effects turned on, the rear and side armour of a Panzer IV is rated at 2. The infantry has a decent chance of at least disrupting the armour if attacking from the side or the rear since it is attacking with 1:2 odds on the CRT. A reduction is certainly possible.

Hope you're well
Jason Petho


< Message edited by Jason Petho -- 3/24/2014 12:00:42 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to dgk196)
Post #: 6
RE: 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? - 7/13/2014 9:56:54 PM   
dgk196

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline
Hello....

Sorry about not getting back sooner... thanks for the reply.

I have a question, is there any way to permanently change the attack parameter values of a unit?

Such as the Hard Attack and so on?

You mentioned 'turning off' certain functions!?

Thanks

Dennis

< Message edited by dgk196 -- 7/13/2014 10:58:38 PM >

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 7
RE: 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? - 7/14/2014 3:25:54 AM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 12387
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: online
You can turn it off in the OPFIRE dialog.

Reducing the hard target to Short for infantry units will inherently remove any ability for the infantry units to conduct hard target attacks.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


(in reply to dgk196)
Post #: 8
RE: 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? - 7/14/2014 12:38:44 PM   
James Ward

 

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline
I have a question about setting OP fire.

Is it suppose to effect all units of a given type? I find that I set AFV to short range for soft targets but then my tanks will shoot at an MG 15 hexes away. Is it like cruise control and goes off if you manually over-ride it and take a long shot at a type you had put to short range?

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 9
RE: 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? - 7/14/2014 12:49:53 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 12387
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: online
If you open the OPFire dialog without a unit selected, it will set the range for all units.

If you open the OPFire dialog with a unit selected, it will set the range for that particular unit.

The easiest way to tell what you did above, is that when a unit is selected and the OPFire dialog is opened, only the row that is relevant to that unit will be available to change.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


(in reply to James Ward)
Post #: 10
RE: 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? - 7/14/2014 2:38:48 PM   
dgk196

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline
Hello...

Thanks much for the quick responses, much appreciated.

I understand that the Opfire is for 'auto' situations that present themselves during your opponents turn.

What I mean, is that I want to effect both the 'attack factor rating' (value?) of the unit but also its range for that factor.

Both when its in an Opfire situation or under direct control of the player during his turn.

As far as I can tell, that may not be possible!?

Thanks

Dennis

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 11
RE: 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? - 7/14/2014 2:43:57 PM   
James Ward

 

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

If you open the OPFire dialog without a unit selected, it will set the range for all units.

If you open the OPFire dialog with a unit selected, it will set the range for that particular unit.

The easiest way to tell what you did above, is that when a unit is selected and the OPFire dialog is opened, only the row that is relevant to that unit will be available to change.

Jason Petho


Ah ha that must be it. I always have a unit chosen. Thanks.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 12
RE: 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? - 7/14/2014 3:03:23 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 12387
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: online
You can edit the attack values in the weapons file.

Find the developer diary related to encryption.

< Message edited by Jason Petho -- 7/14/2014 4:03:42 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to James Ward)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> 'Ranged' anti-armor attack in 2.0? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.133