Energy Anti-Tank Guns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Suggestions and Feedback



Message


Pratapon51 -> Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/10/2021 12:22:47 PM)

Like Artillery, Motorcycle Infantry, and Mechanized Artillery, the usefulness of this particular Model is limited, especially past the early game.

AT guns fell off after WW2 in real life, but there are still use cases I can see for them in SE, especially since Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers suffer from terrain restrictions and Automated Emplacements come down so far in the tech tree + cost Hi-Tech items to field by default. I should be able to go full Imperial Guard and put las-cannons and plasma blasters in my AT guns! Since we can put 300mm guns in them, I do not think size and bulk are the limiting factors.




BlueTemplar -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/10/2021 12:34:14 PM)

Note that Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers are somewhat poorly named, as they are *worse* than the otherwise equal Medium and Heavy Tanks against tanks !

(half Hard Attack for half IP cost)

They're much better used in an anti-infantry role !!




Vic -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/10/2021 1:00:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

Note that Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers are somewhat poorly named, as they are *worse* than the otherwise equal Medium and Heavy Tanks against tanks !

(half Hard Attack for half IP cost)

They're much better used in an anti-infantry role !!


Yes but they have full Hard Defense for half IP cost. Their intended role is to be used to defend against enemy tank attacks. (much like AT guns)




Vic -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/10/2021 1:01:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pratapon51

Like Artillery, Motorcycle Infantry, and Mechanized Artillery, the usefulness of this particular Model is limited, especially past the early game.

AT guns fell off after WW2 in real life, but there are still use cases I can see for them in SE, especially since Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers suffer from terrain restrictions and Automated Emplacements come down so far in the tech tree + cost Hi-Tech items to field by default. I should be able to go full Imperial Guard and put las-cannons and plasma blasters in my AT guns! Since we can put 300mm guns in them, I do not think size and bulk are the limiting factors.


Cannot say I disagree. I'll look into it. But it aint an immediate priority :)




newageofpower -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/10/2021 2:16:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

Cannot say I disagree. I'll look into it. But it aint an immediate priority :)



I hope nuclear howitzers are on the list too.




BlueTemplar -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/10/2021 2:45:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

Note that Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers are somewhat poorly named, as they are *worse* than the otherwise equal Medium and Heavy Tanks against tanks !

(half Hard Attack for half IP cost)

They're much better used in an anti-infantry role !!


Yes but they have full Hard Defense for half IP cost. Their intended role is to be used to defend against enemy tank attacks. (much like AT guns)

That doesn't make sense. If the intended role was indeed to be better at defending against tanks, why would you have instead only made them worse on attack against tanks (including defending, in counter-attacks ?), and also not worse against infantry... ?

Can AT guns even use Howitzers ?




Akrakorn -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/10/2021 3:15:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic
quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

Note that Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers are somewhat poorly named, as they are *worse* than the otherwise equal Medium and Heavy Tanks against tanks !

(half Hard Attack for half IP cost)

They're much better used in an anti-infantry role !!


Yes but they have full Hard Defense for half IP cost. Their intended role is to be used to defend against enemy tank attacks. (much like AT guns)

That doesn't make sense. If the intended role was indeed to be better at defending against tanks, why would you have instead only made them worse on attack against tanks (including defending, in counter-attacks ?), and also not worse against infantry... ?

Can AT guns even use Howitzers ?


Assault Guns are specialized in soft attack, Tank Destroyers are specialized in hard defense. Vic is talking about Tank Destroyers, which are really good at hard defense and cost half of what a Heavy Tank would cost.




BlueTemplar -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/10/2021 3:28:42 PM)

No, both Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers are two times worse at Hard Attack than Medium and Heavy Tanks, and cost the same Metal but half the IP, unless this calculator is wrong ?
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4959387

P.S.: I just happen to have researched AT guns in my game, and they can NOT mount howitzers, so the comparison makes even less sense.




Akrakorn -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/10/2021 3:33:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

No, both Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers are two times worse at Hard Attack than Medium and Heavy Tanks, and cost the same Metal but half the IP, unless this calculator is wrong ?
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4959387

P.S.: I just happen to have researched AT guns in my game, and they can NOT mount howitzers, so the comparison makes even less sense.


We're not talking about Hard Attack, we're talking about Hard Defense... which is what the AT is also good at, hence the comparison.




BlueTemplar -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/10/2021 4:30:28 PM)

My point is that you can't equip AT guns with Howitzers, they will always be bad at Soft Attack and Soft Defense.

While you *can* (and should !) equip Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers with Howitzers, as they'll be exactly as good as (same design roll) Medium and Heavy Tanks at Soft Attack and Soft Defense, for half the IP cost.

While it makes a lot less sense to equip Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers with High Velocity Guns, since they'll be much worse at it with their halved Hard Attack than (same design rolls) Medium and Heavy Tanks.




Akrakorn -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/10/2021 4:44:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

My point is that you can't equip AT guns with Howitzers, they will always be bad at Soft Attack and Soft Defense.

While you *can* (and should !) equip Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers with Howitzers, as they'll be exactly as good as (same design roll) Medium and Heavy Tanks at Soft Attack and Soft Defense, for half the IP cost.

While it makes a lot less sense to equip Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers with High Velocity Guns, since they'll be much worse at it with their halved Hard Attack than (same design rolls) Medium and Heavy Tanks.


Tank Destroyers shouldn't be equipped with Howitzers, as the whole point of having a bigger tank is that you can equip a bigger caliber to penetrate the enemy's armor with. The Assault Gun is the dedicated anti-soft tank, as its 105mm is high enough to penetrate the highest infantry unit armor (the advanced battledress has 100mm of armor), is very cheap to field and is not penalized in Soft Attack. Using a Tank Destroyer in place of an Assault Gun will yield a tank that is slower, uses more fuel and is more vulnerable to infantry because it's bigger. It will kill infantry even more than an Assault Gun, but it's extreme overkill and not at all efficient; an Assault Gun will do the same job with less resources spent.

Tank Destroyers on the other hand fulfill the exact same role of the Anti-tank Gun, excelling in Hard Defense while being okay at Hard Attack, which is why they were being compared in the first place. A Heavy Tank and a Tank Destroyer will have the same Hard Defense values.




zgrssd -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/10/2021 5:14:15 PM)

All Damage calculation starts at "Firepower".
From there it is modified - once by the weapon, once by the Unit type. See "5.12.3.7. oPeratIonal stats"

For example, "Small Arms" have a Hard Attack and Hard Defense of -50%" (so a halving).
Furthermore: "Soldiers on foot without ranged attack have their Soft and Hard Attack Values divided by two."
Wich is why end up at:
Soft Defense is Firepower
Hard Defense and soft Attack is 50% Firepower
Hard Attack is 25% Firepower




shabowie -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/10/2021 9:01:46 PM)

I think some models becoming obsolete works. I think the ATGM has completely replaced towed antitank guns in the modern military as an example. The antitank gun as we think of it from WWII was a solution for 10-20 years to get firepower that could kill a tank down at the infantry level. Once we started having rocket and missile systems the infantry could carry in groups of 1 or 2 the AT gun kinda loses it's luster.

If you read about the point in WWII where the guns had to get so big to penetrate even WWII tech level tanks and lost tactical mobility (they could no longer be easily moved to a more advanced position by the crew) you can see why they might become entirely obsolete.

I think it's OK if entire models or base units become obsolete.

I guess it would be ok if they became relevant at a certain point as an energy or gauss weapon too though.




Pratapon51 -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/11/2021 9:59:07 AM)

Yeah, AT guns fell off in usage, but so did Tank Destroyers and Assault Guns [:D].

I like having a greater variety of options and this is one of them, along with being able to put anti-tank missiles on our APCs and buggies - or, alternatively, an IFV model type that supports those types of weapons and counts as a Mechanized transport.





DeltaV112 -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/13/2021 7:48:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

Note that Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers are somewhat poorly named, as they are *worse* than the otherwise equal Medium and Heavy Tanks against tanks !

(half Hard Attack for half IP cost)

They're much better used in an anti-infantry role !!

That doesn't make sense. If the intended role was indeed to be better at defending against tanks, why would you have instead only made them worse on attack against tanks (including defending, in counter-attacks ?), and also not worse against infantry... ?

Can AT guns even use Howitzers ?

That's not how Hard Attack/Defense works. All of the subunits of a formation that is attacking use hard/soft attack for all attacks and counterattack they make. The subunits of a formation that is defending use hard/soft defense.

In terms of using bigger howitzers, I'd note that this gets subject to diminishing returns due to how attack resolution works. It's basically a value from 1-Firepower compared to a value from 1-Hitpoints. That means that for instance a unit with 600 final firepower versus a unit with 300 final hitpoints has a 75% chance to kill, but increasing the firepower to 900 only increases that chance to kill to 83.3%. In practical terms, reasonably sized howitzers already are on the wrong side of the firepower curve against midgame infantry HP, it's only sensible to use bigger ones by the time advanced armor comes around or if you're using tanks in bad terrain or against targets with high fortification values.




BlueTemplar -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/14/2021 10:03:07 AM)

Yes, thank you, I had independently realized that combat wasn't working the way I thought :

- I didn't think that units on operational defense attacked too (and units on operational offense could then counter-attack to that).

- Attack/Defense is not multiplied with HP to get the relevant values.

- The application of attack/defense/HP is even less symmetric, because other factors like the "attack startup modifier", the "counter-attack modifier" (both of which don't apply in the same way to the offensive and to the defensive side !), "max" number of counter-attacks modifier, retreat situations... not to mention the unit feats !

- I've tried to figure out the formula for hits -
(according to the manual which gives the exact same 2:1 example with 75% result that would be a hit, and not necessarily a kill in your example, though it doesn't explain how the pinned/retreat/killed states are picked):
quote:

The attacker compares his attack score to the hit point score
of the defending Subunit. If they are equal, there is a 50% chance of a hit. If
the attacker has twice the points, there is 75% chance of a hit; if the defender
has twice the score, there is a 25% chance of a hit, and so on.

- but I haven't been able to, how did you figure out the 3:1 resulting in 83.3% ?
Also the manual is contradicting itself later :
quote:

The attack score and the hitpoint score are finally both randomized and
will score a value between 0 and their calculated number, and if the attacker
scores higher a hit is scored, otherwise not.

In that case 2:1 would "only" have 50% chances of a hit !

And it gets even more complicated when you start considering "preventers" and the calibre question :
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4977512

But without going into the details, the first point actually makes clearer the role for both Assault Guns and Tank Destroyers : I would expect them "on paper" to still be much worse on operational offense against hard targets than Medium/Heavy tanks ? (I'll definitely have to look into these details.)




zgrssd -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/14/2021 10:26:10 AM)

quote:

In that case 2:1 would only have 50% chances of a hit !
EDIT : No, I seemingly can't math, rethinking this...

I think I have an idea:

If it is 100 vs 100 (1:1):
1D100 vs 1D100 - should be about 50%

If it is 100 vs 50 (2:1):
1D100 vs 1D50
Now 75% seems about right.
Half the combinations are a plain victory for the attacker (the 1D100 rolls 51+ so it can not be beat).
Then there is a 50/50 split of the remaining 50%: a 25% chance the defender wins, 25% the attacker wins.
So it is 75/25 respectively

You can flip it around with a 50 vs 100 (1:2):
25/75

For a 300:100 (3:1):
2/3 of all combinations are a guaranteed atacker win - 66%
And the half of remaing ~33% is 16.5%
66+16.5 = 82.5




BlueTemplar -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/14/2021 10:47:38 AM)

Thank you, I've been confused by the ratio of the expected values (which would still be 2:1 in my quote, but does NOT equal the chances to hit !).
But, yeah, clearly 1:1 *has* to be 50% chances !
And the rest follows like you explained...




zgrssd -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/14/2021 11:52:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar

Thank you, I've been confused by the ratio of the expected values (which would still be 2:1 in my quote, but does NOT equal the chances to hit !).
But, yeah, clearly 1:1 *has* to be 50% chances !
And the rest follows like you explained...

I am not 100% sure that is how it work. I have no education in statistics, after all.

But my instinct tells me that it is at least the right ballpark.




BlueTemplar -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/14/2021 11:56:31 AM)

Sadly, I *do* have some education in statistics...

But also because the manual does says it itself, in the above two quotes !
(
quote:

If they are equal, there is a 50% chance of a hit.
)




BlueTemplar -> RE: Energy Anti-Tank Guns (3/20/2021 3:43:25 PM)

I've made a dedicated thread about Assault Gun & Tank Destroyer :
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4984112




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.222656E-02