From: Seattle, WA
Getting back to the OP - my limited testing/analysis makes me agree with Curtis. Increase the infantry AT values (and if needed, decrease ALL tank/SU/stug armor values, so the armor vs armor is still balanced). I'd look at the eqp Snefens designed for Operation Neva. There are many, many different infantry types and some have high AT values, others not so much. Just be advised that the Neva .eqp has revised values for most entries in it, and these values are usually higher than in most other scenarios.
Makes sense. What I am seeing is that the Soviet tanks losses are a bit too too low, most likely because the tanks do not 'wear down' as fast as they should.
the `East Front 41-45' scenario has sink units to model tank attrition, and it really helps to get rid of obsolete equipment, but it is not sufficient by itself.
So increasing tank losses due to the ubiquitous infantry is the closest I can get to 'attrition'.
I have set up a little test scenario and will report. I am also toying with the AT capabilities specific of pioneers/engineers/sappers. They have 'kinetic anti-armor' capabilities ON in the stock eqp, but I would imagine that they 'd deal with tanks with mines, hollow charges flamethrowers etc, RPGs, so I will see what happens when its turned OFF.
Variables I plan to test:
- infantry AT values
- AFV armor values
-optics (for Panthers and other late models)
- 'kinetic anti-armor' for engineer squads (or pioneers/sappers in modified eqp values.).
Yes, I agree a vehicle reliability variable 'd be perfect. In fact TOAW has something similar implemented: as units move some equipment is returned to the pool. Implementing a scenario variable where only XX % of this 'broken down' equipment comes back 'd help.
< Message edited by governato -- 9/2/2015 6:04:01 PM >