25 mm steel armour feels underwhelming

[Thrake]

This is a graph of the number of armour strength you can get per metal and IP invested for all the tank models and steel armour thickness options. I added up the armour strength and base cost of models to the calculations.

se steel armour.jpg (131.25 KiB) Viewed 497 times

What strikes me here is that 25 mm feels really underwhelming compared to the other options. 5 mm feels like a better cheap armour to fit a big gun on. For more survivability the thicker armours are more cost efficient on top of offering a possible caliber penalty. The heavier the tank is, the worst 25 mm is. For light tanks, it is a bit more metal efficient but less IP efficient. For medium tank, there is little difference in armour points per metal between 5 mm and 25 mm but 25 mm is less IP efficient. For heavy and monitor 25 mm becomes significantly less efficient than 5 mm.

5 mm also strikes as an oddity but less than 25 mm.

Therefore my suggestion is to make 25 mm more in line with the other armour variants.

The table used to make the graph:

se steel armour table.jpg (294.91 KiB) Viewed 497 times

B column (sum of base model armour plus armour from the armour variant) was used for x values, E (metal cost of base model plus armor thickness divided by B) and F (IP cost of base model plus armor thickness divided by B) for y values.

[Don_Kiyote]

Therefore my suggestion is to make 25 mm more in line with the other armour variants.

Quite a nice looking analysis.

It seems like it is the first option, 5mm default 'no armour' armour, which is the erratically behaving data point. If you drop the first figure in each series, you get nice, rising spreads between all the graphs (except the Monitor).

Im not sure I'm reading the spreadsheet right, but it looks like you would prefer to see base 5mm armour giving much more protection to the resulting model, and then a steadier, more linear rise after that

To me, the important issue with tanks is not necessarily their design efficiency for raw combat power-numbers per input unit. I worry most about things like maneuverability modifiers and other stuff that affects how tanks take the conflict with *other unit types*. This type of concern over the role of tanks is also a current affair/armed forces issue, as with a purported rpg revolution and other such headlines.

In any case, your numbers looks like sound balancing solution. In a pvp you wouldnt need to just ignore 25mm, for instance, if I have it right.

[BlueTemplar]

Yeah, calibre is a big deal :
Conventional Small Arms have a calibre of only 20, which already results in a -20% penalty on attacks against 25mm armor... which might still not be enough to make it "better" than 5mm ?

Then there's also the "divided by 3" calibre penalty for artillery, which is going to have an effect here against 25mm armor using the 25, 40 and 60mm howitzers... OtoH it's kind of a moot point because of how artillery incentivizes you to always pick the biggest possible calibre, but I am not certain that the AI is aware of this ?
Also starting major militia artillery / minor and non-aligned artillery seem to have 25mm howitzers ? That's a -67% calibre reduction against 25mm armor, which might or might not matter depending on your situation...

Last but not least, yeah, other units with Vehicle Armor matter too, and at low armor values, the cost of the chassis itself (and power&fuel usage/weight considerations !) starts to become a big deal... (as can already be seen for the lightest tanks on your graph)

[Thrake]

Therefore my suggestion is to make 25 mm more in line with the other armour variants.

Quite a nice looking analysis.

It seems like it is the first option, 5mm default 'no armour' armour, which is the erratically behaving data point. If you drop the first figure in each series, you get nice, rising spreads between all the graphs (except the Monitor).

You are correct, 5 mm seems like the most awkward now you mention it. I would still argue that it depends on what you look at. I think it's more obvious in the sheet, armour/IP is a bit better going from 25mm to 50mm while there is a more regular progress from 50mm and onwards. Both 5 mm and 25 mm may actually use a cost increase or an armour decrease, with a bigger change for 5 mm.

Im not sure I'm reading the spreadsheet right, but it looks like you would prefer to see base 5mm armour giving much more protection to the resulting model, and then a steadier, more linear rise after that

There might be some misunderstanding about the spreadsheet. This is not a suggestion, this is merely a more detailed version of the graph, ie. the current situation in the game.

Column C lists the base armour of models on top, followed by the armour of every armour variants. This is used to calculate the total armor (base armour + armour variant of your choice). D lists the armour increase for every armour variant.

G shows the total metal cost, which is the base metal cost for the model to which I added the metal cost of every armour variant. Column I lists the metal cost increase of every variant. Columns H and J are the same, but for IP cost rather than metal.

Then I divided the total armour by the total cost in resource, so B is divided by G in column E. B is divided again in column F.

To me, the important issue with tanks is not necessarily their design efficiency for raw combat power-numbers per input unit. I worry most about things like maneuverability modifiers and other stuff that affects how tanks take the conflict with *other unit types*. This type of concern over the role of tanks is also a current affair/armed forces issue, as with a purported rpg revolution and other such headlines.

Heavy armours indeed have an extra cost that is not taken into account through mobility issues or oil consumption, this is particularly true for steel armour in the early game.

In my experience, the opportunities to push and pierce fronts are limited and fronts mostly uniform so mobility is a secondary concern. There is probably playstyle differences here. If my tanks are not mobile then I can just sacrify independant motorcycles or a motorized unit to cut supply lines or retreat paths when an opportunity arise.

In any case, your numbers looks like sound balancing solution. In a pvp you wouldnt need to just ignore 25mm, for instance, if I have it right.

I made no suggestion other than pointing at my perceived imbalance. I started making this spreadsheet and graph as an attempt to modelize and better understand model designing and thought I would point out at the odd situation of 25 mm armours. At this stage I'm not confident in being able to come up with a solid suggestion on balance on this matter which is why I made no clear cut suggestion. If somebody feels like coming up with one himself then he has access to the same data than I.

[Thrake]

Yeah, calibre is a big deal :
Conventional Small Arms have a calibre of only 20, which already results in a -20% penalty on attacks against 25mm armor... which might still not be enough to make it "better" than 5mm ?

I am setting aside caliber modifiers as well as most of the complexity of calculations. If I wanted to consider the entire complexity of the combat system I think that getting any remotely relevant data would be impossible. It would need to take into account the chassis type (a howitzer on a tank, assault gun or artillery will all have different attack scores), a possible terrain penalty, entrenchment, caliber penalty, feats etc and it's impossible to modelize even half of that.

However hit points are still a valid survival mechanism even if it's just part of the story and armour closely translates to hit points versus non infantry (there's a penalty involved to calculate hit points versus infantry depending on model size).

So getting slightly more hit points per resource spent does not feel like it is meaningful... let's say in the case of medium tank 5 mm versus 25 mm. Now when I look at the armour per IP 5 mm is about 19% better, that starts to look significant to me. Obviously this is all a bit subjective but it's the best I can offer.

Then if you consider 25 mm to be better than 5 mm despite being overall less resource efficient, why would you not go for 50 mm instead, which has an even better caliber penalty while being more resource efficient?

[Don_Kiyote]

I made no suggestion other than pointing at my perceived imbalance...

oops my mistake.

Heavy armours indeed have an extra cost that is not taken into account through mobility issues or oil consumption, this is particularly true for steel armour in the early game.

In my experience, the opportunities to push and pierce fronts are limited and fronts mostly uniform so mobility is a secondary concern.

I meant at the level of the battle screen, in unit-versus-unit combat.

So, for instance, tanks have an innate advantage versus infantry, outside of the caliber modifier, when in combat against them: Infantry must roll to-hit versus a hard target, which is a much lower stat for infantry than their soft attack. So tanks roll over infantry, in combat, unless...

What I really want to know is, if say a rover attacks a heavy tank, does its movement cost or chassis type translate to some bonus analogous to the ability of a lightly armoured vehicle to out-maneuver large, slow tanks, in battle, even though out-gunned.

The battle logs might answer tell me this, but I don't know how to read them.

[Thrake]

Heavy armours indeed have an extra cost that is not taken into account through mobility issues or oil consumption, this is particularly true for steel armour in the early game.

In my experience, the opportunities to push and pierce fronts are limited and fronts mostly uniform so mobility is a secondary concern.

I meant at the level of the battle screen, in unit-versus-unit combat.

So, for instance, tanks have an innate advantage versus infantry, outside of the caliber modifier, when in combat against them: Infantry must roll to-hit versus a hard target, which is a much lower stat for infantry than their soft attack. So tanks roll over infantry, in combat, unless...

What I really want to know is, if say a rover attacks a heavy tank, does its movement cost or chassis type translate to some bonus analogous to the ability of a lightly armoured vehicle to out-maneuver large, slow tanks, in battle, even though out-gunned.

The battle logs might answer tell me this, but I don't know how to read them.
[/quote]

Right, infantry is not supposed to fight tanks in the open cost effectively. However when it comes to RPG, anti-tank guns or other anti-armoured units hit points matter a lot.

Attack scores are fixed for a given unit type. It is calculated combining fixed modifiers linked to the model type and modifiers linked to the weapon type, ie. a tank with a given firepower can have 3 different subsets of attack scores depending on if it's using energy, howitzer or high velocity guns. Well, I guess 4 subsets if it's a monitor with a tactical nuke.

As far as I'm aware the only benefit from mobility in combat is that your unit will start with more AP.

Now for the chassis, bigger size allows for more counter attacks, which are performed with a 50% penalty to the expected attack score. There is also a growing penalty to mobility and to hit point versus infantry as the chassis increases in size.

That's all I'm aware of.