movement and fortifications

[Siddhi]

A couple of SPMBT (different) design issues that I recently grappled with in designing a scenario. I would be interested in comments.

i. vehicle movement in broken terrain
This has probably been addressed many times already, but I would like to know what the rational (gameplay?) was behind the current vehicle movement capability in broken or restricted terrain. Basically: why tanks (let alone wheeled APCs) can cross wooded terrain. They can't. Not even close, especially if it an old wood / heavily forested. Even a "young" wood with saplings can be dangerous, slipped tracks and lack of traction on broken wood will immobilise most tanks even under these circumstances pretty quickly. Designing a scenario (as I recently did in an upcoming scenario on Wargamer, SPANNOCHI'S DREAM II) with "impassable" terrain as a base for the wood only goes so far, the AI will still try it.

ii. Fortifications
Totally different database issue. For a scenario I felt I had to completely "redo" some of the bunker emplacements in the database; although the armament was mostly correct the hit ratios were much lower then they should have been. To accurately simulate a 1m reinforced conrete, I had to radically raise armour ratios - also, the "turret" rating had to be raised higher then it probably is as the "turrent" in an embunkered position is effectively just the firing slit, i.e. 25-30% of the size of a normal "turret". The size had to be decreased from 2 to 1 to give the bunkers a chance of survival, given that concealment is such a major issue for bunkers I thought it sensible.

iii. vehicle size
Something I have been unable to address but which detracts from gameplay is the none-modelling (as far as I can tell) of different tank sizes, leading to incorrect hit ratios. The T-55 e.g. is a full 40% smaller then a m60 front aspect, how can you have the same hit ratios for it? Many tanks were designed specifically to have a small front aspect, e.g. the Swedish assault-gun type construction of the 1970s with a fixed turrent.

I have a couple more but would be interested to hear if these issues

[Mobhack]

1) Woods can be considered open woods. If you want more difficult but still traversable ones - add rough under them. For really nasty ones then you could possibly use mud as a base terain - thus giving a chance of sticking.

In fact - I cannot think of any wargame rules (paper based or tabletop) where woods are totally impassable to vehicles.

2) I am not really sure of your point here, I'm afraid.

3) The SP system uses a simple size variable - and a T-5X is usually size 4, wheras a ceturion is a 5. (If the original code had been based on tabletop rules (I think it was based on panzerbliz, a hex based boxed game ?) then it might have been similar to the Challenger/Firefly rues where vehicles get an aspect such as A/C/C - cannot recall which one id the side on, ahead and turret size aspect (havent browsed those rules in 5+ years . But then again - the WRG rules had no size modifiers.

Cheers
Andy

[serg3d]

Mobhack said:

3) The SP system uses a simple size variable - and a T-5X is usually size 4, wheras a ceturion is a 5
Andy

I'm wondering - if AI code could be modified so hull-down position could be implemented ? The tank in hull-down position, on the edge of the slope could have it's size reduced, and hit into hull blocked, and have the same area of visibility as tank on top. The more difficult thing would be to make AI to choose those position. Though may be not so difficult - in the attack tank stop as soon as it see the target - that is exactly in hull-down position, and in the defense deployement it should be moved forward or back until it is hull-down.

[DRG]

Siddhi said:
A couple of SPMBT (different) design issues that I recently grappled with in designing a scenario. I would be interested in comments.

i. vehicle movement in broken terrain
This has probably been addressed many times already, but I would like to know what the rational (gameplay?) was behind the current vehicle movement capability in broken or restricted terrain. Basically: why tanks (let alone wheeled APCs) can cross wooded terrain. They can't. Not even close, especially if it an old wood / heavily forested. Even a "young" wood with saplings can be dangerous, slipped tracks and lack of traction on broken wood will immobilise most tanks even under these circumstances pretty quickly. Designing a scenario (as I recently did in an upcoming scenario on Wargamer, SPANNOCHI'S DREAM II) with "impassable" terrain as a base for the wood only goes so far, the AI will still try it.

******See Andys answer. "wooded areas" can vary widely. I live on a wooded lot . From the road it appears quite dense, from inside there are plenty of places a tank could drive through (at reduced speed) and there are areas that driving a tank through would most definitely NOT be a great idea. However,given the scale of the game a 50x50 metre area allows a lot of leeway and SP has always allowed entry to these areas with movement penalties and for general game play there are generally no further restrictions but a speed reduction. Sceanrio designers, on the other hand, have map terrain provided in the game that can be placed under treed hexes that can achieve the type of "forest" you desire. Anything from rough to impassable to swamp or mud. All of those can be placed on the map along with trees to restrict movement of vehicles though forested terrain

Siddhi said:
ii. Fortifications
Totally different database issue. For a scenario I felt I had to completely "redo" some of the bunker emplacements in the database; although the armament was mostly correct the hit ratios were much lower then they should have been. To accurately simulate a 1m reinforced conrete, I had to radically raise armour ratios - also, the "turret" rating had to be raised higher then it probably is as the "turrent" in an embunkered position is effectively just the firing slit, i.e. 25-30% of the size of a normal "turret". The size had to be decreased from 2 to 1 to give the bunkers a chance of survival, given that concealment is such a major issue for bunkers I thought it sensible.

******I'm with Andy on this one. I really don't understand the point you are trying ot make. First you talk of hit ratios then "radically raise armour ratios ". Two very different issues. There are HUNDREDS of bunkers and fortifications in the game. You don't even hint at which ones you felt the needed to alter. Bunker sizes vary quite a lot, from zero to 4 depending on whim of the OOB designer who put them in . There are plenty that are size 1 already

Siddhi said:
iii. vehicle size
Something I have been unable to address but which detracts from gameplay is the none-modelling (as far as I can tell) of different tank sizes, leading to incorrect hit ratios. The T-55 e.g. is a full 40% smaller then a m60 front aspect, how can you have the same hit ratios for it? Many tanks were designed specifically to have a small front aspect, e.g. the Swedish assault-gun type construction of the 1970s with a fixed turrent.

I have a couple more but would be interested to hear if these issues

"none-modelling" ?? Really ?? Well let's look at that. ....

A T-55 is 6.45 metres long, 3.2m wide and 2.4 metres tall and is given a size rating of 4 in the game. The M60 is taller and wider and is rated at size 5. An M2 Bradley is very close to the same size as a T-55 and is given a 4 rating as well. The Stridsvagn 103 ( the S-tank ) is as wide as an M60 but only just slightly over 2 metres high and is given a rating size of 3 . When all three of those tanks are placed as targets on a "test firing range" sceanrio and fired at ( in my case with a Challenger 2 ) from 25, 35 and 50 hexes ( or 1250, 1750 and 2500 metres range ) in all cases from all ranges the larger M60 produced higher to hit chances than the T-55 and the T-55 produced higher to-hit chances than the Stridsvagn so just where is the "none-modelling" you speak of in the game?. This test was standardized so that all the firing crews had 80 experience and 75 moral and the leaders "armour command "ability was set to 75 for each tank. Perhaps your test had wildly varying moral, experience or ability ?

Here are the reported accuracy results ( the "to-hit" chance ) of the three target tanks at the three ranges in the test I just ran with the standardized crew ratings

25 hex range

Stridsvagn 103 ( size 3 )-- 73% T-55 ( size 4 )--78% M60 ( size 5 )-- 80%

35 hex range

Stridsvagn 103 ( size 3 )-- 64% T-55 ( size 4 )--69% M60 ( size 5 )-- 73%

50 hex range

Stridsvagn 103 ( size 3 )-- 34% T-55 ( size 4 )--37% M60 ( size 5 )-- 40%

[DRG]

serg3d said:
I'm wondering - if AI code could be modified so hull-down position could be implemented ? The tank in hull-down position, on the edge of the slope could have it's size reduced, and hit into hull blocked, and have the same area of visibility as tank on top. The more difficult thing would be to make AI to choose those position. Though may be not so difficult - in the attack tank stop as soon as it see the target - that is exactly in hull-down position, and in the defense deployement it should be moved forward or back until it is hull-down.

There are limitations to this given that each hex represents 50 metres and half a football field is a big area. However, if you run a test you will find that a tank on a ridge is given a lower to-hit chance than one and at the same range and on the same level as the firing unit so what you are asking for is already simulated in the game.

In the test I just ran ( so I could provide you with the exact numbers ) a Challenger 2+ firing at a size 5 tank at 350 metres range with that target tank on the same level as the firing unit was given a 99% to hit chance and when firing at a target tank on a ridge one level higher than the firing unit that to-hit chance dropped to 84% ( range was also 350 metres )

When the range was set to 600 metres, the tank on the same level as the firing unit was given an 89% to-hit chance and the one on the ridge at 600 metres was given an 80% chance. Note that the to-hit percentages are narrowing as the tank is further away and the angle it's firing upward decreases. In the 350 metre test it was 15% difference, in the 600 metre test the difference is down to a 9% difference. When the firing unit is 850 metres away from the target at the same level the to-hit drops to 55% and the target on the level 1 ridge is 55 % as well.

All test were ran with standardized crew and leader ratings for the firing units so variations in crew and leader ability are not a factor in the testing as they would be if they are not standardized

Don

[Siddhi]

good comments, thanks for them

i.) the "wood issue" is still a tricky one for me. putting mud as a base is a good solution, i tried it with swamp once but the problem remains that whatever base terrain you use (impassible, mud, swamp), infatry movement is cut drastically as well. given that one of the whole points of infantry is movement in broken terrain i find the "work arounds" not completly satisfactory. For instance, in our concept of a "delay defence" it is completly dependet on the ability of the infantry to emerge (or stay hidden) in a wood, fire, and evade into the wood before direct fire can be brough in. often in my case i have tanks/aifvs charge in after them (ok, fair play) and be able to match their foot speed (definetly not fair play) and gun them down.

also, i have problems "forcing" my AI units to stick to the roads and not try to cross broken terrain - and getting stuck in the process. setting waypoints for every platoon unit is a regiment+ scenario is a bit of a bore.

ii.) fair point on fortifcations - it would be easier to show with a scenario an example and see what the consensus was. one my issues was the armour ratios of bunkers, which are rather low in my view. the second problem, which might be a misunderstanding of the game dynamics, was the ratio of "turrent" to "hull" on he bunker side. Presumably "turrent" refers to the firing slit in an (embunkered) position, however it seems to have (based on the ease in which tanks can hit it in the game)on the actual Turrent/hull ratio of armoured units - obviously this ration more balanced then the firing slit/bunker wall ratio (WAG: 1:2.5 for a tank and 1:10 for a bunker). Thus critical "knock-out" happen much easier to a bunker then they should.

iii.) thanks for the lesson on vehicle size. didn't know, and i agree it probablly is sufficently calculated.

another question:
any suggestions how to force an AI unit to keep its squads mounted? my scenario requires them to remain so, but seem to dismount automatically at any fortified (mined, obstacle) line, even if it is already breached and overcome. i basically want the second wave to remain mounted and attack the second line, however they seem to dismount at the first line, even after breach.

[Listy]

Siddhi said:
good comments, thanks for them

i.) the "wood issue" is still a tricky one for me. putting mud as a base is a good solution, i tried it with swamp once but the problem remains that whatever base terrain you use (impassible, mud, swamp), infatry movement is cut drastically as well. given that one of the whole points of infantry is movement in broken terrain i find the "work arounds" not completly satisfactory. For instance, in our concept of a "delay defence" it is completly dependet on the ability of the infantry to emerge (or stay hidden) in a wood, fire, and evade into the wood before direct fire can be brough in. often in my case i have tanks/aifvs charge in after them (ok, fair play) and be able to match their foot speed (definetly not fair play) and gun them down.

If the tanks in dense terrian, force it to close up (slap some suppression on it) then close assault it, either from ambush or the flanks. That'll stop it following you, hopefully