Tank Armor

[Miniature Hero]

Well having read what you guys have been discussing about armour in this game I found this article from The Gates of Hell http://steamcommunity.com/games/400750/announcements/detail/289750654259080822 which a developer has written which is in my opinion very good and allows the average person to work out the values needed to penetrate certain types of armour thickness. The guy who did this deserves a medal for making it simple to understand with the table he created and we need something like this right across the war gaming system in my opinion.

 

[Rabidnid]

Well having read what you guys have been discussing about armour in this game I found this article from The Gates of Hell http://steamcommunity.com/games/400750/announcements/detail/289750654259080822 which a developer has written which is in my opinion very good and allows the average person to work out the values needed to penetrate certain types of armour thickness. The guy who did this deserves a medal for making it simple to understand with the table he created and we need something like this right across the war gaming system in my opinion.

Yup, that is a fairly standard information. What is missing though is the percentage chance of a penetration. Nazi Germany used a 50% value while the USSR used an 80% value. This makes the paper penetration of Nazi German guns look higher in comparison to other nations guns. The Red Dragon damage model does an excellent job of representing armour. The only addition needed would be to have a second armour value set to reflect the turret only when hull down.

 

[Admiral Piett]

The level of armour detail for this game would be higher even if Eugen keeps something similar to the Wargame system (0-20 scale). Instead of trying to fit everything from jeeps to Challenger 2s into the system, we would be dealing with a significantly smaller range of armour thicknesses.

 

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

How tank armor will be represented ? Will it work with the same abstraction as Wargame does, ie. The tank is a square box with FAV, SAV, TAV, RAV and loses HP when hit ? Or will it have a finer depiction something closer to MOWAS for instance,(let's be enthusiast something like War Thunder ?) locating damages and taking into acount several armor plates on the same arc and maybe even taking into account angling ?

I would hope that tank armor is real numbers. my biggest hurt with wargame is armor is like 15 or 24... how does this make sense? armor is 24? 24 what? my example was challanger 2 but you know what i mean

 

[Nequit]

I would hope that tank armor is real numbers. my biggest hurt with wargame is armor is like 15 or 24... how does this make sense? armor is 24? 24 what?

24 points of armor. And why Eugen uses some arbitrary stat system makes a lot of sense, since Wargame is heavily inspired by you know, wargames.

 

[MarcoRossolini]

Yup, that is a fairly standard information. What is missing though is the percentage chance of a penetration. Nazi Germany used a 50% value while the USSR used an 80% value. This makes the paper penetration of Nazi German guns look higher in comparison to other nations guns. The Red Dragon damage model does an excellent job of representing armour. The only addition needed would be to have a second armour value set to reflect the turret only when hull down.

Very interested by this - sources please?

 

[Glapsviðr]

The armour hit/kill aspect is related to the level of abstraction, are we playing Close Combat or are we play Highway to the Reich?

If one tank = one tank on a certain terrain, then the penetration needs to be calculated "for real". If one tank = one platoon then there will be some armour penetration abstraction.

The question is, would a "division" with say 300 tanks in reserve would be able to loose 300 tanks on the battlefield or would there be any kind of abstraction

 

[WojtasK]

Please make tanks as useless in dense woods as they should be.

In Wargame they just move slower while in reality it is also almost impossible to rotate turret in a dense forest. Drasticly decreasing turret and whole tank rotation speed would be good for infantry ambushes with grenades but would not decrease tank's ability to ambush enemy at long range when staying hidden in the forest.

Also if we speak about Normandy we can't ignore hedgerows that were often a tough obstacle even for tanks.

 

[Holy.Death]

Well it's on the wargame engine, and everything looks exactly like wargame except it's world war 2. How different do you think it will be?

Isn't "a total absence of health bars" one of the features of "Steel Division"?

Eugen Systems have one particular gripe with how RTS games deal with units being destroyed: health bars. Two infantry units fighting it out, chipping away at each other’s health points until whoever opened fire first emerges victorious, albeit battered. That’s not how war happens in the real world, says Le Dressay. ”One thing we have in the game is this two-paced gameplay. First thing, you try to prevent the enemy from shooting on you, by shooting on them a lot. Second thing, destroying it. What we wanted to prevent was to have was health bars and stuff like that - absolutely not realistic.”

 

[77Hawk77]

Isn't "a total absence of health bars" one of the features of "Steel Division"?

It seems so, but then again maybe not, there is at least "morale" health bars . But I guess we'll see, if there are no health bars at all, AP and Armour values will be even more important.