Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

World at War: Blood and Bridges» Forums » Rules

Subject: Advanced Armour (Armor) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Steven Price
New Zealand
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Has anyone used the unofficial 'advanced armour' rule in their playings of WaW?

I haven't, however it does appear to offer a potential balance against the uber-ATmissile effect.

With the advanced missile systems in B&B ammo depletion is rarer, so perhaps this rule is more suitable for incorporation and balancing.

Anyone have thoughts on this matter?

Steven
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
HERMANN LUTTMANN
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We haven't used them yet but we have tried the suggested Ammo Depletion changes mentioned on another thread (i.e.; confirming the replenishment of the missiles with a roll of "4-6" before actually removing the Ammo Depleted-1 marker). Those seemed to work pretty well - they at least "felt" right. We're interested to find out what the "official" position is on ATGM deadliness from LnL. I don't know enough about ATGM's in real life nor which "fix" (advanced armor or ammo depletion or value changes on ATGM fire) would fit best into the game system. I'm always careful not to throw house rules into a system without knowing if there's going to be some kind of domino effect on other aspects of the game. In fact, the only house rule we use involves the artillery scatter - we roll another die to determine the actual direction of scatter (choosing the scatter hex just didn't sit well with us).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher O
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Summer grasses / All that remains / Of soldiers' dreams. - Basho.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I haven't used it yet. I'm trying to play through all of the scenarios before I offer a final opinion.

I've played all of the WaW:EG scenarios (1-6) now (some of them multiple times), and three of the WaW:B&B scenarios (3,6,7). So far, I'm still inclined to say that the ATGMs are overpowered. Even though the advanced armour variant would correct the problem when firing against chobham or reactive armour units, it would still not stop the problem of BMP-2s ripping up any non-advanced armoured AFV in range.

Once there's a larger group of people in my local wargaming community playing and they have formed their own opinions, I'll probably suggest lowering all Soviet ATGMs and some NATO ATGMs by one FP factor. I'll also suggest the advanced armour variant I modified from Jim Snyder here at BGG, and perhaps minimum ranges for ATGMs, which I'd have to do more research on.

Fifteen or so games is a fair amount, but I don't think it's quite enough to fully assess the system for long-term balance, so I'm withholding final judgement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Colin Hunter
New Zealand
Auckland
flag msg tools
badge
Stop the admins removing history from the Wargaming forum.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Realistically at the scale this game is at minimum range wouldn't make much sense, especially since most of the missiles at this point are not command guided, but proper SACLOS.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Price
New Zealand
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
HORST324 wrote:
We haven't used them yet but we have tried the suggested Ammo Depletion changes mentioned on another thread (i.e.; confirming the replenishment of the missiles with a roll of "4-6" before actually removing the Ammo Depleted-1 marker). Those seemed to work pretty well - they at least "felt" right. We're interested to find out what the "official" position is on ATGM deadliness from LnL. I don't know enough about ATGM's in real life nor which "fix" (advanced armor or ammo depletion or value changes on ATGM fire) would fit best into the game system. I'm always careful not to throw house rules into a system without knowing if there's going to be some kind of domino effect on other aspects of the game. In fact, the only house rule we use involves the artillery scatter - we roll another die to determine the actual direction of scatter (choosing the scatter hex just didn't sit well with us).


The problem I'm finding with ammo depletion is that the more effective the ATGM system (as in B&B), the less chance of ammo depletion, particularly if you do what I do and stick HQs with them.

I would highlight that ATGM's are not a super-weapon on the B&B battlefield, but they are very powerful.

Steven
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Price
New Zealand
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Kozure wrote:
Even though the advanced armour variant would correct the problem when firing against chobham or reactive armour units, it would still not stop the problem of BMP-2s ripping up any non-advanced armoured AFV in range.


I would consider a BMP-2 platoon ripping apart a M60A1 platoon as a possibly realistic result, provided the BMPs got first shot, or were outside the M60s effective engagement range.

I appreciate LnLs view on keeping rules simple (refer smoke rule), and I believe a minimum ATGM range may be against this philosophy, just as they appear to have gone against Jim's advanced armour rule. However, with respect to scenario 4, where T-64BVs are present in limited numbers, the use of the advanced armour rule may even things up a bit. I might give this a go myself to see what happens.

I appreciate people's thoughts on this. Has Jim spoken (typed) about this before (please excuse my laziness in not searching)?

Steven
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher O
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Summer grasses / All that remains / Of soldiers' dreams. - Basho.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ibn_ul_khattab wrote:
Realistically at the scale this game is at minimum range wouldn't make much sense, especially since most of the missiles at this point are not command guided, but proper SACLOS.


Minimum range for a Sagger is 500m, which translates to 3 hexes. Spiral is 400m which is 2 hexes (or 3 if you round up).

You're right, in the case of the other missiles.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Vater
Germany
Cologne
NRW
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Same old, same old.

I began using the 'Ammo Depleted' die roll as soon as Steven proposed it here on BGG. That worked quite well so far. But a 'Death Star' consisting of an ATGM unit stacked with a HQ is very unlikely to ever suffer from AD, goes without saying.

The advanced armour rule really fits the bill, i'd say, but we're still reluctant to use it for fear of tipping the scenario balance. On the other hand, laminate and rective armour were introduced to counter ATGMs. An APFSDS round isn't affected by it in any way. So it should have an impact on gameplay, really. Ah, decisions, decisions.

Regarding minimum ranges, one should not forget that the ATGM weapon systems in the mid-eighties were SACLOS guided (except for the SAGGER), all right, but also first generation ATGMs. That means guided by wire, not beam-guided like the more modern ATGMs. This reduces minimum range to a minimum but makes missile guidance a quite fragile affair. Firing a wire-guided missile in a built-up, forested or rugged terrain area can easily lead to wire breakage, effectively losing the missile.

Last but not least, the missile has to be manually guided right on target. If the target happens to be a distant vehicle moving at full speed, the chances of hitting are quite small. That's actually my main concern about the whole 'missile affair'. In WoW, a platoon of e.g. MILAN-equipped Panzergrenadiers is as effective against a platoon of T-80s as a troop of Leopard 2s. And that's without a highly sophisticated digital fire control system and a 120mm smoothbore gun at its business end. Not to mention the very much higher rate of fire of the MBT.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Price
New Zealand
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Radetzkymarsch wrote:
Same old, same old.


Agree. I don't want this thread reverting to WaW ATGM whining. I think we've all had enough of that

I for one am going to explore Jim's advanced armour rule as to whether it restores some balance. If so, I assume LnL will likely never accept it as a official rule now, but I wouldn't mind it as a house rule (just like the dicing for removal of ammo depletion marker).

As an aside, from my 10 playings of B&B, ammo depletion has only occurred once. I don't know what the odds are (someone will be able to calculate it), but that does seem under-representative, particularly when I use the ITV in EG and always seem to shoot my load off!!! (Not on the board of-course blush )

Steven
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bry Barnes
United Kingdom
Somerset, Uk
flag msg tools
I'm wondering whether it would be a good idea to alter the missile units so that they actually had an ammo limit of dice?

For each missile firing unit you have an ammo supply represented by a dice for each missile shot available, say 12 or 16 dice. These dice could be held in a cup for each unit and the ammo supply determined by the scenario (or a die roll?).

The ammo supply is held off-map, in a cup say, so the opponent doesn't know the units ammo status.

When the missile unit fires the firing player takes the dice from the ammo cup for that unit and after 'firing' discards those dice.

The missile unit can fire up to it's normal firepower of dice but there's no ammo depletion if they all miss.

Might be more complicated than the current rules but it does have an advantage - you need loadsa-dice

You could even have your re-supply trucks bringing in extra 'missile' dice for the ammo cup?

Just a thought.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darrell Pavitt
United Kingdom
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you are going to do that, you might just as well write the number on a piece of paper.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bry Barnes
United Kingdom
Somerset, Uk
flag msg tools
You could do, but it's more fun having fistfuls of dice.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Schulte
United States
Washington
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If we are talking about tweaking the game with house rules here's one suggestion I have for those who think that ATGMs are too powerful.

I would adjust the rule on Ammo depletion to so that it occurs if the firing unit hits on all dice, rather than all misses. This would have a balance effect in that the good shoot is then offset by ammo depletion. If using this rule when using an HQ to augment firepower, I would impose AD if the firing unit hits on dice equal to its base firepower.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Tamburo
United States
Justice
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Another approach would be to set a "depletion number" for each side in a scenario. The number could be expressed like this:

5/4

The first number is how many ATGM shots you get before AD comes into play. The second number is the target number (equal or higher) that is rolled on 1 die each time an ATGM fires. If you roll that target then AD occurs.

So, in the 5/4 example each firing of an ATGM triggers a depletion die roll and a roll of 4,5 or 6 depletes. The 5 means that this starts the 6th time you fire an ATGM.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Price
New Zealand
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
I've been thinking (always a dangerous thing). I understand the advanced armour rule was discarded due to the perceived additional unnecessary complexity it bought to the rules. However, in hindsight, it could be simple and act as a counter to current WaW super ATGMs.

How about just marking tanks with advanced armour (i.e. Chobham and ERA) with astericks (*) next to their armour factors. Those with such a mark roll an additional die against ATGM attack (attacked by units with underlined range on the AT factors).

Simple. A rule in 2 sentences (followed by an example).

Come on LnL, get this in some revised rules! Pretty please?

Steven
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.