indestructible

[johndoe2]

Buda 44



This should not happen !

[huertgenwald]

Please be more precise. How many shots did you take at the soviet tank ? How many of the remaining 4 red tanks are supressed ?
Otherwise you're most probably right. Just another example of the weird random chances in PzC.

[Vaughn]

I've had luck similar to that...but never quite that bad. It looks like you threw a whole lot at that poor guy. He is tenacious!

[balone]

Chuck Norris tank perhaps?

[shawkhan]

A Chuck Norris tank would have destroyed all adjacent tanks w/o using any ammo.

[robman]

Units with the "chucknorris" trait destroy all adjacent units with a single roundhouse kick.

[balone]

A Chuck Norris tank would have destroyed all adjacent tanks w/o using any ammo.

Units with the "chucknorris" trait destroy all adjacent units with a single roundhouse kick.

Lol! I stand corrected

[Mordan]

Please be more precise. How many shots did you take at the soviet tank ? How many of the remaining 4 red tanks are supressed ?
Otherwise you're most probably right. Just another example of the weird random chances in PzC.

The random generator and combat formula is very rough. There is no smoothness or correction. If your tiger gets 1 2 4 5 7 5 7 3 2 6 7 8 rolls, it will miss. I believe there should be thresholds for which an attack start with AT LEAST 1 hit, then dice rolls are used.

I have seen a few times with two contiguous 100 dice rolls. Press L after a battle.

Or change the random number generation. Why not using bags of numbers 1 to 100. Shuffle the numbers. Each players draws from his own bags of numbers. Once a bag is empty, refill it. Currently, from both players use the same source for their dice rolls which is annoying. And Bags of number is bloody easy to implement.

[KeldorKatarn]

in my experience, as soon as developers start messing with random number generators to satisfy player compaints the game goes to crap-city faster than you can say "dice". I prefer random dice to be just that: random dice.

[Kamerer]

in my experience, as soon as developers start messing with random number generators to satisfy player compaints the game goes to crap-city faster than you can say "dice". I prefer random dice to be just that: random dice.

I don't have the gaming experience to comment on that, but respect your opinion. But I'd also like to say that "crap city" can be a result of amateur tactics, too.

From the pic, what I see is:

a) no artillery in range to supply even minimal initial suppression.
b) no tac air to soften the target.
c) two of the strongest (appearing) tanks have not fired.
d) nothing tells me what the already used attacking (or defending) tanks were in experience/strength before the attack.

So it looks like a fairly normal result to me. And not just game-wise, but historically. IS-2's were not push overs. They were the superlative tank design of the war - with a design derivation that still shows on today's battlefield. That can't really be said directly of ANY other WWII tank, including the King Tiger. So - this looks like a reasonable outcome, especially since you don't know what strength and experience many of those other tanks were in this combat at the start of this turn.

[balone]

" a design derivation that still shows on today's battlefield. That can't really be said directly of ANY other WWII tank, including the King Tiger."

Very true, that fact is often overlooked during any ww2 tank debates.
the King Tigers high profile was never copied post war.

[shawkhan]

Actually, the ISII tank was only about 5 inches lower than a TigerI but over a foot shorter than the TigerII. Its height was 8'11" according to Wikipedia.
The main difference in tank combat between the heavies was their main gun accuracy. Didn't matter if your main gun was bigger if you didn't survive to close to accurate range.
This is why I think the German tanks, with their superb optics and accurate gunlaying are accorded too low an intiative in the game.

[johndoe2]

in my experience, as soon as developers start messing with random number generators to satisfy player compaints the game goes to crap-city faster than you can say "dice". I prefer random dice to be just that: random dice.

I don't have the gaming experience to comment on that, but respect your opinion. But I'd also like to say that "crap city" can be a result of amateur tactics, too.

From the pic, what I see is:

a) no artillery in range to supply even minimal initial suppression.
b) no tac air to soften the target.
c) two of the strongest (appearing) tanks have not fired.
d) nothing tells me what the already used attacking (or defending) tanks were in experience/strength before the attack.

So it looks like a fairly normal result to me. And not just game-wise, but historically. IS-2's were not push overs. They were the superlative tank design of the war - with a design derivation that still shows on today's battlefield. That can't really be said directly of ANY other WWII tank, including the King Tiger. So - this looks like a reasonable outcome, especially since you don't know what strength and experience many of those other tanks were in this combat at the start of this turn.

My point is this: if you prepare the ground – enemy unit surrounded and without ammo – a different set of rules should apply – immediate death!
I don’t care if the unit is 15, 10 or 4 strength – it is surrounded and without ammo it should surrender immediately! No dice roles no nothing – surrender!
Because I did my thing and it is not an easy thing finding 6 units to surround one enemy unit that’s been rendered ineffective by strat bomber and arty!
I have complained about the same thing before and I’m suppressed no one else is bothered by the ludicrousness of the situation.
Surrounded without ammo – surrender!

[Shrike]

I disagree. Suppression mechanics are more than adequate as it is, so use that knowledge and just kill tanks (with or) without ammo off properly. Running out of ammo is not a crime that should be punished, but rather an acceptable risk you may be willing to take yourself with a beefy tank if it wins you the battle.

[johndoe2]

'just kill tanks (with or) without ammo off properly' ?!? - Meaning exactly what? What's a proper way killing enemy units?


Running out of ammo IS a crime!!! And if you are foolish enough to leave you unit without and completely surrounded then you should be punished and severely - like in real life scenario.

[dragos]

My idea would be as following: when an unit is out of ammo, it automatically receives 1 point of suppression for each enemy unit adjacent to it. So a unit out of ammo and fully surrounded would start any combat with 6 points of suppression, which would alleviate such situations.

[Shrike]

'just kill tanks (with or) without ammo off properly' ?!? - Meaning exactly what? What's a proper way killing enemy units?


Running out of ammo IS a crime!!! And if you are foolish enough to leave you unit without and completely surrounded then you should be punished and severely - like in real life scenario.

It means: use strategic bombers and artillery to suppress the tank first and only then attack with armor. Yes, you will still benefit from immobilizing it first, but you can even use infantry for that. if you force a sufficiently suppressed unit to retreat and it can't, it will simply surrender. Simple game mechanics and nothing to do with real life. This is a _game_ my friend, don't get upset about this.

[johndoe2]

Have you actually read my post? That's all I'm gonna say...

[brettz123]

Have you actually read my post? That's all I'm gonna say...

I think what he is saying is that if you had suppressed him enough with artillery and strat bombers and then attacked with your best tanks first this probably wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

I don't see any artillery in range (though to be fair the Wespe in the bottom right could have a range 1 hero) and I don't see any strat bombers anywhere so your picture leaves the idea that you did not suppress the tank at all before attacking. Then I have to wonder why you didn't attack with your best tanks first. There is no benefit to attacking with them last.

[balone]

Have you actually read my post? That's all I'm gonna say...

I think what he is saying is that if you had suppressed him enough with artillery and strat bombers and then attacked with your best tanks first this probably wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

I don't see any artillery in range (though to be fair the Wespe in the bottom right could have a range 1 hero) and I don't see any strat bombers anywhere so your picture leaves the idea that you did not suppress the tank at all before attacking. Then I have to wonder why you didn't attack with your best tanks first. There is no benefit to attacking with them last.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I see three tiger II's and one tiger I. Two
of the tiger II's are SE so it appears that he did attack with his best
units. IF, preattack, the soviet tank had 4 strength and no ammo then
I think johndoe has a valid point. Surrounded with no ammo? Come on!