AT defensive fire

[KeldorKatarn]

Since it's been recently discussed in the scenario design forum I wanted to ask you guys in the main forum what you think of this.
Would it make AT units more interesting if they were given a train that would make them offer supportive fire against attacks on adjacent units by hard-target attackers? A bit like OOB? It certainly would give more usefulness to especially those AT units that are not really capable of holding a front.

The mod allows AT units to be switched to Arty with range 0. But that obviously doesn't work properly. First of all arty has a different kind of damage dealing, doing mostly suppressive fire, and also that way you offer supportive fire no matter who attacks. That AT units would offer support fire to tanks who are attacked by infantry is a bit silly. Also obvsiouly the switching back and forth is not great.

Maybe such a train "at_support" could be added as part of a patch? Then modders could play around with it and if it adds to the game maybe eventually all AT units could get it by default?

Any ideas? It's hard to tell whether this would make the game more fun and the tactics involved more challenging without being able to test it properly, considering no such trait exitst. But what are your opinions anyway? I feel it would certainly give towed AT and stuff like Marders, SPATs with low ground defense, a new cool place on the battlefield. And it would also kind of unify the support-units AA, AT and ART as all being units giving support fire, some only against specific types of attackers. Maybe eventually one could even modify rocket artillery to only offer support fire against soft targets.

[Lagg3]

Towed AT units can actually be used only in defensive scenarios, when you've got to entrench yourself and engage in "not a one step back" operation till the end. We don't have much of those, do we? Otherwise these ATs are useless.
Self-propelled ATs are a bit better, especially those Soviet that devs are so desperately trying to split into ATs and arty Nonetheless, i don't see much sense in using them in AT mode.
What CAN make ATs useful is an ability to attack targets at adjusted hexes without receiving return fire. That would be really interesting, especially when there are some superior armor present that is difficult to counter using traditional measures. Attacking other targets would be nice too, as lots of ATs have 75mm+ calibers , which can be pretty effective (cough-cough, SU-152).
Dunno how it can be achieved though the game mechanics, but using standard attack values and some trigger like "cannot counter" could be the way.
To prevent from being imbalanced in this mode, some limitations should be introduced. I'd opt for "rate of fire" at 30% to 50%, and excluding ATs from "cannot counter" list, so that ATs, attacked by other ATs in discussed mode, could return fire.

All IMHO, of course, and, since i've never played multiplayer battles and stand alone scenarios, my perspective is quite narrow and one-sided.

[KeldorKatarn]

The thing is, right now you can lure the AI and probably also inexperienced MP players into attacking units that are protected by arty or AA when those support units are still hidden by fog of war. especially effective in bad weather for arty of course. At it stands, AT units were historically all support units, not main line units. That was tanks and infantry only. They ambushed their targets or supported with their fire. So if you could lure tanks into attacking infantry that has a supporting AT unit hidden in the fog... Also ambushes of such units could be really nice. Especially AT units with very low GD are near useless at the front without really good arty protecting them. With this trait they could be used BEHIND the front to help out the front line units, or even support eachother if placed adjacent. Also 1 move towed AT units could become very useful. it's hard to place them in a way that they can ever really attack units, even though it is possible. But it is a lot easier to place them somewhere where they can support the front units during the enemy turn. I feel that could give the AT unit a whole new quality. And I'd really like to see this implemented just as a trait so people could test it and if it works, modify the equipment file to give that to all AT units.

[ThvN]

That's a nice idea, also, good description of the use of AT units. I'm not sure how the AI would respond to this trait, this might complicate things a bit design-wise?

Would such an 'at_support' (atsup) trait mean it would fire first against all hard targets attacking an adjacent unit? This might make them too powerful, actually. If this support fire has the same rules as artillery it would mean that it would fire first without any form of retaliation, each time, against every 'hard' type unit, even though it might only be protecting a 2-str infantry unit. If there is also an artillery unit adjacent to this unit it would become a black hole for attacking tanks.

What I'm afraid will happen is this: Player sees weak infantry unit, attacks it with tank: unspotted arty fires first, takes a kill/suppression, OK, could be worse. Then, without the possibility of retaliation, it is fired upon by a powerful AT-gun which might wreck the weakened attacker completely. And this will happen to every attacking unit. This way, this trio of defending units would be able to wreck several tank units in a single turn. The AI will be more easily exploited than a human, but still...

So I think it is basically a sound idea but it would need some limiting. I'm trying to think of some rules for this trait, like you say an 'atsup' unit would only support against hard targets, but maybe it would need to be limited in some way.

Some quick ideas to limit effectiveness:

1) make it only fire at attacking units that are adjacent to the AT unit as well, not just all adjacent units. So it would only fire defensively if it was adjacent to the attacking unit as well; Not ideal, as it would still always be able to be targeted separately.

2) do not let it fire first always, perhaps let it fire by order of initiative; Seems complicated to implement.

3) limit the no. of defensive attacks it can make; Might be too harsh or too easily exploited.

4) To pitch an idea of mine that might also help, I have had a long-standing idea that artillery would be better if each defending barrage in a single turn was weaker than the previous one. Perhaps by means of suppression: each time it fires a point of suppression is added to the arty unit, so it will become less effective with each shot; This might also work for the 'atsup' units, but it would still allow a lot of free attacks, perhaps too much.


A bit off-topic here, but I think if some current class abilities are remade into separate traits unit modding would be improved: you'd need a 'support' trait (which every arty/AA gun would need) and an 'direct damage' (ddam?) and indirect damage' (idam?) ability: indicating to use the normal or the arty/level bomber damage table.

I think a lot can be improved by simply making existing class abilities into separate traits: you could finally get rid of the AT-class +3 ini bonus for turreted AT vehicles an instead finally use the 'fixedt/rott' traits for (non-)turreted vehicles, also other class abilities could be used out-of-class for other units. Look at what happened when the former-class-ability 'reconmove' and 'captureflag' traits were added to be used for everything, that was a big success in my view.

[Stephen1024]

Hi ThvN

I like your ideas 1 and 3, maybe another idea would be AT does only half damage in support mode?

Also like the idea making things more trait based does sound good way go and great for MODDERS.

You might want to check out my medal thread for ways to increase usefulness of infantry, recon and AT units. http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 21&t=72004

I think the best answer is probably a mixture of all the ideas.

To the person thought of AT support good idea if it can be made to not be over powering.

[KeldorKatarn]

I don't think it would be overpowered. After all OOB: Pacific already does this, and Panzer Corps already has it for arty and AA. As long as the AI is aware of that support fire in its combat prediction I think it should be perfectly fine. It is already aware how to use AA and Arty as protection (at least it's smart enough to switch switchanbe arties and AAs back to their support role when necessary, so I assume it's aware of these functions) for the most part. And even if it is not 100% great at using it itself, most senarios have AT guns on hold position anyway and they are usually already in decent positions to support the defense line they are part of. I think this would only make it more tricky to dislodge enemy positions and make it also more fun to lay traps for the AI (which wouldn't be any more powerful that Arty or AA or fighter traps you can already lay). And yes maybe a Ferdinand, Jagdtiger or even a good towed 88 would be devastating on defensive fire.. but so is a nebelwerfer if you trap an infantry. And considering the crap ton of tanks the GCs throw at you, I doubt it would give you a major advantage, especially if it only works if the defending AT is not already spotted because then the AI doesn't attack, like it doesn't attack into arty that it can already see.

[KeldorKatarn]

1) make it only fire at attacking units that are adjacent to the AT unit as well, not just all adjacent units. So it would only fire defensively if it was adjacent to the attacking unit as well; Not ideal, as it would still always be able to be targeted separately.

This is not a good idea I think. The main advantage of AT defensive fire iMO is that towed units wouldn't be so limited by their speed anymore since they don't have to keep up with the front but it's enough to get adjacent to the font line units. Also units like Marders with low GD would be more useful BEHIND the lines that way. The heavy GD ATs then would be like the arty StuGs, arty units that can take a front position and still be somewhat fine, while low GD AT units would be more like the squishy arties that should never directly face the enemy. So I think limiting this to only adjacent units is a bad idea.

3) limit the no. of defensive attacks it can make; Might be too harsh or too easily exploited.

I think this is the much better option. We already have this in place for fighter cover and it should be cool for AT. it should probably be tested first if multiple attacks are too devastating. Honestly I don't think so. Look at arty, The AI only usually attacks into arty or AA traps if it is not aware of their presense. After the first attack the defending unit is spotted (unless the attacker was destroyed of course) and the AI no longer attacks. As long as the AI is aware of the support fire in its predictions for what a good attack is, it shouldn't turn into a slaughter. It will simply keep the AI from attacking that point, which is the same a good arty would do. This way however it would free up your arty to do agressive stuff and you can use AT units for defense instead.

And think about it.. usually it was AT guns offering support fire against armored attacks, not arty. Tanks were in fact invented to be able to attack through machine gun and artillery barrages mostly unharmed. Arty was supposed to supress enemy stationary positions and attacking infantry, not necessarily tanks. That's what hidden AT positions were for. So I think AT defensive fire would make defensive tactics a lot more realistic (yeah that word again, but you know what I mean)

A bit off-topic here, but I think if some current class abilities are remade into separate traits unit modding would be improved: you'd need a 'support' trait (which every arty/AA gun would need) and an 'direct damage' (ddam?) and indirect damage' (idam?) ability: indicating to use the normal or the arty/level bomber damage table.

I think that's a great idea. Especially since it would offer a ton of new oportunities to test stuff and to try out fun new units. (And while at it... the traits should FINALLY be made visible in the UI. If there's not enough room in the side bar, at least add them to the unit overview popup).

I think a lot can be improved by simply making existing class abilities into separate traits: you could finally get rid of the AT-class +3 ini bonus for turreted AT vehicles an instead finally use the 'fixedt/rott' traits for (non-)turreted vehicles, also other class abilities could be used out-of-class for other units. Look at what happened when the former-class-ability 'reconmove' and 'captureflag' traits were added to be used for everything, that was a big success in my view.

Agreed. I'm using reconmove for Kradschützen always now and it is also great for recon planes. Those traits really need to me made usable on all units and no longer hard coded. It would make the equipment file so much more powerful and will offer all sorts of opportunities for new content (and I'm convinced content hasn't stopped after US GC yet )

[Ralle]

Adding new and useful traits is of course a good thing.
I usually have at least one AT gun with a +1 movement hero. That makes it also a very useable unit.
Still defensive fire for AT could work well.
Yeah having the unit traits visible somewhere ingame would be great indeed.

[captainjack]

The main advantage of AT defensive fire iMO is that towed units wouldn't be so limited by their speed anymore since they don't have to keep up with the front but it's enough to get adjacent to the font line units.

I agree it would be especially useful for towed AT. SPAT can usually get into a useful position for a direct attack. Towed AA and artillery only need to get next to a friendly unit to be useful but towed AT is nearly always out of position which is a major barrier to their use.

Also units like Marders with low GD would be more useful BEHIND the lines that way. The heavy GD ATs then would be like the arty StuGs, arty units that can take a front position and still be somewhat fine, while low GD AT units would be more like the squishy arties that should never directly face the enemy. So I think limiting this to only adjacent units is a bad idea.

This would be particularly useful for portee guns which as soft targets generally should be supporting others or set up as ambush units rather than front line ones.

The issue of single or multiple protecting shots is an interesting one. Any supporting fire ability would be a useful boost even with a single defensive shot, and as with fighters, you can always protect a critical asset with more than one escort.

[KeldorKatarn]

Agreed, And it would give players the opportunity to use their units a bit more like done historically. I mean the main advantage e.g. of the Panzer Divisions was that they used their tanks, infantry and AT guns in close cooperation. That's why the British got the Grant tank in Africa. The big HE firing gun against the AT positions and the AT gun for the tanks. They needed both because the germans always used both, supporting eachother.
The game currently has already a number of ways how to fight enemy tanks. Bomb them, strat bomb them and make them run out of ammo, push them into close terrain... But most of the very effective tactics do not involve AT guns right now, which is a bit weird. Also AT guns are usually more treated like a offensive unit that can only attack supressed enemies. It's not really a fully working support weapon like all the other support types.
Honestly I'm not very happy with the way OOB does thinks, but their idea of making AT guns a fully working support type was THE one feature i loved about that game when it came out. I really think that trait should be made non-hard coded so it could be tested for AT guns.
I mean defensive fire could be split into two traits. One that gives multiple shots like AA and ART and one that gives only one. Like fighters.
Then we could assign both and test them both and figure out which works best.

Also if it was possible to make these traits in a way that they also say what unit types they offer defensive fire against (obviously AA does that only against air units, AT should only do it against hard targets). consider what else could be done with these traits. You could make naval war mods where destroyers give support fire against submarines, cruisers could give support fire for bigger ships etc. With that stuff you could immediately start trying to tweak the naval war a bit also.

AND, making these traits equipment file traits and not hardcoded, guarantees no old content is broken. It can be limited to new content and only added to the main equipment file when it has been confirmed that it doesn't break anything legacy.

[Stephen1024]

Hi KeldorKatarn

Like idea with navy, that could really start to get navy working well and make some interesting new places for Panzer Corps to go.

I hope they seriously look at the ideas going round and if you keep coming up with ideas they might give you job haha.

[Panzerpimp]

I think that defensive fire like OOB:Pacific will make AT units too powerful.
I found AT units quite useful in Grand Campaign. They are cheap, they are great for defence; in some scenarios with passive AI they can actually be used in attack.
In GC 45 West cheap AT's helped me to survive in the pockets and save prestige. In early campaigns I successfully used Pak's against allied armor. (At Arras (1940), for example)
So, all in all, they're good. Defensive fire Addition will change the balance for worse, imho.

[Stephen1024]

Panzerpimp that is why we had ideas like either limit number of support/or does half damage in support mode.

[simcc]

AT defensive fire will be OP if introduced in PzC the game mechanic allow arty defensive fire unlike in OOB pacific. Imagine a defensive position with arty and AT place behind inf with AA behind AT its near impossible to attack that without taking heavy losses and placing that combination on open field makes the tanks totally near useless.

If AT got defensive fire the arty must take of the defensive fire to balance out like OOB. Also take note that OOB AA have different values when they fire into big or small planes unlike PzC hence strategic bombers is a fair game even facing small AAs unlike OOB hence a small AA protecting AT and inf with defensive fire means even bombers will take heavy damage to break the lines.
If arty can only react to inf attack while AT react to armor attack then it might be more balance

[captainjack]

If arty can only react to inf attack while AT react to armor attack then it might be more balance

Maybe, but in France (where the French had a shortage of AT guns) the infantry backed by artillery were very effective against tanks. If you allowed AT to do a single defensive attack as an AT gun (so a bit like a fighter providing defensive fire), and artillery to protect as they do now with suppression that would probably work out OK.

Maybe the AT should only provide defensive fire at hard targets, otherwise you will have conscripts taking the first hit against SA of 3 and then the tanks rolling in. It won't rule out the odd bren carrier or halftrack sacrificing itself to soak up your defensive shot but at least you can be pretty sure your 4* PaK 43 will make them pay.

Having said that, I just realised that allowing multiple defensive shots wouldn't be so bad anyway, since it gets round the problem I just mentioned, and will only be truly effective against hard targets because AT has relatively poor SA.

[KeldorKatarn]

Of course AT should only do defensive fire against hard targets. And I do not think that this is overpowered. It just takes time to work around. YOu migth as well say that Arty and AA guarding a heavily entrenched infantry is overpowered. No it is not. You just may need a bit more artillery to supress it but what is the issue? Supress the AA with arty, bomb both AT and Arty and you're good to go, or just supress the arty and go in with infantry. i don't see the issue.

[KeldorKatarn]

I at least think it should be tested. And if rudankort gets around to making the special unit traits and stuff like support fire non-hardcoded but all traits that can be assigned in the equipment file somehow, we can try it out, and see whether it is balanced or makes it more fun or whatever. it at least would give modders great new possibilities.

[charge62]

A useful suggestion and I would like to be able to test this out.

There is already a balance factor built into scenarios and that is the deployable unit count. In many scenarios controlling the frontage using zoc is vital to reducing casualties and in a few cases survival of the core force. Each AT used in a support role reduces front line units available for frontage control by one. This in itself will serve to balance the change.