Slitherine

What are the penalties for tanks and other mech vehicles, for defending in or attacking into the forest? I've noticed that most of the times, tanks would beat the infantry in that type of terrain. In PC the penalties for attacking infantry in difficult terrain were much more severe and seemed much closer to the reality.

It's in there, but they designed it so that it could go either way according to the terrain and according to the type of enemy. It's a bit subtle to grasp, but I believe it to be realistic. Here are pages from the manual and a screen print of the units.csv row that contains the M4A3 105mm that they used as an example:
Heh, note that they apparently have "tweaked" the one set of ratings since writing the manual.

I've read the manual but it's not clear to me if there're any specific penalties for the mechanized units. It seems that the penalties affect equally mech and non-mech units. It also seems, that if the tank unit is equipped with low velocity gun, it would still perform well against the infantry in the forest. It doesn't seem right but maybe my interpretation of the rules is incorrect.

I think it's related to the idea of "cover" of which forest provides plenty. In a forest, a tank is going to have a hard time against infantry due to advantages provided to them by cover. At the same time, a tank's performance against other mechanised units will be enhanced in a forest because tanks are sitting ducks out in the open. That's how I read this material.

OK, but I'm referring to a situation tank vs regular infantry ( no vehicles ) in the forest. It seems that with the cover penalties applying to both sides, the tank will still beat the infantry, while in reality tanks would be practically helpless in that type of terrain.

I've done some tesitng: Pz IIIJ ( not the strongest model against the infantry ) vs Soviet infantry.

Open terrain:

Tank attacking infantry - 3:0

Infantry attacking tank - 0:3

Forest:

Tank attacking infantry - 2:0

Infantry attacking tank - 0:2

Town:

Tank attacking infantry - 1:0

Infantry attacking tank - 0:2


So it seems that even in a difficult terrain, each time tank would beat the infantry ( how could tanks perform in the forests is a mistery to me ). IMO it doesn't reflect correctly the combined arms tactics. Granted, infantry supported by the AT units would deal heavy loses to the attacking armour. The main point is, that in the forest, the effectiveness of tanks should be close to zero.

I think the OOB system although different to PzC, is not only adequate but also better at simulating closed combat. The OOB system of only tweaking the "cover" of the terrain and the "attacker" and "defender" combat values, you can simulate battle in many terrains, while for PzC you had to do each one individually. The question of what the "in-cover" and "out-of-cover" values for soft/hard attack should be is a different matter.

In addition, for me the above combat results are not difficult understand if you imagine the tank corps/divisions are just ... actual tank corps/divisions from WW2. Most of the troops were not in an actual tank and were just motorised in some way. This also helps explain why tanks aren't so much overwhelmingly strong in open terrain against infantry as they are in PzC.

It's the same as imagining the infantry divisions have anti-tank weapons and don't just all carry rifles as the unit sprite shows (hence why they do any damage at all to the tank). The unit sprite of a tank does not mean that the whole division is just tanks and nothing else.

13obo wrote: In addition, for me the above combat results are not difficult understand if you imagine the tank corps/divisions are just ... actual tank corps/divisions from WW2. Most of the troops were not in an actual tank and were just motorised in some way. This also helps explain why tanks aren't so much overwhelmingly strong in open terrain against infantry as they are in PzC.

It's the same as imagining the infantry divisions have anti-tank weapons and don't just all carry rifles as the unit sprite shows (hence why they do any damage at all to the tank). The unit sprite of a tank does not mean that the whole division is just tanks and nothing else.

I knew this argument would pop-up eventually. I don't see it that way. First of all, I think the game scale is actually smaller - units represent battalions or regiments. Most of the times they were pretty homogeneous in terms of unit type and equipment. Thought the war the coordination and communication between infantry and tanks was poor. They were effectively fighting next to each other, not together. Attaching few assault guns or tanks to an infantry unit, didn't convert it into armour. Regarding the OOB, I think the whole point of games of this type, is to have separate arms branches and use them according to their purpose. Otherwise, we could just replace them all with unified, mechanized units. Again, unlike in the modern times, where all major units are mechanized, during WW2 there was a clear distinction between armour and the rest, mostly infantry.

ivanov wrote: I knew this argument would pop-up eventually.

Good! Then you see the other side of the argument!

13obo wrote:

ivanov wrote: I knew this argument would pop-up eventually.

Good! Then you see the other side of the argument!

I often have arguments with myself

ivanov wrote:

13obo wrote: In addition, for me the above combat results are not difficult understand if you imagine the tank corps/divisions are just ... actual tank corps/divisions from WW2. Most of the troops were not in an actual tank and were just motorised in some way. This also helps explain why tanks aren't so much overwhelmingly strong in open terrain against infantry as they are in PzC.

It's the same as imagining the infantry divisions have anti-tank weapons and don't just all carry rifles as the unit sprite shows (hence why they do any damage at all to the tank). The unit sprite of a tank does not mean that the whole division is just tanks and nothing else.

I knew this argument would pop-up eventually. I don't see it that way. First of all, I think the game scale is actually smaller - units represent battalions or regiments. Most of the times they were pretty homogeneous in terms of unit type and equipment. Thought the war the coordination and communication between infantry and tanks was poor. They were effectively fighting next to each other, not together. Attaching few assault guns or tanks to an infantry unit, didn't convert it into armour. Regarding the OOB, I think the whole point of games of this type, is to have separate arms branches and use them according to their purpose. Otherwise, we could just replace them all with unified, mechanized units. Again, unlike in the modern times, where all major units are mechanized, during WW2 there was a clear distinction between armour and the rest, mostly infantry.

I think your counter argument is bunk. Otherwise we're fighting the battles of France, Stalingrad, and Kursk with a couple divisions at most.

hrafnkolbrandr wrote:

I think your counter argument is bunk. Otherwise we're fighting the battles of France, Stalingrad, and Kursk with a couple divisions at most.

You can't really say what exactly the scale of the game is. It's not a hardcore simulation but rather slightly more advanced beer and pretzels, roughly based on the history. The scenario size is not normalized - you have the same units fighting smaller battles like Demyansk or huge operations like Stalingrad or Khrakov. But the combined arms work like it was battalion/regimental size. In real life you don't get separate recon divsions, except for the Soviets there were no artillery divisions, engineer divisions etc. So even if you play a huge scenario, the combined arms work like it was battalion sized game.

Ivanov,
Agreed!
The OoB units really are like battalions, in my humble opinion.
There are many artificialities in OoB, just as in any other map-based war game. But OoB has optimized the playability of the game. I played PzK for a little while and got tired of it - Not OoB!
thanks!

Except when the devs labelled them divisions. "Ss-Div Wiking"

I prefer battalion-size too as it wouldn’t make much sense with engineer, sniper, or whole towed anti-tank and artillery divisions. For example, no single engineer battalion would have a real chance against whole infantry divisions (which include an engineer battalion anyway). 17k men against ~500? Oh, the game's stats wouldn't justify that huge difference.
Let’s say you like to create a German infantry division of 1939:
Three regiments consist each of following OOB units:
1x Heavy Infantry (basically all three heavy weapons companies in one unit)
2x Infantry
1x Engineers
1x le.I.G.18
1x Pak 36
1x 10.5 cm le.F.H.18
Additionally to the three regiments, there is an Sd.Kfz.221 for recon and a 15 cm s.F.H.18 as single heavy artillery battery in a division.
Such structure looks pretty fine to me, but hey, it all depends on the scenario’s scale of course.

ivanov wrote:It's not a hardcore simulation but rather slightly more advanced beer and pretzels, roughly based on the history

Exactly. Hence why tanks can fight in forests (but not "dense" forests).