Fria Ligans forum

I think the simplification of stats made some cases where things not perfectly align with reality.

But for the 25mm proof armor it should be noted that a frontal hit with 3 successes means a hit to some weak spot. Or a hit to something else besides the exact front of the body. for example a hit to the turret, maybe at an angle at the moment, a vision port (and further ricocheting of the bullet), a previously damaged and poorly repaired spot, or a hit to a side or something like that.

I think 3 extra successes is not something that will happen all the time, and A-A gunners will be able to aim for weaker spots on the vehicle, like the turret and vision ports.

Also a hit those successes may means getting a hit when the BMP is facing slightly upward (or downwards) and hitting the bottom or top, or the front but more squarely, allowing more penetration of the incoming rounds.

My point is... the game simplifies a lot of things, it doesn't means it diverts from reality but that the GM must explain and describe what happened. It is not a simulation, it is a mechanism to find a result, why that result came up is the GM job to create, and having no simulationist mechanic allows the GM free reign to create what makes more sense at the moment.

You may see sloped armor ratings (and all armor ratings) as penetration resistance average, under varied circumstances (range of successes) it will prevent penetration from a certain range of weapons.

Beyond 1000m it certainly does. Source: watching my rounds lobbed downrange and jokes about eating sandwiches while waiting for them to land.

Taking a long time to land =/= top down attack. But I'd love to see some footage of you lobbing rounds down range and showing your barrel elevation...

I believe you are mistaken, confusing the deployment of the extended range TOW-2B variant, fielded as TOW-2B Aero, mainly for use by Super Cobras. TOW-2B production superseded TOW-2A production in 1992. Source: recollection of the TOW racks in my Bradley in Bosnia in 1996. Oh, and Redstone Arsenal's open-source history of the program. https://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-tow.html

Yeah, you're right, the TOW-2B went into production in 1991 (also, your link doesn't work). But only 40k (not warhammer) produced compared to 118.000 of the BGM-71E, and I have no idea how many of those 40k missiles were produced by 1997, but the next production order didn't come until 2004.

I notice you don't address other factors about setting the BMP's front armor to match the 23mm ammunition it's supposed to defeat. It also defeats up to 73mm HE! (5 Dam vs modified Armor of (5+2) 7 = no penetration chance.) Even 105mm HE needs an extra success to penetrate a BMP with the current armor values.

There is some wonkiness with weapon damage vs. vehicle armor in this version of the game. Without redesigning the entire framework, I'm not sure how you fix it. Before changing any of the damage or armor numbers, I'd recommend experimenting with ad hoc vehicular armor modifiers for small arms. Even a +1 for a .50 cal would prevent it from ever penetrating Armor 5 on a vehicle. By comparison, making a BMP's front armor 6 proofs it against 76mm HE and requires multiple successes to damage from weapons up to 115mm HE.

I'm not actually sure what would happen if a BMP was hit front-on by a 76mm HE shell, or even a 115mm HE shell... HE shells are not exactly well known for their armour penetration qualities. Sure, the shell would detonate, but considering the wedge shaped front, I'm not sure the explosion would penetrate the hull. I don't know of any instances where a BMP has been impacted by an HE shell from the front.

That said, I don't think the game is well suited to simulate HE effects against armored vehicles. I mean, the current war has certainly shown what HE shells can do to a modern MBT in a top down attack...

Actually, I'm not sure why you're arguing about High Explosive shells against armour in the first place. Why would anyone be firing HE shells out of a 76mm gun against an armored vehicle? It feels more like you're just bringing those up to make some sort of argument.

Here's a list of cannon shells that can penetrate the BMP-1 from the front with the new armor values (I've marked the ones that aren't guaranteed to pen with red):
EDIT: Note that anything requiring more than 2 successes is automatically defeated by the front hull armour
20mm AP (requires 3 successes)
23mm AP (requires 3 successes)
25mm AP (requires 3 successes)
30mm AP (requires 2 successes)
30mm HE (requires 4 successes)
40mm AP (requires 1 success)
40mm HE (requires 4 successes)
73mm AP (requires 1 success)
73mm HE (requires 4 successes)
76.2mm AP (requires hit, automatic penetration)
76.2mm HE (requires 2 successes)
203mm HE (requires hit, automatic penetration)
155mm HE (requires hit, automatic penetration)
152mm HE (requires hit, automatic penetration)
125mm HEAT (requires hit, automatic penetration)
125mm HE (requires hit, automatic penetration)
125mm APFSDS (requires hit, automatic penetration)
122mm HE (requires hit, automatic penetration)
120mm HEAT (requires hit, automatic penetration)
120mm APFSDS (requires hit, automatic penetration)
115mm HEAT (requires hit, automatic penetration)
115mm HE (requires 1 success)
115mm APFSDS (requires hit, automatic penetration)
105mm HEAT (requires hit, automatic penetration)
105mm HE Howitzer (requires 1 success)
105mm HE (requires 2 successes)
105mm APDS (requires hit, automatic penetration)
100mm HE (requires 2 successes)
100mm HEAT (requires hit, automatic penetration)
100mm APDS (requires 1 success)

Now, which ones of those seem wrong? Should a BMP be auto-destroyed by a 73mm HE shell to the front? Should it be impossible for a 73mm AP shell to bounce? Should all HE shells from anything bigger than 70mm automatically penetrate the front of a BMP? Keep in mind that this is direct hits from the front, not top-down shots or shots to the side or anything like that.

Also, note that I didn't include mortars in this since they'll automatically hit from the top and thus use the hull rear armor value. Same with Howitzers in most cases, but I included them in the rare case of direct fire.

As for other weapons, I figured I'd make a list for those as well:
Russian 12.7 (requires 3 successes)
Russian 14.5 (requires 3 successes)
Nato 12.7 (requires 3 successes)
M72 LAW (requires hit, automatic penetration)
M47 Dragon (requires hit, automatic penetration)
AT-4 (requires hit, automatic penetration)
TOW (requires hit, automatic penetration)
Konkurs (requires hit, automatic penetration)
RPG-16 (requires 1 success)
RPG-7 (requires hit, automatic penetration)
Grg m/48 (requires hit, automatic penetration)

So, the main change I can see from giving the BMP 1 point more in frontal armor is that it's almost immune to heavy machineguns and smaller autocannons... which it's supposed to be.
And that some lower-caliber HE shells might require more than one success to do damage.

TOW-2B went into production in 1991 (also, your link doesn't work). But only 40k (not warhammer) produced

Exactly. I can certainly see this as the -2Bs all being expended by this point, even with increased production n anticipation of the Twilight War.

Actually, I'm not sure why you're arguing about High Explosive shells against armour in the first place. Why would anyone be firing HE shells out of a 76mm gun against an armored vehicle?

Back to my Bosnia example, we loaded HEI-T heavy (at least, the master gunner ordered and received HE heavy as our basic load) because HEI-T should have been more than enough for anything we ran into, T-55s included. The 25mm HE armor modifier puts paid to that. It can't even penetrate a M113...from the rear, so <shrug>

Here's a list of cannon shells that can penetrate the BMP-1 from the front with the new armor values (I've marked the ones that aren't guaranteed to pen with red):

Did you raise the armor by 2 points, to 7? AP cannon rounds start at 5, meaning they don't need more than 2 success to penetrate Armor 6.

So, the main change I can see from giving the BMP 1 point more in frontal armor is that it's almost immune to heavy machineguns and smaller autocannons... which it's supposed to be.
And that some lower-caliber HE shells might require more than one success to do damage.

Which...it's not. 25mm APDS-T should smoke a BMP. If it can't, the US Army's training is fundamentally flawed and US mech and cavalry units would have taken about 4 times the casualties they did in conflicts involving the Bradley.

(Link works BTW, though it may be IP restricted.)

Eeeh, I don't know what the heck happened with this post, the quoting system got messed up somehow.

Anyway, reply is in the next post.

Exactly. I can certainly see this as the -2Bs all being expended by this point, even with increased production n anticipation of the Twilight War.

Either way, only one top attack weapon so far in the game. And the TOW-2 still has waaaaaaaaay more pen than needed to wreck the BMP from the front, so it's irrelevant.

Back to my Bosnia example, we loaded HEI-T heavy (at least, the master gunner ordered and received HE heavy as our basic load) because HEI-T should have been more than enough for anything we ran into, T-55s included. The 25mm HE armor modifier puts paid to that. It can't even penetrate a M113...from the rear, so <shrug>

How were you supposed to knock out a T-55 with HE?

Granted, I've never seen HE fired at a tank before (well, not from another tank), but any armour simulation I can come by shows practically zero effect in most cases.

Did you raise the armor by 2 points, to 7? AP cannon rounds start at 5, meaning they don't need more than 2 success to penetrate Armor 6.

Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking... too many numbers to keep track of, I suppose (Doesn't help that I've jury-rigged my own game with custom weapon values), you're correct, it should only take 2 successes on autocannons.

Which...it's not. 25mm APDS-T should smoke a BMP. If it can't, the US Army's training is fundamentally flawed and US mech and cavalry units would have taken about 4 times the casualties they did in conflicts involving the Bradley.

(Link works BTW, though it may be IP restricted.)

That's more an issue of the 25mm APDS (M791) round in-game than with the armour protection. It has the same basic damage stats as the solid AP shell (BZT) for the 23mm cannon. I think they just assumed that the bushmaster fired a solid AP shell too. I'd suggest a -1 Armor stat to the 25mm AP shell (and rename it APDS).

I think it's important to note that most systems in 4e are simply designed to be approximations of actual values and scenarios. If you're looking for War Thunder type simulation out of a game that was purposefully designed as an abstract system, you're going to have a bad time. I don't say that to be derisive, but just that the mechanisms in 4e, as designed, aren't intended for that level of detail and grit, and purposefully so.

In short, there's going to be some game mechanics, that when implemented in an actual game, don't feel completely realistic, and that's okay. The game was designed for speed of play and ease of play over realism when it comes to combat.

In short, there's going to be some game mechanics, that when implemented in an actual game, don't feel completely realistic, and that's okay. The game was designed for speed of play and ease of play over realism when it comes to combat.

All true, but I don't think that beefing up the front armour value of a vehicle to reflect slope is in conflict with that.

I think it's important to note that most systems in 4e are simply designed to be approximations of actual values and scenarios. If you're looking for War Thunder type simulation out of a game that was purposefully designed as an abstract system, you're going to have a bad time. I don't say that to be derisive, but just that the mechanisms in 4e, as designed, aren't intended for that level of detail and grit, and purposefully so.

In short, there's going to be some game mechanics, that when implemented in an actual game, don't feel completely realistic, and that's okay. The game was designed for speed of play and ease of play over realism when it comes to combat.

I'm not looking for that, though.

Like I said, some of the vehicles in the game were designed with sloping in mind for their main protection, and the sloping is not simulated in the game, thus leading to situations like the one I was talking about where a .50 cal can easily penetrate the hull of a BMP from the front, when in real life it shouldn't be possible.

It's not like I'm talking about radically overhauling the whole armour system and implementing some sort of advanced simulation replacement.

I'm just saying that some of the armour values are too weak for what they're supposed to be.

I think it's important to note that most systems in 4e are simply designed to be approximations of actual values and scenarios. If you're looking for War Thunder type simulation out of a game that was purposefully designed as an abstract system, you're going to have a bad time. I don't say that to be derisive, but just that the mechanisms in 4e, as designed, aren't intended for that level of detail and grit, and purposefully so.

In short, there's going to be some game mechanics, that when implemented in an actual game, don't feel completely realistic, and that's okay. The game was designed for speed of play and ease of play over realism when it comes to combat.

I'm not looking for that, though.

Like I said, some of the vehicles in the game were designed with sloping in mind for their main protection, and the sloping is not simulated in the game, thus leading to situations like the one I was talking about where a .50 cal can easily penetrate the hull of a BMP from the front, when in real life it shouldn't be possible.

It's not like I'm talking about radically overhauling the whole armour system and implementing some sort of advanced simulation replacement.

I'm just saying that some of the armour values are too weak for what they're supposed to be.

I understand what you're saying entirely, but it would require an entire overhaul of the armor and penetration systems to accomplish. As another poster noted, if you increase the frontal armor from 5 to 6, that will end up meaning that a bunch of weapons that would normally be able to penetrate the frontal armor of a BMP will suddenly be unable to do so without some luck. If you really want to get more granular than what the existing system provides for, you're going to need to expand the existing armor values into a larger range that would allow for more precise edits of individual values. But if you do that, it's going to end up requiring a complete overhaul of other related systems as well, such as armor penetration values. Which will in all likelihood then require additional systems to be changed as well. More power to you if you want to go that route, just understand that many of the various subsystems in T2k 4e's combat design are connected to one another, and this will end up being a very large project indeed.

A far easier way to go about this is to raise the armor level of individual parts of individual vehicles based upon specific incoming munition types, but that also carries with it a ton of micromanaging. YMMV.

I think it's important to note that most systems in 4e are simply designed to be approximations of actual values and scenarios. If you're looking for War Thunder type simulation out of a game that was purposefully designed as an abstract system, you're going to have a bad time. I don't say that to be derisive, but just that the mechanisms in 4e, as designed, aren't intended for that level of detail and grit, and purposefully so.

In short, there's going to be some game mechanics, that when implemented in an actual game, don't feel completely realistic, and that's okay. The game was designed for speed of play and ease of play over realism when it comes to combat.

I'm not looking for that, though.

Like I said, some of the vehicles in the game were designed with sloping in mind for their main protection, and the sloping is not simulated in the game, thus leading to situations like the one I was talking about where a .50 cal can easily penetrate the hull of a BMP from the front, when in real life it shouldn't be possible.

It's not like I'm talking about radically overhauling the whole armour system and implementing some sort of advanced simulation replacement.

I'm just saying that some of the armour values are too weak for what they're supposed to be.

I understand what you're saying entirely, but it would require an entire overhaul of the armor and penetration systems to accomplish. As another poster noted, if you increase the frontal armor from 5 to 6, that will end up meaning that a bunch of weapons that would normally be able to penetrate the frontal armor of a BMP will suddenly be unable to do so without some luck. If you really want to get more granular than what the existing system provides for, you're going to need to expand the existing armor values into a larger range that would allow for more precise edits of individual values. But if you do that, it's going to end up requiring a complete overhaul of other related systems as well, such as armor penetration values. Which will in all likelihood then require additional systems to be changed as well. More power to you if you want to go that route, just understand that many of the various subsystems in T2k 4e's combat design are connected to one another, and this will end up being a very large project indeed.

A far easier way to go about this is to raise the armor level of individual parts of individual vehicles based upon specific incoming munition types, but that also carries with it a ton of micromanaging. YMMV.

So far, I'm only seeing one weapon that *should* penetrate the BMP without needing some luck being effected. And that's mostly because FL seems to have missed that it's an APDS round and not a regular AP round.
It'd be easier (and actually more correct) to change that rounds value to reflect its proper real life capabilities (since, with or without this armour change, it is very much underperforming in the game).