Philo32b wrote:The Armored Support trait that you get from a tank, which applies to the entire unit, is certainly valuable. But you can get that same trait much cheaper with armored cars. And armored cars have other benefits as well. Are tanks worth the extra cost over armored cars?
The average of offen/def fire scores actually favors the armored car by one point. Armored cars have better initiative, rate of fire, speed, much better scouting (detect), and better patrol/evade. They are also less money to build and half the war supply. And as the Reds, with armored cars you never need to pay the 15 EP, 15 War Supply, and 50 rubles (and wait five months) to build a factory to make the cars, as with the tanks.
Tanks have better protection and assault values--not in doing more damage in assaults, but in causing more cohesion loss to the target. But not by very much over the armored car.
Tanks do have the Disruptor trait, though. I had previously misunderstood the Disruptor trait to cover all elements in the tank's unit. That would make the tank much more valuable than the armored car, but I now see that it applies only to the tank element itself. It's nice that the tank element itself would ignore entrenched levels when attacking, but that seems like a drop in the bucket when you consider the masses of elements that are involved in a RUS battle. So I'm not seeing the value in the extra cost for a tank. The armored cars get the valuable Armored Support trait the same as tanks, and that seems like enough.
Am I missing something?
Personally, I would like to see tanks as giving this Distruptor trait to other elements in the same unit. Perhaps not all of them--maybe the presence of a tank in the unit gives each other element a percentage chance of ignoring entrenchment, as some of the troops are able to follow the tank through the breach in the enemy's lines. Perhaps even make the percentages stack, so someone might include more than one tank in a unit to try to break heavily entrenched defenses.
Hobbes wrote:Once I've finished making my current AJE scenario I'm actually going to play some AGEOD games for a while. RUS looks great - the first on my list.
Nice to see improvements are still being made.
Cheers,
Chris
andatiep wrote: the tanks more interesting (yet still at a WWI level).
the 5% disrupt chance will be set to 100%
Most of their replacements will also come "for free" once you have Tank factories.
ERISS wrote:100% disrupt is much, first tanks were not so reliable. 90% should be better. So you have to put 2 tanks if you want reliability (99% at least one breach).
Replacements for free? I hope you won't make those factories like tank synthesizers Star-Trek way.
Orel wrote:Exactly, the first tanks were not reliable. But right now we are playing with tanks that were upgraded versions of the first tanks, so 100% is justified. Plus, we have to keep in mind that even a "fortified line" of the RCW is just a plain WWI trench of a man's height with barbed wire.
ERISS wrote:Okay, but I said 90% for I know these are some better tanks than "first ones", for first ones were only 85% reliable in combat (Chemin des Dames 1917, against wired tranches). Did allied give them their better tanks, or old ones..., and russian made tanks immediatly as good as french newly researched ones?
andatiep wrote:So it means that there were no tanks in the Eastern Whites side...
Currently the game provide many american (but actually displayed as British Mark...) tanks in Vladivostok and the Whites can fight with them in Siberia, Ural and Volga...
Maybe we should keep White tanks only for the Western Whites...
...Or maybe we could provide tanks in the East only if the Western High Command (Janin and Co) keep its support to the Whites in Siberia (so only if the Eastern White player don't chose the new Option Military Dictatorship which lead to a clash between Janin&Czech vs the White leadership). Whithout this clash, we could suppose that Western troops would provide tanks there (and Graves would maybe not have the feelings to let its tanks to the less wrong side:neener .
Besides this, Orel, do you have any informations about the tanks the reds succeed to produce themselves. If their copy of the Renault was challenging the British Marks ? And after all, to fix a probable date of production. For now, the Red tank factories options arrive in june 1919, so Reds tanks could start to arrive 3 months later in early october 1919. When are the first reports of Red tanks used on the fronts ?
Orel wrote:Janin was a representative of the French mostly. As far as I understand, the Whites had warmer relations with the British, which were the ones responsible for most of the aid, that had their own independent of the French policy towards the Whites. Kolchak probably never received tanks since he never ordered them for his army: at least I could not find such information. At the same time, despite Janin's dislike Kolchak had received other forms of war supplies from the allies, such as uniforms, rifles, cannons and bullets. Even the Americans sent some supplies, despite Grave's actions. So, personally, what I think should be done is Kolchak should be given the opportunity to buy tanks via an event.
Orel wrote:Towards the possibility of producing tanks by the Reds, I am sceptical. [...] In 1921, the Reds finally made 15 tanks, that never saw action in the Civil war but participated in the parade celebrating the end of it.
Orel wrote: [...] Seeing this, I would probably offer to consider the possiblity of making tanks and armored cars a capturable support unit.
andatiep wrote:So it means that there were no tanks in the Eastern Whites side...
Currently the game provide many american (but actually displayed as British Mark...) tanks in Vladivostok and the Whites can fight with them in Siberia, Ural and Volga...
Maybe we should keep White tanks only for the Western Whites...
...Or maybe we could provide tanks in the East only if the Western High Command (Janin and Co) keep its support to the Whites in Siberia (so only if the Eastern White player don't chose the new Option Military Dictatorship which lead to a clash between Janin&Czech vs the White leadership). Whithout this clash, we could suppose that Western troops would provide tanks there (and Graves would maybe not have the feelings to let its tanks to the less wrong side:neener .
Besides this, Orel, do you have any informations about the tanks the reds succeed to produce themselves. If their copy of the Renault was challenging the British Marks ? And after all, to fix a probable date of production. For now, the Red tank factories options arrive in june 1919, so Reds tanks could start to arrive 3 months later in early october 1919. When are the first reports of Red tanks used on the fronts ?
Krot wrote:I do not think we should exclude the possibillity of American tank shipments to anti-democratic Kolchak. After all the tanks in question were ordered, supplied and arrived in Russia well after Kolchak's coup. The tanks fell in the hands of Red partizans mostly due to the Supreme ruler's regime collapse caused by military defeats.
You can find some more details on the topic in my old post: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?20432-American-tanks-for-White-Siberians&p=200739&highlight=
andatiep wrote:Again a lot's of interesting informations....
Finally changes could be :
- change the Eastern white tanks icons into French Renault tanks
- american tanks arrive in early 1920, whatever there is Kolchak or not BUT if there were a Kolchak regim and if it did falled, then it don't appear.
- no tank factory Option for eastern whites.
About the values of capture perc chance, Orel, note that tanks have already a 40% value (to compare : Armored trains are 50-60%) so it looks enough, isn't it ? And about making it a support unit, i remember some weird behaviours in the past when the armored trains was support unit so i wouldn't do this...
Return to “Revolution Under Siege”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests