Armour in LnL - Question (I'm looking at you Barth)

[JudgeDredd]

Anyone really, but I know Barthheart really digs the LnL tactical games.

So in preparation for me one day getting LnL Tactical system out on the table, I was playing the computer game Heroes of Stalingrad and it reminded me what I found infuriating about the system.

Armour.

It seems so ridiculously useless. I must have had a positive To Hit result less than 25% of the time and much less when it came to checking casualties.

So I get the building security thing - but the game seems to represent infantry being in a building as untouchable.

Can anyone give me reasons why it's represented that way? I mean - yeah - there's some protection (specifically from machine guns) but the main gun? That firing a round into a building would surely at least make most troops bug out?

I just find armour to be somewhat neutered.

[Barthheart]

OK, a bunch of questions first:

1. You are talking about firing a tank main gun at infantry in a building right?

2. What type of building?

3. Which tank? What is the HE value of the main gun?

4. Was the tank moving before shooting?

In gerneral, I've never felt that tanks were neutered. Small calibre tank shells are not going to have much effect on troops in a stone building. And if I was being fired at by a tank I certainly wouldn't leave the relative safety of solid building for open ground.

[JudgeDredd]

OK, a bunch of questions first:

1. You are talking about firing a tank main gun at infantry in a building right?

2. What type of building?

3. Which tank? What is the HE value of the main gun?

4. Was the tank moving before shooting?

In gerneral, I've never felt that tanks were neutered. Small calibre tank shells are not going to have much effect on troops in a stone building. And if I was being fired at by a tank I certainly wouldn't leave the relative safety of solid building for open ground.

I can see where this is going to go 

1. Yes
2. Stone (in this instance) so a +4 modifier
3. Can't recall the tank...I'll have to post tonight
4. Doesn't matter (I mean, yes, a -2 modifier for shooting on the move right? But they just seemed useless in general)

[Barthheart]

I can see where this is going to go 
...

:D

Again I've never had the feeling that tanks were neutered. I've always felt that infantry should be hard to dig out of a good sturdy building. Tanks vs infnatry in light cover or the open is quite deadly.

Do you feel the same in armour vs armour battles? I think the system shows the relative strengths of different tanks really well. Small calibre guns need to get side or rear shots on thick armour to have a change of doing any damage.

[JudgeDredd]

I can see where this is going to go 
...

:D

Again I've never had the feeling that tanks were neutered. I've always felt that infantry should be hard to dig out of a good sturdy building. Tanks vs infnatry in light cover or the open is quite deadly.

Do you feel the same in armour vs armour battles? I think the system shows the relative strengths of different tanks really well. Small calibre guns need to get side or rear shots on thick armour to have a change of doing any damage.

I can't say I've done armour v armour much at all to notice yet.

Regarding your take on armour and dug in infantry, I think what makes it more odd is that a tripod MG42 can have a much better effect than a tank shell...given that a tank shell can collapse walls, floors etc

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

The way I see it is that it's harder for the tank to hit the right spot in the building (hence the negative to hit mod) but if they do hit, then casualties are nearly assured (no terrain bonus for the damage check roll).

[JudgeDredd]

The way I see it is that it's harder for the tank to hit the right spot in the building (hence the negative to hit mod) but if they do hit, then casualties are nearly assured (no terrain bonus for the damage check roll).

That's a fair point. I'd forgotten about no terrain bonus.

You know, perhaps I'm just having a bad day with the dice  >:D

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

Grab Tide of Iron.  In that game, armor using HE against infantry in strongpoints and buildings gets a huge concussive bonus.  Knocks the poor buggers silly and then you can close assault with ease.

[Yskonyn]

How does LnL relate to something like ASL? I understand LnL is a game system regardless of era, but I mean gameplay wise?
It is similarly detailed regarding combined ops?
How does LnL handle airforces?

[Barthheart]

LnLT is the same scale and focus as ASL. Units are single man units, squads, weapon teams, and individual vehicles. Hex size is 50m across flats. Turns are 2-4 minutes.

There are aircraft, and helos in modern games, and the act similar to air in ASL. There's even a destroyer in Heroes of the Falklands that acts as on board artillery.

Does that answer your question?

[Yskonyn]

Mostly yes. Thanks.
Does it sport VASSAL modules as well?

[bbmike]

Yes, and even Tabletop Simulator!

[Yskonyn]

Oh dear..

If one wants to start, but wants to avoid WW2 (I play ASL for that), how would you recommend starting?

[Barthheart]

Well, what era do you like?

Heroes of the Nam is Vietnam. HotN is where the series actually began. It's scenarios are well done and almost all come down to the last die roll. Low armour count but you get helos, both attack and transport.

Heroes Against the Red 1985 Cold war goes hot. HAtRS is different because the armour is really deadly at the scale of the game. Lotsa armour plus heloes and attack planes.

Heroes of the Falklands is... well... Falkland Island fighting. HotF is fun because it's modern Brits verus the Argies and they are no push over. Medium armour and attack planes.

Day of Heroes is 1993 Mogadishu. DoH is a little different because the map uses squares instead of hexes but because the city is one big grid it works really well. Some Armour and helos.

All are about the same complexity.

[JudgeDredd]

Now I want Day of Heroes and Heroes Against the Red