Tanks in BF:EVO

[tneva82]

Anybody know how detailed the tank rules are in BF:EVO? Since they are main thing that might attract me to the game(infantry battles I can get in SST afterall) I have some interest on that.

Specifically: Does it matter from which direction you shoot the tank? Can tank be immobilised(even better if it would have method to knock the main gun out. These 2 damage results in addition to destroyed would satisfy me nicely) from the shot or is it alive/dead only?

Okay so rules are coming in a month but hey. I'm impatient

 

[Col. Hammer]

The direction of the shot should matter, since the armour of the tank is not equal on all sides. At least rear shots (IMO) should get a lower kill number or something.

As for the different damage results, I think that's a bit unneccessary.

If you don't penetrate the armour, the tank is ok. If you penetrate the armour, I think with the modern weapons, you kill the vehicle (and the crew)... I think the crew would bail out after a penetrating hit if they're even alive then.

The only thing I would see happening is that a thread is knocked out, the tank might still continue to fight. Altough they would be a sitting duck if they lose the mobility.

But, anyway, I think in modern combat "if you penetrate it, you kill it" is the rule.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Depening on what weapon you're using you may or may not destroy a tank by penetrating the armour. It also depends on where you hit.

 

[127th Angry Angels]

It needs to be balanced between realistic damage from weapons and speed of resolution. It can ruin a games pace if the mechanics are clunky or OTT for armour penation/damage allocation. Sometimes i'd rather move the game along than worry about the precise elevation of a shot and if the cross wind or gunners slight cold has any impact on the dice roll. It needs to be even handed is all.

 

[dyssnowman]

That's the truth. If you go for too much realism, then the game suffers. Keeping the gameplay smooth is much more important IMO.

 

[SickBunny]

It could be something as simple as giving a tank two hits... and a relatively high Target met with a big save and a high Kill... This would mean that a lesser hit Could plausibly knock it down by one hit, rendering it to one action, simulating well the loss of its systems, that is if the extended rules of Evo still have bearing for multiple Hits...

Where as a Kill would ignore the save as usual and simply be the one shot-one kill scenario of modern warfare...

 

[Rick]

Modern combat analysis uses different types of 'kills', Mobility kills, penetrating kills and total kills, I think. Can't remember all the classifications. I think the rules will class the various types of kill together, for playability sake. After all, a 20mm autocannon doesn't have much chance of penetrating a tanks armour, but it could mess up the tracks/running gear enough for an M-kill, so you'd be pretty much immobilised. In most cases, without a complete penetrating kill, the crew are going to want to get out of the immobile target and take cover elsewhere rather than stay in a useless fire-magnet. Either way, the tank would probably be knocked out.

 

[Voracioustigger]

I think I'll let Matt field this, but remember...

1) The BF: Evo rules are based on SST rules

2) Pretty much all the rules became streamlined (less complicated)

I'll let you come up with the answer

 

[soulman]

Tank rules are very good, and as you said based on sst, the good thing about battlefield is that you can design any tanks etc that you wish, nice and easy, also you can add your own rules at any time, if you wanted to when a tank takes a hit and not killed roll a d6 if 4+ then roll on following table a simple 1d6 table, to include

1- lose main gun
2- lose Mgs
3- damaged track - half speed
4- crew hurt/shocked - loose 1 action
5- fire.!! loose 2 actions
6- Gone tits up, bale out - lose tank..

So simple, unlike a lot of rules i have read.....

 

[Mr Evil]

problem with that is you need a 6 to destroy a tank when in theory a direct hit has more chance of destroying a tank than taking out the main gun.

any hit that is able to take out the main gun via a turret hit will be an esploding round or would detonate the ammo inside causing said tanke to exsplode.

either tank is dead or its not, if its reduced to one hit point then it has only one action.

but thats how the rules work any way.

crews that do bale out would be non combatants on the whole and would be retreating for retreaival so have little effect on said game mechanics.

just my thoughts

 

[Rick]

I think I read in one of the battle reports that the tank guns had an armour penetration value, which may mean that the vehicles will have an armour/hit roll similiar to ACTA. Not sure on this though.

 

[Voracioustigger]

I think I read in one of the battle reports that the tank guns had an armour penetration value, which may mean that the vehicles will have an armour/hit roll similiar to ACTA. Not sure on this though.

Nope, they won't. They are similar to the current SST rules.

 

[Rabidchild]

There were several mentions in various of Matt's battle reports of a tanks taking damage and being barely operable but going on to blast something else later in the report iirc. This makes me think that they have multiple hits, as no mention was made of systems being knocked out.

 

[tneva82]

If you don't penetrate the armour, the tank is ok.

If the shot hits say the barrel or end of it it might not penetrate the armour but I would wager is going to dent the gun turret and that does not bode well for ability to fire the main gun anymore...Similary if shot hits track it's not going to penetrate anywhere dangerous neccessarily but is almost certainly going to wreck the tracks and thus halt the tank dead in tracks.

IMO those 2 possibilities would add nicely character to the tank rules and aren't even too difficult to implement(or keep track of).

 

[klingsor]

Tanks are terribly vulnerable without infantry to protect them to the extent that I would suggest that if hostile infantry get into base contact with a tank which has no infantry to protect it then the tank is an automatic kill. Tanks need infantry far, far more than infantry need tanks especially in FIBUA/FISH where the tanks are not operating in a suitable environment. I was chatting about this recently with a former infantry officer who mentioned that on one exercise he had two Challengers as support but one had a mechanical failure and the other would not go on alone.

Someone made a case a while back for converting old redundant tank chassis to specialist vehicles for FIBUA whether as transports for the infantry or as specialist vehicles with high angle guns capable of firing a decent HE round. Something like a modern version of a Brumbar. The Israelis surprisingly found M109 SPGs very useful in FIBUA. Though they were very vulnerable they could elevate to hit targets far above where a tank could hit, very useful in a built up urban area, and the effect of a big 155mm HE shell was most impressive.

The Israelis have of course already done the APC conversion. For years they have done everything possible to minimise casualties and it looks as if the western nations are going to have to follow their example. Off hand the examples I can think of for this include the design of the Merkava with the engine in the front and a stern door – though this as much about resuppling the tank with ammunition as evacuating casualties; their very heavily protected APCs/IFVs built on old tank chassis and a drag handle on the back of their assault vests.

Sorry to harp on about the Israelis, I know a lot of people have problems with them but they have had a lot of recent experience of combat in general and FIBUA in particular.

 

[Tathlum]

Sorry to harp on about the Israelis, I know a lot of people have problems with them but they have had a lot of recent experience of combat in general and FIBUA in particular.

Don't apologise. I don't see anything wrong with discussing Israeli urban combat experience, and not wanting to discuss moralities. 2 different subjects.

 

[Mr Evil]

Tanks are terribly vulnerable without infantry to protect them to the extent that I would suggest that if hostile infantry get into base contact with a tank which has no infantry to protect it then the tank is an automatic kill. Tanks need infantry far, far more than infantry need tanks especially in FIBUA/FISH where the tanks are not operating in a suitable environment. I was chatting about this recently with a former infantry officer who mentioned that on one exercise he had two Challengers as support but one had a mechanical failure and the other would not go on alone.

Someone made a case a while back for converting old redundant tank chassis to specialist vehicles for FIBUA whether as transports for the infantry or as specialist vehicles with high angle guns capable of firing a decent HE round. Something like a modern version of a Brumbar. The Israelis surprisingly found M109 SPGs very useful in FIBUA. Though they were very vulnerable they could elevate to hit targets far above where a tank could hit, very useful in a built up urban area, and the effect of a big 155mm HE shell was most impressive.

The Israelis have of course already done the APC conversion. For years they have done everything possible to minimise casualties and it looks as if the western nations are going to have to follow their example. Off hand the examples I can think of for this include the design of the Merkava with the engine in the front and a stern door – though this as much about resuppling the tank with ammunition as evacuating casualties; their very heavily protected APCs/IFVs built on old tank chassis and a drag handle on the back of their assault vests.

Sorry to harp on about the Israelis, I know a lot of people have problems with them but they have had a lot of recent experience of combat in general and FIBUA in particular.

not at all its a good and relivent post
the israilies have alot of exsperiance in fighting millitias, infact we could do with some of there exsperiance in iraq, ok they seem brutal by western standards, but then thats what the middle east needs at times i feel.

 

[Old Bear]

Basically a tank firing at another tank works like this. The target has it's Target and Kill numbers and the firer will likely have something between 1D10 and 1D10+5 depending on its gun. tanks can take multiple hits and have armour saves but a Kill result is just that. It's fast and effective and fits in with the game.

 

[Mr Evil]

ouch so one good shot can kill a tank just like that.

if this happens in SSTEVO i can see big bugs getting cheaper !!! sweet

 

[Old Bear]

It's slightly different in SST Evo. A Kill hit in that takes two hits off the victim rather than kills it outright.