Tanks in the jungle

[Alex_brunius]

Playing as UK (with I.C.E., but I think it works similarly in vanilla)

No its doesn't.
Stats for armour:

I.C.E.
jungle = { attack = -0.05 movement = -0.23}

Vanilla
jungle = { attack = -0.40 movement = -0.40}

For those that don't read code: Tanks in vanilla get 8 times more severe combat penalties when fighting in Jungle.

When it comes to Mechanized in ICE they get NO attack penalty at all for Jungle compared to -30% in Vanilla.

But realistically tanks should not be this effective in South-East Asia.

US Tanks proved to be extreemly devastating against Japanese defenders without AT weapons, the problem was getting them supplied on the jungle islands which I think is acuratelly simulated by the very limited amounts of ports available. In vanilla you can supply 7.5 Infantry brigades for each Armour brigade through the same portsize, which will win do you think in the fight off 7 INF divisions vs 1 Tank division?

 

[jju_57]

No its doesn't.
Stats for armour:

I.C.E.
jungle = { attack = -0.05 movement = -0.23}

Vanilla
jungle = { attack = -0.40 movement = -0.40}

For those that don't read code: Tanks in vanilla get 8 times more severe combat penalties when fighting in Jungle.

When it comes to Mechanized in ICE they get NO attack penalty at all for Jungle compared to -30% in Vanilla.


US Tanks proved to be extreemly devastating against Japanese defenders without AT weapons, the problem was getting them supplied on the jungle islands which I think is acuratelly simulated by the very limited amounts of ports available. In vanilla you can supply 7.5 Infantry brigades for each Armour brigade through the same portsize, which will win do you think in the fight off 7 INF divisions vs 1 Tank division?

What you list about ICE is true but it is only half the story. The other half is that infantry in ICE has no negative modifiers and a +.05 defensive bonus (yes the bug means it is ignored). But in vanilla infantry has a -30% attack modifier and -30% movement. Not to mention changes to supply and fuel usage. So while the tanks in ICE do hit harder, so does the infantry while the infantry actually moves faster after modifiers. Light infantry is even better in jungles in ICE.

 

[Alex_brunius]

What you list about ICE is true but it is only half the story. The other half is that infantry in ICE has no negative modifiers and a +.05 defensive bonus (yes the bug means it is ignored). But in vanilla infantry has a -30% attack modifier and -30% movement. Not to mention changes to supply and fuel usage. So while the tanks in ICE do hit harder, so does the infantry while the infantry actually moves faster after modifiers. Light infantry is even better in jungles in ICE.

No thats wrong, Infantry in Vanilla has 0% unit specific penalty for attacking in jungle. They do have the generic -30% that all units share however (including tanks), but I omitted this since its the same for tanks & infantry and the same in vanilla and I.C.E.

The final total penalty (adding unit specific and generic) for attacking in jungle ends up like this:

ICE:
Tanks: -35% attack
Infantry: -30% attack

Vanilla:
Tanks: -70% attack
Infantry: -30% attack

This actually makes the difference even larger... Since tanks in vanilla will attack at 30% efficiency but tanks in ICE will attack at 65% (over twice as good final efficiency).

Infact I find that heavy tanks in ICE are great for things like amphibious landings (-17% unit specific penalty) and assaults on Urban areas (-10%)... -10 or 17 percent compared to infantry is nothing given their stats.

 

[bbasgen]

The problem with tanks in rugged terrain is the fact that the CA bonus pretty much negates any terrain penalty. The only problematic situation that may arise is when you receive both a terrain AND river penalty. Apart from that, combined arms divisions can pretty much operate anywhere.

If you prefer a more "realistic" approach, it is best to modifiy terrain penalties. For example with -90% for tanks in jungle and mountains, a CA tank division will have roughly 50% combat power in jungle terrain. If you add a defence bonus for the defender (e.g. +50% for INF in jungle), combat results will become more realistic and make terrain much more important.

This has me thinking: alternatively, CA bonus shouldn't be applicable in Mountains or Jungle. I mean, how could they in WW2?

 

[blue emu]

This has me thinking: alternatively, CA bonus shouldn't be applicable in Mountains or Jungle. I mean, how could they in WW2?

Tanks and Infantry did in fact cooperate well against concealed Japanese jungle strong-points. The main problem for the Tank was the limited visibility while buttoned up. To overcome this and improve cooperation with the Infantry, many Tanks had a closed-circuit telephone installed on the outside rear of the hull, so that the Infantry could spot the targets and communicate directly with the buttoned-up Tank crew.

Picture:

 

[bbasgen]

Tanks and Infantry did in fact cooperate well against concealed Japanese jungle strong-points. The main problem for the Tank was the limited visibility while buttoned up. To overcome this and improve cooperation with the Infantry, many Tanks had a closed-circuit telephone installed on the outside rear of the hull, so that the Infantry could spot the targets and communicate directly with the buttoned-up Tank crew.

Fascinating!

 

[JASGripen]

No thats wrong, Infantry in Vanilla has 0% unit specific penalty for attacking in jungle. They do have the generic -30% that all units share however (including tanks), but I omitted this since its the same for tanks & infantry and the same in vanilla and I.C.E.

The final total penalty (adding unit specific and generic) for attacking in jungle ends up like this:

ICE:
Tanks: -35% attack
Infantry: -30% attack

Vanilla:
Tanks: -70% attack
Infantry: -30% attack

This actually makes the difference even larger... Since tanks in vanilla will attack at 30% efficiency but tanks in ICE will attack at 65% (over twice as good final efficiency).

Infact I find that heavy tanks in ICE are great for things like amphibious landings (-17% unit specific penalty) and assaults on Urban areas (-10%)... -10 or 17 percent compared to infantry is nothing given their stats.

Thanks, you spared me posting that

 

[egslim]

Ok, so the problem may be more with I.C.E. than with vanilla. My bad, I didn't check that. Though I feel even vanilla may be too easy on tanks.

ICE:
Tanks: -35% attack
Infantry: -30% attack

Vanilla:
Tanks: -70% attack
Infantry: -30% attack

Tank divisions also almost always benefit from CA, while infantry rarely does. So that puts tanks ahead of infantry in ICE, and approximately on par in vanilla.
Add the additional bonusses enjoyed by hard units, and tanks will do quite well in vanilla too.

Tanks and Infantry did in fact cooperate well against concealed Japanese jungle strong-points. The main problem for the Tank was the limited visibility while buttoned up. To overcome this and improve cooperation with the Infantry, many Tanks had a closed-circuit telephone installed on the outside rear of the hull, so that the Infantry could spot the targets and communicate directly with the buttoned-up Tank crew.

Of course you're right that tank-support was extremely useful for infantry in the jungle.

But I think there's a large and important difference between the ideal ratio of infantry/armour in the jungle and on plains.
On plains the main force was armour, supported by infantry. In the jungle it was infantry, supported by armour.

The CA bonus requires a division with anywhere between 33 and 66% hardness. Say, 2 Arm 1 Mot. That would be a fine combination on plains, but in the jungle the ideal setup would be something more like 1 Arm 2 Inf. Or an even higher Inf-ratio.
1 Arm 2 Inf gives 73% hardness, it doesn't even receive the CA bonus. So I think the CA bonus models the support of tanks by infantry on the plains and other relatively open ground, but fails to model the support of infantry by tanks, as it was used in the jungle.

The suggestion that the CA-bonus should be disabled in jungle and mountains makes sense.
Even better, make the hardness requirement for CA vary depending on terrain. In the jungle it could be for units between with 75 and 90%, on plains between 33 and 66%. That makes it worthwhile to attach a L-Arm brigade to an infantry division for jungle combat, but does not give that unit CA on the plains.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Ok, so the problem may be more with I.C.E. than with vanilla. My bad, I didn't check that. Though I feel even vanilla may be too easy on tanks.

I think vanilla is ok, the huge fuel & supply need should take care of the rest and its balanced if they are even on 1vs1 when attacking infantry since you can afford about 7 infantry per tank supplywise.

Tank divisions also almost always benefit from CA, while infantry rarely does. So that puts tanks ahead of infantry in ICE, and approximately on par in vanilla.
Add the additional bonusses enjoyed by hard units, and tanks will do quite well in vanilla too.

Certainly not when talking about attacking in jungle.

To zero out a -70% penalty you would need 1/0.3 = 333% bonus to efficiency... And that's no where near what combined arms provide in vanilla.