When making a game, be it a wargame or an RPG, how do you balance anti-vehicle weapons in a way that satisfies both mechanics and lore? It just seems like a lot of anti-vehicle weapons work perfectly fine when placed in a game setting. If a weapon is "anti-tank" because it deals a lot of damage and penetrates armor it will still kill foot soldiers just as easily. It's not like foot soldiers are fast enough to dodge something any more than a vehicle could. You can make an anti-tank rocket that can only fire once every three turns but it will still be great for blowing up cover and killing groups of enemies. While we could just slap some "bonus damage against vehicles" on the stats that just doesn't make sense without some explanation.
Anti-Infantry vs Anti-Vehicle balance
Oliver Mitchell
Other urls found in this thread:
Alexander Lopez
The problem is that the downsides to these weapons only come into play in large battles, not small ones that are played on the table top.
Levi Rivera
Limited amunition.
Jack Ortiz
>If a weapon is "anti-tank" because it deals a lot of damage and penetrates armor it will still kill foot soldiers just as easily. It's not like foot soldiers are fast enough to dodge something any more than a vehicle could.
It is still only 1 shoot, most "anti-infantry" weapons are things with high ROF or splash/zone damage.
>You can make an anti-tank rocket that can only fire once every three turns but it will still be great for blowing up cover and killing groups of enemies
That isn't how rocket launchers works, anti-tank rockets don't explode.
Most of the times anti-vehicle weapons are overkill or complety shitty agains infantry, for example something as a RPG will hit a person like if it were 1 big solid shoot with poor accuracy compared with a rifle round.
Ayden James
Makes sense. The only issues is that monetarily hindering anti-vehicle ammo gets borked real fast since players usually end up with enough cash to spend a lot on this kind of stuff and carry weight is a massive pain unless some really weird rules get used. I'll consider the latter.
Good points. Thank you.
How would the accuracy thing work? Make the weapon really crappy in that field and just strap on a modifier that makes it easy to hit large objects?
Henry Davis
Rule of minimum force. Why would you waste your expensive, slow firing, slow reloading, limited ammo, really heavy anti-tank gun on just a guy, when it won't make him any more dead than a regular rifle? Which will probably have a chance at killing all the other guys with him before your anti-tank guns reloads.
Dylan Turner
People do often use anti tank weaponry as anti infantry. US used bazookas against Japanese in the pacific, Soldiers used AT-4's against taliban in Afghanistan, and syrians use TOWs as anti infantry when they need to.
I would balance it in that an anti vehicle weapons on does about as much damage as a grenade against infantry, but does a shit ton of damage against vehicles.
Wheras a grenade does almost no damage to a vehicle (unless its an AT grenade?)
That way you can still use AT weapons against infantry, but they're no more effective than a grenade or perhaps a burst of HMG or autocannon fire. Against vehicles and armor they are the business and outstrip any other weapon in terms of damage.
And yeah if you limit the amount of AT missiles a unit can fire - say they have to pay for each one - then suddenly they start saving them for vehicles. And they can still use them on infantry if the enemy has no armor, like in Afghanistan or somesuch
Ian Miller
In most of those cases they'd be used against heavy cover and fortifications rather than groups of enemies.
Anyways, AT weapons not being very effective against infantry would be a decent enough method of simulating how HEAT projectiles work.
Austin Rodriguez
Nah. Those were RPGs. Modern AT launchers are yuge and firing it gives away your position. That alone is enough to penalize the player for using it willy nilly since every mortar, arty and tank fire is coming your way now fast.
Nolan Bailey
>Nah. Those were RPG
No they weren't. Don't tell someone what they said is incorrect unless you know the specific incidents mentions and have proof showing them to be false.
US soldiers mention using bazookas against japs, US soldier mention using AT-4's against infantry in afghanistan and there are videos of TOWs being used against infantry in syria.
A TOW wouldn't really give away your position, because it comes from so far away. The soldiers in this video have no idea what's going on until the missile is about 50m from them, by which time its too late:
youtube.com
Thomas Morales
From Wikipedia about the FGM-148 Javelin: During the War in Afghanistan, the Javelin was used effectively in counter-insurgency (COIN) operations. Initially, soldiers perceived the weapon as unsuitable for COIN operations due to its destructive power, but trained gunners were able to make precision shots against enemy positions with little collateral damage. The Javelin filled a niche in U.S. weapons systems against DShK heavy machine guns and B-10 recoilless rifles—weapons like the AT4 and M203 were powerful enough, but had insufficient range; conversely, while medium and heavy machine guns and automatic grenade launchers had the range, they lacked the power; and heavy mortars, which had both a good range and more than enough power, lacked precision. The Javelin, as well as the TOW, had enough range, power, and accuracy to counter standoff engagement tactics employed by enemy weapons. With good locks, the missile is most effective against vehicles, caves, fortified positions, and individual personnel; if enemies were inside a cave, a Javelin fired into the mouth of the cave would destroy it from the inside, which was not possible from the outside using heavy mortars.
Connor Wilson
>That isn't how rocket launchers works, anti-tank rockets don't explode.
You've got your explanations mixed up.
HEAT projectiles don't blow through armor by exploding, but they still explode.
The PG-7VL (the most common rocket you see in movies - the "standard" rpg-7 rocket) comes loaded with about 1.5 pounds of HMX/Octogen.
That's not nearly enough to punch through a tank (which is why they do that whole copper liner shaped charge thing) but it is more than enough to fuck up people standing close - it's about the same weight of explosives as 6 standard US frag grenades.
>If a weapon is "anti-tank" because it deals a lot of damage and penetrates armor it will still kill foot soldiers just as easily. It's not like foot soldiers are fast enough to dodge something any more than a vehicle could.
From ambush, against a single standing stationary infantryman, this is about true (except for the fact that RPGs are not as accurate as rifles)
But infantry can absolutely dodge things that vehicles cannot.
If a vehicle is moving at 40 mph relative when you pull the trigger, it is still moving approximately 40 mph relative when the rocket arrives - you don't change the velocity or direction of a 3-ton humvee in the blink of an eye. People, however, moves in jerks, change directions instantly and are generally unpredictable when they want to be. It's not about dodging the rocket , it's about being harder to predict where you should aim your RPG.
Also, vehicles are big, cannot take cover or find concealment in open terrain. Infantry are small, and can fit into ditches or hide behind even low shrubbery
In closed terrain where vehicles can hide behind buildings, they are forced to stay on the streets. Infantry can move into and through the buildings.
So the disadvantages to RPGs vs rifles are:
1) Harder to aim
2) Harder to hide
3) Reveals your firing position to the enemy
4) Requires room behind you or your allies die in the back blast
5) less ammo
Elijah Foster
>If a weapon is "anti-tank" because it deals a lot of damage and penetrates armor it will still kill foot soldiers just as easily.
No it won't. Hitting a vehicle with a kinetic energy penetrator 'depleted uranium dart' or a high explosive armor piercing round is a far cry from hitting a single soldier. Against infantry, your best bet is high explosive or fragmentation rounds, or canister shot if the gun is equipped to fire it.
> It's not like foot soldiers are fast enough to dodge something any more than a vehicle could.
They can't "dodge" it, but hitting them with it is far more difficult.
Ian Cooper
gives off thermal signature as well as kicking up dust.
a lot of older systems use a cable connection sometimes up to 4km so thats one limitation.
there is also the fact that laser guided weapons often need to remain in place and the lasers can be seen by NVGs and ridden back to their origin.
and most take time to set up. most have a battery that needs charging. they also need time to cool down. somtimes you also need to change positions after you fire.
many weapons can't be fired from inside a building and have a back blast radius.
my countrys ATGs are not organic to infantry formations so while i was a motar man (artillery corp) i can do an AMA on my longer breaks at work.
Nolan Long
>People do often use anti tank weaponry as anti infantry. US used bazookas against Japanese in the pacific, Soldiers used AT-4's against taliban in Afghanistan, and syrians use TOWs as anti infantry when they need to.
Dug-in infantry. They were used to deny them the protection of walls, holes, caves and such.
Brandon Lopez
>Game balance
Already kill yourself
Hudson Ward
I guess a problem would be limited ammunition. If you've ever played Wargame: Red Dragon you'll know that the worst thing that can happen to infantry is them running out of AT ammunition. Those rockets and missiles are heavy, expensive, and essential for destroying armor. You can't afford to just shoot them off at infantry. You might want to use them to destroy fortifications or something, but even that would be rare.
Having the weapons themselves do Xbox huge damage wouldn't be a problem, but you might want to make firing them take longer, perhaps involving a setup time to brace the weapon for fire and such, so that it can't be used to whip out and snipe groups of enemies for easy multi-kils.
Tyler Turner
>The only issues is that monetarily hindering anti-vehicle ammo gets borked real fast since players usually end up with enough cash to spend a lot on this kind of stuff and carry weight is a massive pain unless some really weird rules get used.
If your players can buy and carry a shit ton of AT rounds their AT weaponry your "rules" suck balls. The best ways to balance AT weaponry are limited ammo, weight, RoF, and penalties for using HEAP against HE targets.
Instead of quizzing WarHamster and MtG players on play balance, ask /hwg/ for some advice and be ready for your fee-fees to get hurt.
Wyatt Wilson
>how do you balance anti-vehicle weapons in a way that satisfies both mechanics and lore?
A few ways here:
>massiveky limited ammo
>AT effective only at (relatively) short range
>Sans 1337-tier gear, you're not going to penetrate tank armor from the front
>Shaped charges (AT missiles) are by design fucking awful against infantry as the entire force of the weapon is directed at the smallest point possible
>Armor is never unsupported unless your setting expressly establishes you're fighting the military of an inbred oil-prince/clueless tinpot strongman.
Armored formations never operate by sending tanks in piecemeal. They operate in coordinated groups that attack en masse with mechanized/regular infantry support, artillery, and often with air cover. They also have integrated comms not just with their tank platoon, but with higher commands as well.
As an example:
>Party fucks up a tank
>starts whooping like faggots
>Immediately come under fire from small arms/autocannons
>(You), as a GM, make it clear that they really should be running for their lives
>If they are wise, they'll flee immediately and may only have a character or two get injured by counter-battery/shellfire
>if they loiter, they'll be vaporized by an airstrike or disintegrated by autocannons.
I assume though that you're talking about a situation where it's a lone tank with some infantry, so here's how I'd play it.
>Tank guarding a checkpoint with some supporting infantry
>party is in position for an ambush
>Surprises the guards, hopefully even catching some of the tank crew outside of their vehicle
>give them X rounds to wrap up their shit because a tank getting BTFO means reinforcements that the players can't deal with will be there REAL FUCKING SOON
Chase Myers
DAMN YOU VIDEO GAMES FOR MAKING IT SO YOU ONLY HAVE TO FIGHT A TANK AND NOTHING ELSE!
Nolan Mitchell
>Make the weapon really crappy in that field and just strap on a modifier that makes it easy to hit large objects?
That could be a really good idea
Carter Martin
Um you don't understand how most AT weapons work. An AT rocket tuat might be effective against a tank doesn't neccessarily have to have a big enough explosion to be that effective against dug -in infantry. Plus rockets are fucking expensive compared to bullets.
Aaron Nelson
So what I'm getting here is
>Anti-vehicle rounds should never have splash damage.
>Having a (bonus vs large targets) modifier to damage, armor penetration, and accuracy simply explained by "it's armor penetrating, shaped charge, timed explosives, etc) is perfectly fine.
>Low accuracy
>Limit ammo
>Further nerf the rate of fire/reloading/add setup time
>Some people think game balance is for faggots for some dumb reason
Thanks.
Jaxson Price
The real life balance is mostly that a shaped-charge rocket or AT rifle will kill any motherfucker it hits extremely dead. But a regular rifle round will also kill a motherfucker, but maybe not quite as dead. However, death is a binary state. These weapons are largely expensive, heavy, slow firing, and have heavy ammunition, limiting total capacity. In ordinary circumstances, it's not worth using them on people.
Players shooting rocket launchers are regular guys in an RPG could be seen as a balance issue, or it could be seen as the players adapting to the difference between the setting and real life. After all, if it consistently took a good half dozen bullets to put down a tough guy, the military wouldn't use the kinds of guns it does now.
I say roll with it and see how fucking crazy shit gets.
Also, if they aren't military, where would they even buy that kind of shit? If you don't want them getting rocket launchers, don't sell them rocket launchers.