Originally Posted by Azren
You have got to be kidding. What kind of numbers do you need?
|
Cost.
Specifically relative cost vs. income in an average situation. What the most limiting factor is, whether it's resources or players.
Also, less important, the number of tanks that can effectively engage a smaller group (given terrain) before losing effectiveness due to overkill or lack of angles, etc.
Originally Posted by Figment
@Flapropi.
Algebra doesn't require accurate numbers.
|
True, but there are too many unknown variables. Including what the heck the rest of the army is doing, how quickly the gap in resources can be spent via other means (did the gunner lay a bunch of mines to cover their rear for instance? [assuming mines cost resources like grenades]), etc.
|
The other would probably take barely any damage. However, you say this is fair because of resources spend.
|
Indeed, because nothing stops the multi-crew from getting another tank, at that point, they've lost time, but the fight is even or possibly in their advantage (pending reinforcements on either side, whether or not they killed the first driver and if that driver can return as quickly as they can to assist his allied tank, etc.)
Or for that matter getting a Liberator or Air-to-Ground Fighter knowing that those MBTs only have one crew member so if they use their AA secondaries they are likely immobile and thus easy targets... assuming they even have time to respond properly when you come in for the initial attack.
Or, if they choose to get two tanks when they come back, they'll have more resources to do so. Or a tank and a fighter to really screw them over.
Or it means they focus on taking away resources from that empire that are used for MBTs to limit their capability in the long run.
|
I don't think any player in game will feel it that way and their response will be something other than "oh well, again". Why? Because they want to perform and thus they learned a lesson: play with two tanks, not one, to be efficient. More costly? Depends. Over time it's probably less costly if you survive more often.
|
I don't think survival affects resources, just victory and point control. Certainly if you are able to consistently take more resources due to that temporary advantage then you'd be right. However, if the battles are long enough that attrition is a factor then it can easily even out or turn in favor of multi-crew use. Winning the battle is more important than winning a specific engagement within that battle.
In any event I think that effectively saying that any player would disagree with me is an overstatement (certainly, as a future player myself it won't be strictly true). Learning the system, the draw-backs, and the potential benifits of single vs. multi-crew both in resources and in time to prep will be important, and I think as long as they are able to take out or get close to taking out one of the enemies it won't be so frustrating that they'll rush to change tactics or yell at people for getting in the gunner position (instead of their own tank).
|
EDIT: And Azren does make a good point. The two units are going to take advantage of directional damage which will be in PS2, so don't forget to add damage mitigation/increasing modifiers. Note that it seems just a few hits in the rear can already take out a tank at this time. So being able to flank (which is incredibly easy with two vs one), is going to be a huge modifier to the situation.
|
You can flank, but (as a group) you are less maneuverable, and terrain could be a mitigating factor as well (likewise it can hide your numbers/approach to enable flanking, strategy and player skill is a significant factor in this obviously). In a small area where you can only (effectively anyway) fit D number of tanks, the ones that are better crewed will come out ahead even considering that the single-crewed tanks will be quicker to fill the spaces of lost tanks, simply due to better damage within the field of fire.
In larger open areas more tanks at less firepower have the advantage, and in rougher terrain the tanks with more firepower could have the advantage in spite of the HP gap. All within that specific engagement. Also, this ignores Air and Infantry support, where multi-crewed tanks will likely be better equipped to handle them if only because they have more eyes to see incoming.
Here's how I'm looking at it. You have something that costs X resources and does Y damage per gunner and Z HP. You're paying 2X for 2Y damage and 2Z, while the other side is paying X for 2Y and Z. Even accounting for flanking, you're paying double the resources for only a bit more (say, 2.2Y w/ flanking modifier) than what they are getting in terms of firepower, and relying on greater total health to make up the difference in cost... and even then you're still likely (at least 40% chance as long as we're going with rough numbers) to lose half your firepower and HP for the next engagement.
If it was just the one isolated battle, yeah, you'd come out ahead, but over a series of battles attrition could hurt. And that's what this game is all about, persistent, never-ending war.
Without knowing how effective attrition is, resource scarcity, and other numbers, there isn't enough to say that one strategy is generally better than another. If it's done right, there will be times having a bunch of single-crew MBTs will be the way to go, and other times you want to have multi-crew MBTs for superior concentrated firepower, maneuverability, and conservation of resources.
2012-07-12, 04:02 PM
Linear Mode
