Hi, fellow War fans
I started playing MTW just about from the get go, but never researched the various mechanics behind the game. All I did of that kind was, after a few years of playing sporadically, to study Frogs' guides. While doing that I was puzzled by what she said about armour piercing weapons.
For example this, about the CK: The higher armour stat is something of a double-edged sword as it makes them more vulnerable to anti-armour units.
It was the "more vulnerable" that I couldn't understand. I checked the appendix, accordingly, to learn how the AP formula worked. I found there the numbers involved and this, very inconclusive, statement: Upgraded armour is affected by this, effectively making added armour only half again as effective as it was supposed to.
I kind of let the issue go since I couldn't figure out the reality of things and have not begun to think about this until now, after picking up the game after a layoff. So, I looked through these forums and got a little wiser, but also more confused.
The following represents the way I thought it worked.
”How is AP more effective against Armor than without Armor”
Post #4: econ21:
An armoured person vs non-AP weapon - they get the armour stat added to their defense.
An armoured person vs AP weapon - they get [Armour - AP bonus] added to their defense. This is always positive and so they are still better off than the unarmoured person.
Post #5: Ludens:
AP is not more effective against a unit with armour. If all other stats except for armour are equal, an unarmoured unit will suffer worse from the attacks of an AP unit than an armoured one. It is just that an AP unit gets an attack bonus against armoured units, and this bonus is never greater than the defense bonus confered by the armour.
I would really like to know where this misconceptions stems from. It reappears every few months, and even made its way into Froggy's Unit Guide.
So far so good. But digging in the vaults lead me to statements such as:
"Effective Against Armor"
Post #7: The Grand Inquisitor:
Armour protects vs missiles. Defence vs melee. They do not add together, though 'armour bonuses' are added to both armour and defence.
Post #14: The Grand Inquisitor:
For example, Billmen have defence 4, armour 3. With a level 1 armourer, they have a defence 5, armour 4. Against melee opponents their attack factor is only compared against the defence stat (5 when armoured) not defence + armour (which would be 9 when armoured).
As these statements are in contradiction I decided to dig deeper.
”What does armor do”
Post #9: Del Arroyo:
Wait wait wait...... are you guys saying that the "armour" value in the Unit_Prod file ALSO factors into melee? Because I was under the distinct impression that it was totally unrelated.
As in, an "armour upgrade" adds to both the defence skill and the armour value, but armour value only factors into missle resistance and fatigue
Post #10: CBR:
No the armour value in the unit prod file is not added to the defense stat. The defense stat is calculated in a spreadsheet where defense is based on armour, weapon and troop quality. The results from the spreadsheet was then copied to the unit prod file.
Finally some clarity! Or? What CBR says implies that the armour value shown in the Unit_Prod is the exact same value that can be found in the spreadsheet, and that the engine distinguishes between upgraded armour and the value from the Unit_Prod. According to this, armour upgrades is the only armour that improves melee skill and, so, Frog is right to say that CK's are more vulnerable to, say, Militita Sergeants than what FK's are. This is of course contradicted by what econ21 and Ludens claim, as shown above.
My question is: Since all these statements can't be true, which ones are and which ones are not?
Sorry for the length of this post - but as my mother always told me "You can't be clear enough". This way, I hope, there won't be too many misunderstandings and the issue will dissolve quickly. Right!?
Thanks in advance.
Bookmarks