From: cem@Apple.COM (Carles Moylan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Up Front armor penetration system
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:23:01 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

Have any players of Avalon Hill's "Up Front" noticed that something 
is out of whack concerning the armor penetration system?  IMHO, 
Up Front is a wonderful game in all respects save this one.  The 
penetration capabilities of small guns are greatly inflated and 
those of powerful guns are unrealistically diminished.  For 
example, a measly 37mm AT gun can penetrate the front armor of a 
King Tiger (approx. 10 inches thick) 10% of the time at close range. 
A kill like this should only happen on a freak "critical hit", in my 
view.  On the flip side, a German 88mm AP shell will only penetrate 
a Sherman-75 tank's front armor about 60% of the time at 500 
yards (which in real life is quite a short distance for such a 
weapon).  In reality, penetration at this distance would be almost a 
certainty.

So what to do about this Achilles' Heel in an otherwise incredibly 
cool game?  I designed my own system for armor penetration that 
(in my view) works as well as the original from a playability 
standpoint, and that better mirrors kill-percentages from other 
wargames that I own.


I thought that some people might find it interesting, so here it is:

Base penetration strength = 
                              boxed firepower of gun + range modifier

Range modifier =  (Relative Range / 2 [drop fractions]) - 2
	which is the same as this chart...

              RR        Range Modifier
               0             -2
               1             -2
               2             -1
               3             -1
               4              0
               5              0

So, for example, a gun of boxed strength 2 firing at RR 3 would have 
a base penetration strength of 1.  Other modifiers, such as 
defender's terrain, apply as per the normal rules of the game.  Note 
that negative base strengths are possible.

To resolve the attack, draw an RNC.

If it is a *black* 6, the vehicle is automatically destroyed.  This is 
a "critical hit" and occurs 1.9% of the time.

Otherwise, IGNORE THE COLOR OF THE RNC.  All RNC's are treated as 
positive numbers.  Add this number to the base penetration strength 
to get the final attack value.  Compare this to the armor defense 
value as normal.


	   
My system essentially does two things.  It reduces some of the wild 
variations of the original system, and it reduces the increase in 
penetration capabilities at shorter ranges to a realistic level.  In 
the original game, practically any weapon could knock out any 
vehicle at close range (RR4 or 5) with a VERY high probability of 
success.  This includes peashooter antitank-rifles (ATRs) firing at 
the front armor of heavy tanks!  Thus, all that was really needed 
was to obtain a "hit", but at close range this is almost automatic.  
So all you really need to kill that Panther tank at close range with 
your little 45mm antitank gun is a fire card!  IMHO, this is crazy.  
This new system still allows the little weapons to kill an armored 
behemoth with a lucky hit, but makes it improbable - as it should 
be.  It also makes shooting through light armor with a heavy weapon 
more certain of success.  Using the original system, I've had light 
M3 Stuart tanks drive into a hail of German 88mm gunfire and had 
the shells bounce off like spitballs!  I don't think that EVER 
happened in the real war...

Another nice thing is that armor penetration rises at RR2 and RR4.  
This complements nicely the fact that rifle firepower rises at RR1, 
RR3, and RR5.  This way, there's new danger at every relative range.

If you try out my system please let me know what you think of it.

BTW, to anyone who has read the article, "Up Front bt the Numbers" 
(from Avalon Hill's "The General" magazine) the part that describes 
the efficiencies of different firepower groupings is incorrect.  I 
won't bore everyone with the details here, but if you're interested 
you can email me and I'll explain why.  (This article was also 
reprinted in the "Banzai" game supplement).

-----------------------------
Charlie Moylan (cem@apple.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board