Is armor underrated in RON?

[royk4444]

When I look at the attack and armor values for tanks/
armored vehicles in RON, they strike me as somewhat
unusually low compared to infantry. I can't remember
the specific values off the top of my head but it's
something like:

Assault infantry has an attack of 25 and armor of 4
whereas main battle tank has an attack of 22 and
armor of 7.

Now, I can understand why tanks have better armor/hps
but from my days with Dune2 and Command/Conquer
armor should be able to just flat out squash infantry
with raw firepower (not to mention just run them
over) and that doesn't seem to be the case in RON.
(exceptions are with anti-tank/rocket infantry)

Does anyone else think armor is too weak in RON?
(Also bums me that RON main battle tanks- unlike
their real-life analogs- can't fire on the move unlike
armored cavalry)

[Jaybe]

(Also bums me that RON main battle tanks- unlike
their real-life analogs- can't fire on the move unlike
armored cavalry)

In Real Life, tanks have always had to stop to fire their main gun accurately. This has changed only with the current generation of main battle tanks (M1 Abrams, German Leopard). Doesn't apply to the Russian T-80. While previous generations of tanks have had "stabilization systems," they never really worked as advertised. In RoN, they set the CLASS of units with properties.

I agree with your argument regarding armor strengths. I would think that starting with Industrial, an armor increase of another 3 (at least) for armor would be appropriate. But then you would have to adjust all sorts of other units' attack strengths for anti-armor units to compensate. I think a major problem is that BHG hardcoded too many unit relationships into the game, not into unit stats.