Joseph
Posts: 11
Joined: 11/14/2000
Status: offline
|
I have a little list of things that i would like to see fixed in the update.
A)
I do believe that giving an afv the ability to reverse a limited distance would be realistic and that it did happen fairly often in real life (under certain situations).
Someone mentioned street fighting. I do agree with that... It would seem going in reverse would be a necessity in that situation. However, my biggest complaint would be that a TC in real life...if he isn't green, or in a state of extreme panic.. would go in reverse in order to help extricate his tank from a situation. this offers 2 major advantages.
1) The frontal armor remains pointed at the threat.
2) the gun also remains pointed at the threat. there is no need for the gunner to swivel the turret and acquire the target again, as he would have to if the tank pivoted and started charging forward, away from the threat.
To offer an example... Let's say i'm the TC of a sherman 75. i move out into a clearing from behind a hill to begin scouting, and now i'm 100 meters from the cover i exited. All of a sudden, the gunner spots what he thinks is a Puma in the forest, about 800 meters away. We begin receiving fire, possibly from more than one afv. only one has been spotted.
Now...i would drop down and close the hatch while ordering the driver to back up as fast as he can. i would also order the gunner to start lobbing rounds into the treeline where the fire is coming from.
I would certainly not order the driver to turn the rear end of the sherman to the enemy in order to charge back behind our hill. That just doesnt make sense, and if we do take a hit from light armor, like a 50mm L/60, the front hull/turret has a fair possibility of stopping the round. The rear hull or turret does not.
I would strongly encourage the inclusion of a reverse option for 100m or so, possibly 150, but that seems a bit much.
B)
Also, get rid of the ability for a afv crew to assault an enemy afv. They certainly wouldn't do that, since their morale would have failed completely and utterly upon having their vehicle destroyed. Besides, what would they have to destroy an enemy tank? Pistols, maybe one carbine?
C)
I have had this sort of situation happen numerous times while playing SPWAW. In a wooded area, I had a few infantry squads and a tank. An enemy tank came charging through the woods, and ended up in the hex directly in front of my tank. now as it was the computer's turn, my tank and the computer tank exchanged fire. nothing happened.
On my turn, i moved one of my infantry squads, previously hidden, to the adjacent hex to the rear of the enemy tank. the enemy tank suddenly swung completely around, and basically annihilated my squad; some 4 guys were left.
There is no way that could realistically happen. The enemy tank would not and could not see my infantry directly behind it. It would not and could not turn around fast enough to get a shot off at the infantry before they assaulted it, and besides my tank would quickly drill it if it tried.
Turning a vehicle should bring down op fire upon it, in my opinion. Forward movement shouldnt be the only trigger. And tanks should not be able to spot enemy infantry in the woods who are moving about in a sneaky manner behind it. Tank spotting in general should be reduced in all terrain.
D)
I have played a couple scenarios where lightly armored vehicles have taken 2 or 3 penetrating hits from an 88mm AT gun, and the crew didn't bail out..nor was the vehicle destroyed. Could anyone please show me any archival reports where a T-26 stood up to 88mm fire, took 2 penetrating hits, and still continued fighting? My guess is...no way. Similar things have happened with british crusaders in another scenario, a number of times.
My understanding was that the rounds were not solid shot, rather AP-HE. an 88 would make for a rather nasty internal explosion... not to mention generating a huge amount of fragments and spall. Heck, an HE shell from that gun would have a good chance of taking out a T-26 or Crusader.
E)
Costs and ammo loadouts for heavy guns should be looked at and adjusted, as others have suggested. It is far too easy the way things stand for someone to buy about a regiment's worth of >155mm arty and just obliterate everything on the map. A battalion level engagement wouldnt have that sort of fire support anyway.
This might sound harsh at times, but it is frustrating when some of these things happen. Please change the modifiers associated with the events i've described, and please include the ability for limited reverse movement of vehicles allowing them to keep their frontal armor pointed at the enemy. Thank you.
-joseph
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
changes/updates to SPWAW - 
- 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread