Turrets (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design



Message

Curtis Lemay -> Turrets (2/20/2008 6:56:18 PM)

Tanks generally have turrets. Assault Guns & such generally do not - making them comparably cheaper. That, as I understand it, reflects their different roles in combat. Tanks are designed for offensive operations while Assault Guns (despite the name) are designed for defensive operations. A turret is a useful thing when you're the one having to react instead of waiting under cover.

But TOAW doesn't make any distinction between them. So the Tiger II is fundamentally inferior to the JagdTiger, even on the attack.

I suggest we address this in some fashion. Obviously, it will require one of the flags to be used to indicate that the AFV has a turret. And, unfortunately, the equipment list will have to be updated with those flag settings accordingly. For the effect, I suggest that the current three shot bonus for motorized equipment (attacking or defending) only be applied when attacking if the "turret" flag is set. Unturreted vehicles would get only one shot when attacking. They would still get three if defending.



Karri -> RE: Turrets (2/20/2008 7:31:39 PM)

While perhaps designed differently, it does not mean there was a big difference. And I don't think TOAW is simulating combat at that level. A division attacking an enemy division simulates a great deal of things, not just a straightforward 'attack'.



ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/20/2008 11:53:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

While perhaps designed differently, it does not mean there was a big difference. And I don't think TOAW is simulating combat at that level. A division attacking an enemy division simulates a great deal of things, not just a straightforward 'attack'.


Yeah. A failure to simulate this is actually one of the flaws that needs to be remedied. as far as I am concerned. Classically, at the scale OPART operates at, a panzer division 'attacks' enemy armor by drawing it onto its AT guns. Of course, in TOAW, AT guns can't attack tanks, so that's ruled out.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Turrets (2/21/2008 6:31:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

While perhaps designed differently, it does not mean there was a big difference. And I don't think TOAW is simulating combat at that level. A division attacking an enemy division simulates a great deal of things, not just a straightforward 'attack'.


It's definitely simulating combat. And I expect that having a turret is an edge on the attack.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Turrets (2/21/2008 7:15:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah. A failure to simulate this is actually one of the flaws that needs to be remedied. as far as I am concerned. Classically, at the scale OPART operates at, a panzer division 'attacks' enemy armor by drawing it onto its AT guns. Of course, in TOAW, AT guns can't attack tanks, so that's ruled out.


Make them active equipment if you want.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Turrets (2/21/2008 7:17:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
... And, unfortunately, the equipment list will have to be updated with those flag settings accordingly...


Perhaps an easier path would be to assume all AFVs have turrets and allow the designers to edit them out if they desire.



Karri -> RE: Turrets (2/21/2008 7:23:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

While perhaps designed differently, it does not mean there was a big difference. And I don't think TOAW is simulating combat at that level. A division attacking an enemy division simulates a great deal of things, not just a straightforward 'attack'.


It's definitely simulating combat. And I expect that having a turret is an edge on the attack.


Yeah, combat. But the level of detail you're going after is in tactical level. Games like steel panthers. However Operational art of war..is well operational level game. Plenty of examples of stugs being effective on the offensive.



ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/21/2008 9:48:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

While perhaps designed differently, it does not mean there was a big difference. And I don't think TOAW is simulating combat at that level. A division attacking an enemy division simulates a great deal of things, not just a straightforward 'attack'.




It's definitely simulating combat. And I expect that having a turret is an edge on the attack.


Yeah, combat. But the level of detail you're going after is in tactical level. Games like steel panthers. However Operational art of war..is well operational level game. Plenty of examples of stugs being effective on the offensive.


I vote with Karri on this one. Curtis' argument really applies to warfare at a smaller scale than that OPART focusses on. If the range of possible hex sizes ran from 100 meters to 2.5 km rather than from 2.5 km to 50 km, Curtis would be right. However, it doesn't.

A typical 'attack' at a typical OPART setting of -- say -- 10 km hex and half-week turns involves a lot of cut and thrust in which both sides are variously attacking, counter-attacking, digging in, maneuvering, and defending. It's not like the tanks gain some advantage when it's the owning players' turn that they lose when it's the opposing players turn.

I see such a change doing more harm than good.



ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/21/2008 9:51:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Yeah. A failure to simulate this is actually one of the flaws that needs to be remedied. as far as I am concerned. Classically, at the scale OPART operates at, a panzer division 'attacks' enemy armor by drawing it onto its AT guns. Of course, in TOAW, AT guns can't attack tanks, so that's ruled out.


Make them active equipment if you want.


That's a thought. Maybe 'semi-active.' Part of the AT guns are unmodified, another part are modified. Have to play with it one of these days. One wouldn't want that battalion of 88's busting open the line and charging unsupported into the enemy rear.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Turrets (2/22/2008 6:27:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

While perhaps designed differently, it does not mean there was a big difference. And I don't think TOAW is simulating combat at that level. A division attacking an enemy division simulates a great deal of things, not just a straightforward 'attack'.


It's definitely simulating combat. And I expect that having a turret is an edge on the attack.


Yeah, combat. But the level of detail you're going after is in tactical level. Games like steel panthers. However Operational art of war..is well operational level game. Plenty of examples of stugs being effective on the offensive.


TOAW still reflects tactical realities - it just amalgamates them. Perhaps the effect might need to debilitate non-turreted vehicles somewhat on defense as well as attack. But there's no question there's an effect. For some reason, modern tanks have turrets - when they could have bigger guns, thicker armor, and be cheaper to build if they didn't have them.



Karri -> RE: Turrets (2/22/2008 7:24:29 PM)

The only 'real' advantage I can think of is in urban warfare. Or in a flanking situation. But when you know where the enemy is, I don't think the assault guns would have any less 'firepower' than any normal tank. And how do you know this hasn't alrady been taken into consideration in the units stats?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Turrets (2/22/2008 7:41:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri

The only 'real' advantage I can think of is in urban warfare. Or in a flanking situation. But when you know where the enemy is, I don't think the assault guns would have any less 'firepower' than any normal tank.


I think its an advantage in just about all attacking circumstances. Defenders get to use cover. Attackers are out in the open. Therefore the attacker has to react in just about all situations. A turret would seem to be an edge if you have to react.

quote:

And how do you know this hasn't alrady been taken into consideration in the units stats?


AP/AT values correlate with guns, regardless of turret.



Karri -> RE: Turrets (2/22/2008 8:19:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


I think its an advantage in just about all attacking circumstances. Defenders get to use cover. Attackers are out in the open. Therefore the attacker has to react in just about all situations. A turret would seem to be an edge if you have to react.


Yes, but once again when a division attacks a division there's plenty of back and forth, not just one side attacking and the other defending. Hell, that goes down to regimental, battalion and company level.

Again, you're going to a level of detail TOAW does not simulate.

And besides, while I do not know much of tank tactics, I am fairly sure they don't just drive forwards at full speed until they run into the enemy. Infantry goes first, makes contact, assault guns/tanks support.

In fact, why should the assault guns shoot only once in attack. Turning the whole thing a little doesn't take that much time.



ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/22/2008 9:44:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


I think its an advantage in just about all attacking circumstances. Defenders get to use cover. Attackers are out in the open. Therefore the attacker has to react in just about all situations. A turret would seem to be an edge if you have to react.


Yes, but once again when a division attacks a division there's plenty of back and forth, not just one side attacking and the other defending. Hell, that goes down to regimental, battalion and company level.

Again, you're going to a level of detail TOAW does not simulate.

And besides, while I do not know much of tank tactics, I am fairly sure they don't just drive forwards at full speed until they run into the enemy. Infantry goes first, makes contact, assault guns/tanks support.

In fact, why should the assault guns shoot only once in attack. Turning the whole thing a little doesn't take that much time.


The thing is, Curtis might even have an argument here.

However, I'm inclined to fear that any improvement would make matters worse rather than better. We just lack the analytical tools and data to decide when, how, and to what extent turretted vehicles confer an advantage on units that are nominally 'attacking' in the OPART sense.

My inclination is to turn Curtis's suggestion on its head. He wants a box that will be checked by default for 'turretted vehicles' that will improve their combat ability. Why doesn't he just use the Bio-editor to downgrade assault guns as he sees fit? He can even confer on some of them attributes similar to those of AT guns. That'll make them less potent in the attack.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Turrets (2/23/2008 5:21:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
Yes, but once again when a division attacks a division there's plenty of back and forth, not just one side attacking and the other defending. Hell, that goes down to regimental, battalion and company level.


We can quibble over just what the effect should be - should it be entirely to the attacker, or a bit of both. But let's agree there needs to be some sort of effect.

quote:

Again, you're going to a level of detail TOAW does not simulate.


No, I'm really not. The JagdPanther simply shouldn't be as good in some circumstances as the Tiger II. The turret makes a difference. And of course TOAW can and should model that.

quote:

And besides, while I do not know much of tank tactics, I am fairly sure they don't just drive forwards at full speed until they run into the enemy. Infantry goes first, makes contact, assault guns/tanks support.

In fact, why should the assault guns shoot only once in attack. Turning the whole thing a little doesn't take that much time.


Regardless of your level of knowledge, you can at least answer this question: Do modern tanks have turrets or not?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Turrets (2/23/2008 5:29:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
My inclination is to turn Curtis's suggestion on its head. He wants a box that will be checked by default for 'turretted vehicles' that will improve their combat ability. Why doesn't he just use the Bio-editor to downgrade assault guns as he sees fit? He can even confer on some of them attributes similar to those of AT guns. That'll make them less potent in the attack.


TOAW doesn't work that way. A straight reduction in AT values will reduce penetration chances. Not the effect we want. Similarly, I can't reduce shots (like for AT guns) and keep the item motorized - which they cerainly were.



ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/23/2008 10:05:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karri
Yes, but once again when a division attacks a division there's plenty of back and forth, not just one side attacking and the other defending. Hell, that goes down to regimental, battalion and company level.


We can quibble over just what the effect should be - should it be entirely to the attacker, or a bit of both. But let's agree there needs to be some sort of effect.


You can get the effect too. Use the Bioeditor to lower the values to what you think they should be. Edit: as noted below, Curtis seems to have a legitimate objection to this argument.

Turrets versus no turrets is hardly the end of it. Norm in general had a predilection for 'hard' data: rate of fire, thickness of armor, range, penetration, etc. There are all kinds of 'soft' factors that aren't weighted. We've got the roomier turrets in German tanks, the greater reliability of the Sherman, the wider treads of the T-34...

Nothing unique about turrets that convincingly calls for a special box. Not at the scale that TOAW operates at.



ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/23/2008 10:08:07 PM)

.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Turrets (2/23/2008 10:09:40 PM)

It's all addressed in the AP, AT and defense factors. Each turretless vehicle was different. The Hellcat was big but light and fast. The Hetzer was a very small target to hit. The JadgTiger was serious but slow and huge. All of this is relative to their combat values.



ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/23/2008 10:16:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
My inclination is to turn Curtis's suggestion on its head. He wants a box that will be checked by default for 'turretted vehicles' that will improve their combat ability. Why doesn't he just use the Bio-editor to downgrade assault guns as he sees fit? He can even confer on some of them attributes similar to those of AT guns. That'll make them less potent in the attack.


TOAW doesn't work that way. A straight reduction in AT values will reduce penetration chances. Not the effect we want. Similarly, I can't reduce shots (like for AT guns) and keep the item motorized - which they cerainly were.


Ah. You may have a point there. On the other hand, as noted there are all kinds of variations between AFV's that affect their performance. I'm not convinced the turreted versus non-turreted difference is especially outstanding. For example, the disastrous shortcoming of the 'Ferdinand' wasn't that it wasn't turreted -- it was that it didn't have a machine-gun.

Another difficulty is that it is hard to define the advantages of turrets in TOAW terms. It's not a constant effect. The advantage is nil if you're waiting for someone to try crossing that bridge you're covering. It's not especially impressive if you're duking it out at range in open country. It's obviously dramatic if you're advancing through wooded country.



ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/23/2008 10:25:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

It's all addressed in the AP, AT and defense factors. Each turretless vehicle was different. The Hellcat was big but light and fast. The Hetzer was a very small target to hit. The JadgTiger was serious but slow and huge. All of this is relative to their combat values.


It can also be argued that the numbers should reflect how the weapons were used. I've read that German assault guns fell under the control of the artillery, and operated with a completely different doctrine than tanks. Obviously, this wouldn't apply when they were used to fill out panzer divisions, but all the same...



ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/23/2008 10:26:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

It's all addressed in the AP, AT and defense factors. Each turretless vehicle was different. The Hellcat was big but light and fast. The Hetzer was a very small target to hit. The JadgTiger was serious but slow and huge. All of this is relative to their combat values.


I thought the Hellcat had a turret.

Yeah. That's definitely a turret.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/M18-Hellcat-wiesloch-19450401.jpg/180px-M18-Hellcat-wiesloch-19450401.jpg[/img]



jmlima -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 1:07:25 AM)

To be quite honest , it's almost... ridiculous , if I dare say so, after seeing so much resistance to any change to the supply system seeing a suggestion for towers in TOAW... what's next, smoke dispensers? Mind you, smoke was a pretty relevant thing also. [>:]



ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 2:14:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima

To be quite honest , it's almost... ridiculous , if I dare say so, after seeing so much resistance to any change to the supply system seeing a suggestion for towers in TOAW... what's next, smoke dispensers? Mind you, smoke was a pretty relevant thing also. [>:]


Yeah, well...

Curtis would do great as a British infantry battalion. He tends to dig in and obstinately hold his ground.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 3:19:40 AM)

It's not a turret, it's the 'sidewinder' version. [:D]

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/M18-Hellcat-wiesloch-19450401.jpg/180px-M18-Hellcat-wiesloch-19450401.jpg[/img]



ColinWright -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 6:41:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

It's not a turret, it's the 'sidewinder' version. [:D]

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/M18-Hellcat-wiesloch-19450401.jpg/180px-M18-Hellcat-wiesloch-19450401.jpg[/img]



Actually, the gun is fixed. The chassis and the rest of the universe rotate.



rhinobones -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 7:41:03 AM)

Almost ridiculous .  .  .  almost?  

No, it is ridiculous.  This is the kind of boner stuff that has been imported by our TDG friends.  Any idea/suggestion is irrelevant unless it fits in with a particular style of play, e.g. Collie’s style of play or Huston’s absolute denial of anything contrary to Huston's self imposed civilian belief system (note absence of Huston’s veteran status).

Now we have a TDG proposal that turrets are somehow critical to the outcome of operational warfare.  Hmmm?  This is of course just guess work with no substance based in fact from our TDG friends. 

Well, TDG buddies, if you really feel the need, go screw up an Equipment file and leave the base TOAW III alone.  That way you can have your turrets as tight as you like and not bother the TOAW community with your  .  .  .   .  putter.

Regards, RhinoBones



jmlima -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 12:08:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Almost ridiculous . . . almost?

No, it is ridiculous. This is the kind of boner stuff that has been imported by our TDG friends. Any idea/suggestion is irrelevant unless it fits in with a particular style of play, e.g. Collie’s style of play or Huston’s absolute denial of anything contrary to Huston's self imposed civilian belief system (note absence of Huston’s veteran status).

Now we have a TDG proposal that turrets are somehow critical to the outcome of operational warfare. Hmmm? This is of course just guess work with no substance based in fact from our TDG friends.

Well, TDG buddies, if you really feel the need, go screw up an Equipment file and leave the base TOAW III alone. That way you can have your turrets as tight as you like and not bother the TOAW community with your . . . . putter.

Regards, RhinoBones


errmmmm... right...

You did notice who was the originator of this suggestion?...



vahauser -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 2:15:01 PM)

I am a highly-skilled expert Steel Panthers player (been playing for 12+ years).  I almost always choose turreted AFVs instead of non-turreted AFVs when given a choice.

Turreted AFVs:
1) almost always carry more ammunition.  This is extremely important tactically, but is not handled by TOAW III.
2) almost always have a higher rate of fire.  This is supremely important tactically, but is not handled by TOAW III.
3) do not have to turn the whole vehicle to face the enemy being engaged.  This is important in a variety of tactical situations, but not as important as points #1 and #2 above.

Non-turreted AFVs:
1) usually have a smaller target size.  This is useful when trying to set up ambushes.
2) often have better armor protection.  This is countered by the fact that non-turreted AFVs can be often outmaneuvered to gain flank shots. [But if the non-turreted AFV can keep its flanks protected, such as fighting in occluded terrain where trees and buildings, etc., can be used to protect the flanks, the the non-turreted AFV has an advantage.]

When do I use non-turreted AFVs?  Non-turreted AFVs are best when fighting in occluded terrain (such as woods and cities).  In these cases, a handful of non-turreted AFVs leading the advance (with the turreted AFVs following behind in overwatch positions) is often the best way to attack.

Historically (talking WW2 here), turreted AFVs were best suited to independent combat operations in relatively open terrain.  Non-turreted AFVs were historically best suited to dependent combat operations (usually infantry support), especially in relatively occluded terrain. 

The main historical advantage of non-turreted AFVs is that they were less complicated and less expensive and less time-consuming to build.  Thus, wealthy nations with enormous industrial potential, like the USA in WW2 could afford to build turreted AFVs almost exclusively.  However, many other nations could not afford that luxury.

In open ground, I'll take turreted AFVs every time.  In occluded terrain I like to have some non-turreted AFVs handy.



Karri -> RE: Turrets (2/24/2008 2:16:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Regardless of your level of knowledge, you can at least answer this question: Do modern tanks have turrets or not?


Yes, most do, but there was no MBT's in the 40's. Anyways, Soviet Union had up to to the 80's in use an assault gun named ASU-85. It belonged to the organisation of Soviet airmobile units...and those by nature are not 'defensive' troops, are they?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.0625