Assault guns and maneuverability (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Belisarius -> Assault guns and maneuverability (5/28/2002 10:31:49 PM)

Just a thought that came to mind:

In SP:WAW - is there really any difference between tanks and assault guns as long as they're not immobilized?

An Assault gun, when fired at, turns around just as quick as any tank and fires back. (usually) An assaulter has no advantage vs. an unsuppressed assault gun in "hand-to-hand" combat. At least not from my experience. IMO, the assault gun would pretty much be sitting duck if not facing the attacking enemy. If the gun is immobilized it can ofcourse only fire in its' direction, while a tank can move the turret.

I'm all OK with this (since every nation does field them in one fashion or the other), but does anyone agree that it makes the guns a bit more flexible than they really should be?

I'd like to see the assault guns' ability to OP-fire an attacker (especially close assaults w/ infantry!) MUCH reduced, if the gun is not already facing the enemy. This is ofcourse also valid for tanks with disabled turret mechanisms. If it survives, it may try to turn around in it's own turn to counter fire. But this is maybe beyond the game engine to model?



Fallschirmjager -> (5/28/2002 10:52:22 PM)

Sound pretty good to me.


I always thought that any vehicle unit should lose movement points for turning around in place.

Ill move my units a hex turn it every direction to try and spot something and then move another hex and repeat.

Useful but not realistic.



learnerever -> (5/28/2002 11:03:16 PM)

I once got a sturmtiger to fire 10 times in a round
with its NbW and 38cm cannon when I surrounded
it with HT-brought infantry , the HT's and a few
stuarts and shermans . Whatever bazooka shots
rifle shots , grenades , MG bursts , and main gun
shots hit it , the monster endured without noticeable
damage .

sometimes i can get rather unlucky

it looks extremely annoying when a bunch of rangers
sneak from hiding into a forest hex behind such a
tank and the ugliness that it is spins around and
nukes them as if it was quite aware that the rangers
who the tank crew was not aware of would be there just
then for the tank crews amusement

urrghh



Seagull -> (5/28/2002 11:43:08 PM)

I felt the same way when my Soviet infantry attempted to enter a smoke-filled hex at the rear of a Jagdpanther for a close assault... and the Jagdpanther promptly spun around, blasted them, and routed them from the game :eek:

Must be some sort of telepathy secret weapon :mad:



WhiteRook -> truly (5/29/2002 2:22:11 AM)

I have to add that I too feel that assault guns have to much responce time durring close assaults via enemy infantry. :(
But then again as with any game I play - not when the in question AFV is one of mine! ;)



Capt. Pixel -> A Pickle (5/29/2002 3:10:19 AM)

One of my favorite tactics is to put the armor in 'a pickle'. That is, I attack from one flank, force the tank to change direction, then attack from another flank. Repeat, ad naseum.

In ASL, a turning turret (or SPG) would rack up hit penalties everytime it was rotated. Small turrets and turretless guns were heavily penalized in this manner. And even a turreted tank would eventually have so many penalties as to make it pointless to continue firing.

This seemed quite realistic to me. You just wouldn't be able to spin around and take that many shots in the given time frame. The Sturmtiger example given earlier is a good illustration of the problem.

(Additionally, I believe the Strumtiger may have required special loading equipment that would have precluded that many rounds fired even WITHOUT rotating the tank body.)

Is something similar to the ASL method being modeled in the SPW@W game engine?



Charles2222 -> (5/29/2002 4:29:35 AM)

While I don't care for insta-adjust tank destroyers, I have seen a King Tiger spin in one place on film. For all us really good commanders, we would be disgraced if we ever had to adjust our AFVs more than 45 degrees at a time, and the King Tiger can spin 45 degrees pretty quickly (I haven't counted the rate on the film, but my guess is 45 degrees in 15 seconds). Perhaps most tank destroyerd spin considerably quicker?



Goblin -> (5/29/2002 6:37:35 AM)

Everyone keep in mind that the turn length is several minutes long. The infantry didn't teleport 50m, they were spotted on the way in. An assault guns weakness IS its lack of a turret. If it shoots at an infantry unit behind it, say at five hexes, it has to turn its backside somewhere..... BOOM!

Goblin- A Goblin looks for the weak spot;)



AmmoSgt -> (5/29/2002 12:42:25 PM)

I am not sure exactly how much impact the Targeting rating has , but it does have some impact on accuracy, and turetless AFV have a lower Targeting rating than turret AFV as a rule.



stevemk1a -> (5/29/2002 1:42:09 PM)

If turretless AFV have a lower targeting value than turreted AFV then that is absolutely correct, but there is another factor. When a turretless AFV adjusts for a target, the whole vehicle has to turn. This action is more likely to break cover, and wears more on the drivetrain (especially Jagdtiger and Sturmtiger). My feeling is that turretless AFV should be more vulnerable to off-axis threats. These vehicles were cheaper to build for a reason! Tanks are for attack and SPG's are for defence!



Stahlhelm -> Close assaults (5/29/2002 3:59:37 PM)

It can be rather annoying when that tank or assault gun you've benn carefully stalking suddenly spins and annihilates your squad.
But I think we may be asking just a little too much of the game system here. I remember back in the days before "tank panic"
that infantry hiding behind the crest of a hill or in a forest were better than laying a minefield when it came to destroying tanks.
Close assaulting a tank is a method of last resort and I don't think would have succeeded as often as hollywood would have us beleive.
in most cases the tank wouldn't be on its own, or would just be travelling too darn fast.

"okay guys, hop on!"
"Ablative armour duty AGAIN! God, I hate being in the infantry"
:rolleyes:



Belisarius -> (5/29/2002 4:11:35 PM)

My point exactly, Willy.

As it is, there is little difference between assault guns and tanks. Limitations would force the player to use the guns as just that - guns. Not tanks. :)

As it is, the guns even have an advantage over tanks since they are smaller, and will [I]always[/I] face the enemy with the armor-heavy front when OP-firing, when tanks will just turn the turret.

I know the tactics to fool these guys, using flank attacks simultaneously and such. But then again - who doesn't confront a tank in the same fashion? :rolleyes:

This goes for both guns and tanks - if you shoot a tank/gun in the rear and it survives, I'd like to see the infantry squad just standing still and wait for it to turn around, SP:W@W style. ;) OK, these are things that are not easily changed I admit. But anyway.



Seagull -> (5/29/2002 4:30:02 PM)

Perhaps Combat Leader will provide greater differentiation between tanks and assault guns. It looks to me as though the limits of the SP engine have been reached (and probably stretched, too :) ).

Goblin, I take your point about both the distance scale and the time frame for each turn, but it's still frustrating when you've attacked a Jagdpanther on one flank, watched it reorient for op-fire (and go to 'buttoned' status), enter the hex behind the unit from the other side of a smoke screen, and have it still pick off your infantry :rolleyes:

Still, all in all, I really love this game :):)



Frank W. -> (5/29/2002 11:09:20 PM)

yes, about this problem i was thinking,too.

and i agree with the recent posts here.

i played some days ago the "combat mission"
demo in which i moved up a couple of sherman
75mm.....suddenly i spotted 2 german stug IIIG.

i think in SPWAW i would hve lost at least one sherman.
but in combat mission i could watch the STUG´s quite slowly
turning their front in the direction my sherman´s came from..
in the meantime my sherman´s hit one of them in the flank before it could fire.....side hull penetration...knocked out.

i lost one of the shermans before i could kill the 2nd STUG.

but the battle seems to be some more realistic this way modelled
in combat mission.



kevsharr -> (5/30/2002 3:00:42 AM)

Just for information sake in a story about Herman Bix who ended the war operating JagdPanther's they relate the fact that a good driver could rotate the vehicle quicker than a turreted vehicle could rotate it's turret,which makes sense since the turret rotation of a tiger was on the order of a full minute for a complete 360 degree rotation.A driver using neutral steering could turn a turretless vehicle much faster than that....To you a hero is somekind of weird sandwich...Oddball



Fredde -> (5/30/2002 7:44:37 PM)

I have actually noticed some kind of difference, which is quite realistic ( probably has something to do with the targeting value mentioned above?). An assualt gun on the move seems to do worse with hitting than one that sits still waiting for a turn or two. Of course, this is a general thing applicable for all vehicles, but compared to tanks the difference between moving and still fire seems to be bigger for assault guns, like it should be.

Otherwise, I agree about the rotating abilities.. for tanks and even more for assault guns. Sometimes, it seems to take out most advantages of an attack from two directions. Comes inherentely from the game system itself, moving one unit at the time instead of having an action phase where the units move simultanously, and also because of the "collective" spotting.. if one enemy unit see your tank all enemy units do. First, the tank from the north emerges from behind the hill, the enemy tank that faced east turns north and shoots at the approaching tank. Second, the tank from the south emerges from the tree line, same thing.. enemy tank twists south, another reaction shot.. etc etc. Now you have your chance if the northern tank by chance happened to survive.. :)

It is still better with reaction fire than no reaction fire, the whole old discussion with moving expandable vehicles back and forth to draw op fire. You can still do it though, but only to change the enemy facing. This way, you can use the unrealistic turning to your advantage.. even though it is quite fishy.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125