Improvement proposal III - Spinning StuGs

[Artur]

Another spectacular phenomenon is the spinning assault guns when they are attacked simultaneosly from OPPOSITE directions in one turn.(Example scenario attached.)

In comat mission it is solved easily since it is a we-go system. In Campaign series it is solved very easily, all vehicles remain in the same direction during the opponent's turn. While there maybe several players who would not like this solution, I personally would welcome even a solution like this. with the gun tube orientation solved (Thanks again guys ) you can position your AFVs in direction you wish anyway. If the opponent is smart enough to get in your side or rear he should get the full benefit from it.

I propose the following solution: The assault guns and the AFV hulls should not be turned during enemy turn at all. AFV turrets should turn after several triggering events only (eg after seeing the 3-rd unit popping up on a different side). The fast and slow turrets could be distinguished even more by setting a smaller triggering event number to the fast turret AFVs like the Shermans and higher value for the slow turreted AFVs like the Tigers.

If the only improvement would be that no AFV will turn during the opponent's turn I would be happy with that .

I would also like to mention it is a very good improvement making the loading of units cost movement points. I would take this even further and would charge additional movement points for
-unloading units
-I would not allow to load units into vehicles if any of them has 0 movement left (that is possible now)
-Turning AFVs (especially the turretless assault guns). AFVs should NOT look around like the infantry!!!!
(This is actually done in the Campaign Series and Combat Mission as well)

From the coding aspect these changes would not take big effort as far as I can see. (I may be wrong here as well though )

Artur.

[Double_Deuce]

While I would like to see something like this I can see it being used by players as an easy cheat. If this was not an IGO-UGO game I would agree 100%. Maybe a lessening of accuracy rather than complete inability to spin/react to enemy actions during the other players turn.

[Artur]

How exactly could this be used to cheat?

Artur.

[Double_Deuce]

You just drive around and up behind them and shoot in the rear (if they are prevented from reacting at all during the defending players turn that is). If you add in some penalties to their reacting thats a different story.

[Artur]

If you pop up in the StuG's view it will be able to shoot at you. If it kills you you desrve it. However if you do that outside it's view than you travel faster than it can turn and you deserve your kill over the StuG IMHO.

What will lead to if this is going to be implemented?
Players will have to attempt for long range engagements, this way it will be hard or even impossible to flank the StuGs. Especially if the improvement about OP fire setting will be implemented they can be very effective at long range.
If they are going to chrge they it will be a different story, they get close to the enemy and can be flanked easily. Assault guns are defensive weapons, or support weapons not the ones to lead the charge IMHO.

Of course theye can be a penaly made to only react after a LOT of triggering events mentioned above it depends on how easily it can be implemented.

Artur.

PS: Think about how they are used in CM. Seasoned players always deploy them in the rear, especially in the corners to always have their front threatened only. I suffered great losses while chrging with StuGs in CM (a'la SP) and I fully deserved it.

[Captain_Cruft]

I theoretically agree with DD. Turret turning (or whole vehicle turning as with assault guns etc.) should cost MPs not be completely removed.

The problem is, I don't the think the engine has a concept of MPs for the non-phasing player's units, just "shots". A very large amount of work to implement this methinks.

To be honest, the spinning StuG has never bothered me in SPWW2, only in SPWaW with special op-fire ...

[Mobhack]

Exactly as Double Deuce deduced !! - units need to be able to react in the enemy turn certainly, because of the IGO-UGO nature of the game.

Reducing the "quantum" of the turn interval allows finer distinctions, but the overlap would still be there, as well as the "freezing" of your unit in its end point for the entire enemy phase of the turn. The cost of that is more turns to do the same thing (or game systems with complex interacting sub-phases etc.)

The reaction return fire (and turning) is in there to balance the time overlap of P1 and P2 in a IGOUGO system.

For reaction fires - a unit which wants to turn to point a hull mounted weapon (hull turn) has a much lower chance than a turreted vehicle. Especially if it has moved.

I'll check the turn-to-face code and see if it is using the right sort of chances for hull turns.

But the bottom line is that because of the game system - enemy units must be able to react.

Cheers
Andy