SP gun vs. Tank

[lansoar]

Hi,

I've noted with interest that the current developers have acknowledged on more than one occasion that SP guns in the game work far more efficiently as casemented guns on a mobile chasis vs. a turreted gun tank.

Obviously, if this was easily correctable, the talented team at Shrapnel would have fixed it so this is not a criticism. It is what it is.

I'm just curious as to any feedback on how this became a reality in the original versions of SP. On first thought, but of course with hindsight, it would seem to be a major oversight by Gary Grigsby.. From a coder's point of view, was there a logical reason for the current reality? And is there any idea on how it might be compensated for in a future version of the game?

Thanks as always for the support for one of the greatest war-games in computer history.

[Ts4EVER]

Not sure what you mean exactly, but I guess if one were to try and fix this, he would have to attach a "movement cost" not only to traversing a hex, but also turning the hull (but not turret) of a tank. This is a non-trivial task though.

[Mobhack]

It certainly would be a non-trivial task since pivoting of hulls or turrets have nil cost in the SP universes physics. Nor does traversing windy mountain roads require one to slow down, and things like a fast scout car travelling say 20 hexxes on a straight road, can take a hard 90 degree left at a crossroads without braking or drifting into the field or buildings alongside...

Now, weapon slot 4 is supposed to be a "hull gun" - and so is more restricted in arc to the front face only. However not many things (like stugs say) were ever designed with the main gun in slot 4, not to mention the bow MG. Not by SSI in the original game, either. Nor will that ever be "rewritten" by us as there is scads of data in all the OOBs, scenarios, campaigns and so forth that would require rehashing. Nor would it ever be going to happen, for basically not much noticeable effect in actual playing terms - there are a few tankettes that some OOB designers made that way - these arent noticeably worse than the ones with main weapon in slot 1. (We did fix the slot 4 no-traverse problem so any AAAMG fitted there can now traverse if the vehicle is disabled and cannot turn. We did that a fair few years back, but until then the turret top AAMG only could fire in the front arc iif the track was damaged).

However, in the reaction to fire, we made it so that hull turns are in fact more difficult especially for moving vehicles so when firing on those, you will note that the turreted ones will turn those to face the firer way more often than a stug-type vehicle will pivot the entire hull to face. Sometimes turreted vehicles will pivot the hull to turn as well - if that had been a stug, that would be the turn of the gun to face. Firing back depends on shots available - but putting thicker armour towards the shooter is good and the turreted vehicle which only turns turret to face will have a chance of the turret face being struck rather than side armour. Also - the less MP the targeted vehicle has, the less likely to turn, and a hull turn needs more remaining MP. In game terms now, a "stug" is determined by the lack of a separate turret icon, in the reaction to enemy fire sequence of the code.

And in the SP universe, anti-tank guns all have a built in turntable that few actually did have - the 2 pounder, 25 pounder, 88 Flak, post war the soviet 122mm D-30 and WOMBAT etc - so an 88 L71 "barn door" pirouettes nicely to react to flankers. Anti-tank gun placement is therefore way less of an issue in-game than reality.

But then again - Steel Panthers had to squeeze all the data and code into the original 640K limitations of the IBM PC of the day. It needed the addition of a 2MB(?) memory expansion card back when PBEM replay was introduced in SP-2 for that to happen, and those were a big deal in those days!. SP1 IIRC never got PBEM replay, and hence that was a major reason for out original hacks to add WW2 toys to the SP2 engine - SP2WW2 - and so the journey began to our games and our getting the source code from SSI.

I dont like having Stugs as my bread and butter core armour in the german WW2 LC, even if they have better armour at the front than a panzer 4 (with its limitation of 5 for turret front) as they get stuck if the track is broken, and usually do so somewhere that is embarrassing..

Bottom line is that stug type vehicles that are caught in the flank will suffer penalties and failures to face, whereas turreted ones may deal with that rather better. Stationary vehicles are more likely to hull turn to face. This all disadvantages moving stugs especially, so stugs are best used halted - ie defensively. If you do move stugs, then try to leave a few MP free for reacting to enemy fires by turning to face, if you havent made cover!. A turretless vehicle does cost a few points less, but the points saving is marginal overall. So turrets for the win!

[lansoar]

great explanation. thanks!

I have noted the more recent improvement.....not sure which version introduced it as my own work schedule takes me in and out of the SP world, but in my latest battles I've had soil thy pants moments where, when trying to employ a common tactic of manually swiveling an AFV hull (turreted or not) towards enemy OP fire to present max armor to the threat.....sometimes results in a bonus OP fire round for the AI pre-swivel.

yikes. Frustrating but realistic. Fortunately there is also replenishment underwear available if the unit in question survives the additional OP fire round.

Love this game

[Mobhack]

Yes, opfire on turning was a couple of builds back - there is a flag on the preferences menu to turn it off if you dont like it.

But it is there so that moving to get a new position is no longer a "freebie" - the enemy can see you swivel and can pop off a shot as you try to turn to face, at short ranges.

[Griefbringer]

SP guns (at least AI controlled) in the game can become bit of sitting ducks if you manage to immobilise them.

If they are sitting in a static defensive on their own, overwatching some crucial line of advance, then dropping in a good artillery barrage might well immobilise an SP gun (if failing to destroy it). After that a generous application of smoke may allow you to advance into a good flanking position and blast it to pieces.

SP gun advancing on its own that exposes its flank to a waiting anti-tank gun is also rather vulnerable - if the first shot manages to immobilise it, then the crew can pour in additional shots at their leisure without needing to worry about return fire. Sometimes I have used an infantry squad as a decoy, opening fire with small arms in order to both suppress (button up) the vehicle and cause it to rotate so as to expose its flank to the anti-tank gun. If the decoy squad gets unlucky, it might take a casualty or two if the SP gun manages to engage it, but this can usually be afforded to keep the crucial anti-tank gun safer.

If the SP guns are used en masse with proper infantry support, life gets more challenging, though pounding the vehicles and supporting infantry with MG and artillery fire to suppress, damage and separate them should provide a good start.