spotting when turning around your units

[Imp]

Andy most intresting proposition & if I understand correctly you have discounted using MP for facing changes rather are thinking on the lines of an exp check for facing changes.

A non turreted vehicle changing facing to opfire (or a turreted changing through say 120 degrees) would trigger a check for the other side to opfire so it may get off the first shot.
As Cross said could become gamey if all units get this chance but if its possible to just code so only the unit that triggered the turn gets the check it becomes a gun battle between those units.
This would certainly make a distinction between turreted & nonturreted vehicles/guns in that the moving unit might get off the first shot if a facing change is required.

Possibly even apply to other crewed weapons like MMGs as only one guy is watching out for the rear.

[Cross]

Originally Posted by void1984

I am strongly convinced that it shouldn't affect infantry. I have seen movies with soldiers in hostile territory and they trying to keep their eyes all around. They can because they have many men, not just one or two view points in the vehicle with many dead fields.

I agree that infantry should be one of the last considered for a facing penalty. But I wouldn't rule them out completely; it would depend how it played. But I suspect it would handicap them too much.

Regarding op-fire

Currently, I think units like ATk guns and SP guns facing 180deg away from the enemy can op-fire at them, but it's unlikely to happen until the enemy gets close (say under 500m? even though the enemy was spotted at >1000m) but op-fire can occur at much greater ranges.

So I think units facing the enemy will op-fire at much greater ranges than those facing away from the enemy. But once you get closer, SP guns and ATk guns will often swivel 180deg to engage different targets.

Facing penalties may prevent 180deg 'swivel and fire' for ATk guns, as moving causes them to re-setup and they could not fire until the next turn. And 'swivel and fire' would cause SP guns to be considered 'moving' so would they'd get an accuracy penalty. Both improvements in my mind.


Cross

[runequester]

Id be happy to just have to the penalty for turretless vehicles.

[JohnHale]

ditto, Runequester.

Consider an Allied tank coming across a StuG facing the other way. Welly on the pedal - loud noise and clouds of smoke before the StuG can point its gun and op-fire. The turreted vehicle should get a shot off first. StuGs and Panzerjagers were ambush weapons, but are not sufficiently penalised for this in the game.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by JohnHale

ditto, Runequester.

Consider an Allied tank coming across a StuG facing the other way. Welly on the pedal - loud noise and clouds of smoke before the StuG can point its gun and op-fire. The turreted vehicle should get a shot off first. StuGs and Panzerjagers were ambush weapons, but are not sufficiently penalised for this in the game.

Not quite as cut & dried as that in this game, yes if thats what happens - it comes across it but a more typical situation.
Somebody has it in sight say an infantry squad who miraculously manage to wave there arms & distract it making it turn its rear to the tank just before it appears.
Therefore as you have to much info/control only a chance, another one of those situations where you know/learn what to expect but dont bank on it.
Its what I love about this game you have worked towards creating an opening only to find inexplicably everyone misses & it all stalls or you get the most unlikely of kills elsewhere can you capitalise on it. No other game seems to capture the uncertainty & situations this throws you into, worryingly perhaps I have even been known to chastise my units verbaly or utter the odd common my son.

[francoisD]

i have read somewhere than stug were one of the best tanks for the germans.
it is true that they were quite effective, but they were cheap too.

and in this game turretless tanks are not really cheap.

if a few penalties are added to these tanks, i think their point cost should reflect this as well.

[JohnHale]

Late-war, the Germans used StuGs in lieu of tanks as they were much cheaper and easier to manufacture than a turreted vehicle.

So, yes: if their real-life deficiencies should be modelled, so should their cost advantages in Reichsmarks vis a vis a tank on the same chassis.

[JohnHale]

Interesting thread on StuGs here on WW2 Talk -

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/weapons...ing-stugs.html

[RERomine]

I'm going to parrot in on the Op-Fire portion of this thread...

If you are sitting in a Tiger I and a Sherman comes up on your 6 o'clock position, are you going to take the up to 30 seconds it takes to rotate your turret from 12 o'clock (assuming it is point forward) or are you going to pivot your tank?

Has anyone bothered to look into what the typical practice was during WWII? Most didn't have the high speed traverse that more modern tanks have now. Today, tanks can pivot and put the gun on target at the same time, thanks to stabilization. During WWII, they basically had to pick one or the other. I would think they would do a 180 degree pivot/turn put the front armor to the threat. Once you have your front armor to the threat, you then bring your gun on target and engage.

The enemy turning up directly behind you is an extreme example. Less extreme situations still raise the same question. Let's say on the flank. If you turn your turret and fire, everything is being bet on your gunner. Should the gunner miss, the enemy has a shot at the largest target profile possible: the side of your tank.

I guess the point of this is it seems having a turret during WWII is being considered as more of an advantage than it really was. What a turret did allow was engaging targets within the frontal arc of the vehicle without turning the vehicle. Non-turreted vehicles had about a 20 degree range (depending on the vehicle) where they could put the gun on target without having to turn. A turret also allowed the vehicle to position hull down. Non-turreted vehicles could not fire their main armament from a hull down position. The turret didn't really become a major advantage until post war stabilization of both the gun and turret, in conjunction with high speed traverse.

As far as ATGs go, it really is going to depend on the mount and size of the gun. Some of the heavy ATGs were re-tasked AA guns on a 360 degree mount, so they may turn very quickly. A true ATG design, smaller guns certainly can be turned faster than larger guns. Position is also important. It might be physically impossible to turn a 75mm ATG quickly if it is positioned in the woods.

With respect to the thread topic, IRL, you aren't going to turn your tanks, ATG, what have you, 360 degrees to check in every direction to look for targets. Your gunner is typically rotating the turret from fender to fender looking for targets in the frontal arc. Obviously, this is more limited if it is a non-turreted vehicle and less limited if it is an open topped vehicle. The driver, when he isn't focused on not putting the vehicle in a ditch will also be looking forward, as will the bow machine gunner, if present. That leaves the loader and tank commander responsible for the side and rear arcs. In general, the frontal arc is where the most attention and spotting ability takes place.

The same is true with other unit types as well. Infantry can rubber neck to check their flanks and rear, but will primarily be focused on their front. The thing with infantry is they can use their ears in addition to their eyes. It will help tell when vehicles are close by, but not necessarily provide enough information to engage with. Unless it is very quiet, they probably still need to see enemy ground troops. ATGs, field guns, crew served weapons, etc., should have the same abilities as infantry, spotting ability varying with the number of eyes that can look.

All this said, if a movement penalty is being considered for units that pivot/turn in place, that should be separated from simple sector search that don't really require the whole unit to be turned. Since a pivot/turn requires a right click to occur, how about something like a CTRL right click for just sector searches? Vehicles should be penalized for using this sector search method since they wouldn't be able to put all eyes on any sector other than the one in their frontal arc. Proper infantry support of vehicles will pretty much eliminate this as a liability, anyhow.

There are a couple of thoughts that come to mind with respect to pivot/turn movement point penalties. Both relate to the op-fire aspect of such a penalty. The first is which turn does such a penalty apply? Does the cost of the pivot/turn come out of the next turn's points or the last turn's points? Obviously, if it comes out of last turn’s movement points, some must be left over or the vehicle/ATG doesn't turn and op-fire. The second thought relates back to turret traverse speeds. This obviously would require research, but I would think that if a turret needs to traverse more than one hex right or left, it is likely the tank would have pivoted. I haven't seen many pictures or videos of real WWII footage where the tank guns were more than 45 degrees to the right or left of front center. Before anyone argues it did happen, the operative word was many. Yes, I have some some cranked as much as 90 degrees while engaging.

Well, that's enough rambling for now.

[Marek_Tucan]

OTOH tanks which were photographed were usually not photographed in an ambush situation, but in a more "regular" combat, IOW not in a situation when seconds counted.