One man AA and AT guns

[local-festival]

Currently we have a system where crewmen or AT and AA guns are basically a symbolic hitpoints. And while hitpoints are greater than zero the unit lives. It's not a huge issue, but it somewhat breaks immersion when you have a one man Bofors (or even flak 88) unit that can move and fire as effectively. I remember the same flaws in the Wargame series where one man would fire all weapons from the squad, but probably it can be tackled by simply killing the unit when it has less than two men in the squad?
Of course it would've been much cooler if the unit would become immobile when it has only one soldier and could be moved around only via current system of towers. But I imagine it touches an area of more profound mechanic changes that we can expect.
What do you think?

 

[Harold Alexander]

I think, I am fine with this, because you is not able to reinforce troops.

 

[Vyllis]

As long as replacing losses or merging squad are not in, what you suggested can't work, it would be too much penalizing.

But yeah solo soldier firing and moving an entire flak88 or using LMG, sub machine-gun, rocket launcher and 6 rifle on its own is silly.

Reinforcement, merging or replacing losses is less immersion breaker and more realist than Rambonators.

 

[MarcoRossolini]

Frankly, it'd be really nice if AT guns were tougher, the number of times they get the first shot off, and the target tank stops and destroys them makes me wonder if I should dispense with them entirely from my decks

 

[Grosnours]

Worse: when they are hidden in a hedge, start aiming and the tank actually shoots back before the AT gun gets the first shot off. It's grating.

 

[MarcoRossolini]

That's worse! But it must be because they have recon on you.

I had 2 of the US 75mm guns destroy a tank and then get wiped by airpower. It's really maddening when you've set up a good defensive line and since the bomber will always get through your AT guns get a shot off - miss and get pulverised. Phase C is just too dangerous for AT guns.

 

[potski]

Frankly, it'd be really nice if AT guns were tougher, the number of times they get the first shot off, and the target tank stops and destroys them makes me wonder if I should dispense with them entirely from my decks

They were most effective IRL when they were out of range of the tank's main gun. If you try to use them within range of the tank's MG, then you are asking for trouble. The MG will suppress the AT gun, panicking the gunners who probably won't get a decent shot off. Before an HE round from the tank, which doesn't need to be a direct hit, finishes them off.

I suspect there is a firing delay when hidden in a hedge, while they move the gun forward slightly to get a shot away. They are probably more effective when already placed in the open, and sometimes you want to turn off the autocover, or place them somewhere there is not cover to move into. Particularly when covering a road, and moving into trees on the side of the road drastically reduces their LOS.

Then move them, once they have got a kill and their position is known.

 

[MarcoRossolini]

They were most effective IRL when they were out of range of the tank's main gun. If you try to use them within range of the tank's MG, then you are asking for trouble. The MG will suppress the AT gun, panicking the gunners who probably won't get a decent shot off. Before an HE round from the tank, which doesn't need to be a direct hit, finishes them off.

The situation I'm concerned about happens always at AT gun maximum range. The Tank's main gun does all the work.

 

[potski]

Do they not out-range most tanks?

 

[Grosnours]

No.
There's basically two classes of AT gun: the 1000m and 1200m ones. It's the same for tanks btw, with roughly the 75mm and less shooting at 1000m and anything more potent shooting at 1200m. Still very roughly, phase A is the realm of 1000m weapons, 1200m appearing a phase B.
For an AT gun to outrange a tank, it has to be in a class above. A pak43 88mm shooting on a base Sherman for example. But a 17pounder will be shooting at the same distance a Panther does.
Most of the time there is a bonus for the AT guns compared to the tank-mounted gun, namely 1AP and/or 1 precision. But that's pretty much it.

 

[potski]

And how does the reaction time work? Does the game consider that the turret has to be turned to the right direction, and that the tank might have to come to a halt to get an accurate shot off, and load an HE round, while the AT gun might be already aligned and have an AP round loaded?

 

[Grosnours]

The game only provides aim time and changing round types is instantaneous. Also once the AT gun begins to aim it seems like it reveals itself automatically and instantly, which brings some issues indeed.
It all needs to be tested thoroughly in order to have some certitudes but for the moment an AT gun don't have much advantages.

 

[Arctander]

And how does the reaction time work?

As mentioned, there are times that the tank turns and shoots faster than the AT gun. The issue (compared to realism) is that in the real world the AT gun would be pre-aimed (having spotted the tank) but waiting for an ideal shot, such as getting the tank in range. On the other hand, the tank would not see the AT gun, so the AT gun would get that first, well aimed shot off before the tank even knew what hit them.

However, the AT can't "pre aim" and is far too easy to spot in this game so those advantages don't exist.

 

[potski]

All things being equal, the rate of fire, then should be the factor that decides who gets first shot. Since I just checked and the tooltip for the (Scottish) tank main guns shows they can be used on the move.

The AT guns I just checked (Scottish 6 and 17 pounder) having RoF of 9 and 6 rounds per minute respectively. This is faster for the 6 pounder than most tanks, which are 6-7 rounds per minute. But the 17 pounder has no speed advantage over tanks, but will outrange some of them.

The problem then comes if you are against an equally fast tank, with equal range. You are trusting your accuracy and AP will mean you destroy the tank first. Veterancy is probably a big factor here.

Note, it's Wolverines and Marders (Tank Destroyers) which have to be stationary to fire, so it's definitely an advantage to catch one of them out in the open while moving - at more than 600m (their MG range) they wouldn't be able to fire back, until they come to a halt.

 

[Arctander]

All things being equal...

The problem is things aren't equal. With micro, you can point your tank towards where the AT gun is (or generally suspected to be) but you can't do that with the AT gun without it reveling itself. So, the tank gets to aiming quicker. That's part of why the HE firing vehicles are brutal against AT guns.

 

[axnone]

Not all hitpoints resemble number of men per squad. For example the .50 cal mg squad had 6 HP while only 2 men in the model(I don't think it's really a model issue, why need 6 men to operate a single .50 on a tripod?).
Another example is the German 88mm Flak AA gun. Compare the one in 12SS and 91LL, one has 5 more HP and costs 5 points more. Why would there be 5 extra men for the exact same Gun?

 

[I WUB PUGS]

Worse: when they are hidden in a hedge, start aiming and the tank actually shoots back before the AT gun gets the first shot off. It's grating.

It is the absolute fucking worst.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Not all hitpoints resemble number of men per squad. For example the .50 cal mg squad had 6 HP while only 2 men in the model(I don't think it's really a model issue, why need 6 men to operate a single .50 on a tripod?).

HMG teams actually had a lot of men to haul around all the ammo+spares+ provide security. HMGs were very heavy.

 

[Husar]

And how does the reaction time work? Does the game consider that the turret has to be turned to the right direction, and that the tank might have to come to a halt to get an accurate shot off, and load an HE round, while the AT gun might be already aligned and have an AP round loaded?

Oh you're funny, a tank in the game could probably turn the hull 90° or more in the time it takes the AT gun to aim. And unless there is another threat to the tank nearby, that's what it will do. I think AT guns do fire slightly faster, but they're also far more vulnerable, so they're quite likely to get scratched in the encounter. They do work well if they do actually outrange the tanks though or catch the tanks busy with other things.

There are so many threads lately where problems could be fixed by giving the tanks more realistic turn rates for the hull and not allowing them to aim and fire while they do turn the hull.
I think at the moment a tank that turns on the spot does not only turn fast, it also counts as stationary, which means it can aim and fire, unless the turret is so slow that it cannot align the gun while it turns (Panzer IV and maybe others) and did not have the gun aligned frontally before turning.

As for the teams manning the guns, that was noticed. Would be nice if it could be changed, e.g. by giving the guns a critical condition "immobilized" once it is down to one man, but for the time being the abstraction works and is actually better given how hard a time the guns have anyway. Of course when I use tanks myself it is very convenient to be able to kill AT guns in one bombing run.
What I noticed in that regard is that the 5 or 6 men of an M5 AT gun will in >90% of cases die from a single FW 190 G3 (the fast one with 4x 50kg bombs), while bombing a Bofors with 6 men killed only two men or so. Is that a special stone-paper-scissors resistance bonus for AA guns vs airplanes or was I just incredibly unlucky that one time? I think it was in a forest, maybe that's why.

 

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

Currently we have a system where crewmen or AT and AA guns are basically a symbolic hitpoints. And while hitpoints are greater than zero the unit lives. It's not a huge issue, but it somewhat breaks immersion when you have a one man Bofors (or even flak 88) unit that can move and fire as effectively. I remember the same flaws in the Wargame series where one man would fire all weapons from the squad, but probably it can be tackled by simply killing the unit when it has less than two men in the squad?
Of course it would've been much cooler if the unit would become immobile when it has only one soldier and could be moved around only via current system of towers. But I imagine it touches an area of more profound mechanic changes that we can expect.
What do you think?

I think the easiest solution if for all crewed weapons to gain a person and when there is one left it decrews and the guy can move to do something else, and later if you have inf, you can recrew it