Pathologies of the tank designer

[pnt]

---

Summary​

Pathologies of the tank designer

Platform​

Steam

Operating System​

Windows

Game Version​

1.12.13 and earlier

Enabled DLC​

• All of the above

Do you have mods enabled?​

No

Description​

The tank designer brought a lot of nice flavor to the game, but it also has some significant issues that would be easy to address and would greatly improve its in-game relevance. As it is now, the impact of and balance between some of the design features is so poor that the game would likely perform more realistically and better overall if the designer was disabled - hence the bug report. And while I do not advocate this, I think that there is in urgent need for an overhaul.

Let me give one extreme example - multi-turreted tanks. Most people have never heard of them and for good reason. The few that were made performed very poorly, and nobody has attempted to repeat these mistakes. Examples of the few multi-turreted tanks that actually entered limited production were the British Vickers A1E1 Independent and the Soviet T-28. However, the tank designer not only enables and does not penalize such archaic and ridiculous designs, but actually makes the viable choices!

Historically, the most defining characteristic of various generations of tank chassis was the size of the turret ring, enabling larger turrets, which were necessary for mounting larger weapons that took more space and had a stronger recoil. For instance, the Panzer III (a "1938" level chassis) had too small a turret ring to accommodate a large main gun. Thus, the Panzer III could only upgraded by giving them slightly longer 50 mm guns, and later small, short-barreled 75 mm support guns. In contrast, the Panzer IV (a "1940" level chassis) had a turret ring that was suitable to mount a high-velocity 75 mm gun. Early models started with a small 75 gun - but the fact that it had a better chassis allowed the Panzer IV to be upgraded and serve throughout the war, whereas the Panzer III was obsolete by 1942 and was replaced by the Panther (a "1943" level chassis). Thus, mid-to-late war German tank divisions had two Abteilung (large battalions / small regiments) with 88 tanks each. One was always equipped with Panzer IVs, while the other one initially had Panzer IIIs, which eventually were replaced by Panthers (no replacement for the Panzer IV was developed). In the game, however, any main gun can be mounted on any medium tank chassis regardless of turret ring size, which is completely contrary to what actually happened.

In reality, the limitations imposed by small turret rings let to a few “hybrid” designs such as the M3 Grant/Lee, which essentially were an assault gun with a small turret. Such tank / assault gun hybrids could not compete with tanks with larger turrets or turret-less assault guns (StuGs) due to the much greater firing arc of the former and ability to mount heavier guns in the latter. But they were nevertheless used with some success until tanks with larger turret rings (e.g., the M4 Sherman) became available in quantity, and thus carried historic significance. But in contrast to ridiculous multi-turret designs, they are not supported by the designer.

In addition to such glaring problems, there are also some missed opportunities to fix issues with the current game mechanics. For instance, the way armor is implemented in the game has been improved, but still misses a key point. The armor of any tank could be penetrated by almost any anti-tank gun. What changed was instead the distance at which this occurred. So more armor against weaker guns meant that a tank could come closer before it was at risk.

During WW2, the final phase in most armored attacks was carried out by the tanks going first with infantry following in cover on foot (StuGs supported infantry from behind due to their limited traverse). Once the tanks entered the enemy "kill zone," their ability to provide protection for the infantry greatly diminished. Thus, the most important role of armor was actually that it greatly improved the ability of tanks to protect the accompanying infantry - or in game terms increase the breakthrough. This is why Panzer Grenadier divisions had a small contingent of tanks. APCs (typically half-tracks), had minimal armor and armament, but also greatly contributed to breakthrough by providing the infantry with protection from artillery shrapnel during the early stages of an armored assault. Thus, the whole idea of a division's "average armor" is mostly irrelevant. And while the armor penetration mechanic can remain in place, an increase in armor should automatically trigger an increase in breakthrough.

---

Steps to Reproduce​

Open the tank designer after researching the relevant technologies

Are you playing on a save from the previous/older version of the game​

No

Upload Attachment​

 

[pnt]

I should perhaps also mention something about conversions. In the game you can currently rebuild almost anything into anything at a low IC and resource cost, but this does not reflect what actually happened. Modifications to existing vehicles were usually quite modest. Major conversions were quite rare. An example os such a conversion was the StuG III. Once the Panzer III became obsolete there were many chassis available from which the turrets were removed and the superstructure and internal arrangements were changed to the simpler ones of the StuG (as a side note, the StuG was an assault gun, and its primary role was to support infantry; and even though it was a good tank killer, it was not a TD like the much lower Jagdpanzer IV, which was unsuitable for supporting infantry as it could not fire above friendly troops). And while the Panzer IV did receive a significant armament upgrade, its large turret ring meant that it was already prepared for it from the start (which makes it a natural "1940" type chassis even though it was introduced before then).

In contrast, major tank conversions were usually impossible or at least very uneconomical. For instance, while the T-34-85 used a chassis generally similar to the T-34-76, the differences were sufficiently large that one could not simply replace the turret of the older tanks with the new one. Thus, old T-34-76 were retired when they were no longer needed rather than converted to T-34-85s. The same can be said about the Sherman. There is a clear resemblance between the original M4 Sherman and the M4A3E8 (76), but they had very few parts in common and trying to convert the former into the latter would be an impractical proposition. Thus, the T-34-85 and the M4A3E8 (76) and (105) make a lot of sense as distinct 1943 level tanks.

EDIT: Note that the key point here is the upgraded main armament. In general, each tank "generation" had a more powerful gun, and just as the US 75 mm and Soviet 76 mm medium-velocity guns were upgrades over their predecessors, so were the US 76 mm and Soviet 85 mm guns (which were about the same size, with the US gun was more optimized for AP and the Soviet for HE shells).

The only "modern" main battle tank to emerge from WW2 was the British Centurion, which was entering production as the war ended. The Centurion became the dominant tank of the early cold war era (into the early 60's). Pre-production examples of the T-44, which is the current default name for a Soviet 1943 tank, were only introduced at the very end of the was for testing purposes. Although it introduced a simplified hull and torsion bar suspension it did not offer a significant advantage over the T-34-85, which was only replaced by the T-54 (mounting a bigger gun), several years later. It is not clear which one would best represent a modem Soviet tank.

In this context, it is interesting to note that while Germany started the war with a lead in armor technology, the British had the most advanced tank in production at the end of it, whereas the German Panther II (that never left the drawing board) was quite obsolete.

 

[Corpse Fool]

This should probably be in suggestions, rather than bugs.

 

[pnt]

This should probably be in suggestions, rather than bugs.

As I noted in the beginning, the treatment of multi-turret tanks and the fact that the size of the turret ring, which was the most important feature of the tank chassis at the time, is ignored constitutes a functional bug in the sense that the addition of the tank designer in its current form lowered the realism and functionality of the game.

That said, I agree that I also mentioned things that would be better classified as suggestions. However, I felt that there was merit in having both in the same place as part of a consistent discussion.