Tank Designer: Fixed superstructure more expensive than small turrets?

[FLUX2226]

I was meme-building a cheap tankette as Italy, and was surprised when I discovered that the fixed superstructure is more expensive than the one-man turret. Wasn't that the whole point of fixed superstructures, that they were cheaper than turrets? Granted, the cost increase isn't that big, but it still feels a bit off that the cheapest "turret" irl is not the cheapest option in-game. They do allow you to fit bigger guns, but many tankettes irl only had small armament that would have fit into a one-man turret so it still must have been cheaper than said turret.

I think they should at least be equal in cost. Superstructures would still have an indirect edge in cost efficiency by having higher reliability.

 

[Nikarus]

>Superstructures would still have an indirect edge in cost efficiency by having higher reliability.

Note, they also allow you to mount weapons of the next size up. So a light tank with a fixed mount can equip medium guns. A medium hull with one can fit large. And likewise I'm pretty sure a heavy tank chassis can load a superheavy gun.

 

[FLUX2226]

Note, they also allow you to mount weapons of the next size up. So a light tank with a fixed mount can equip medium guns. A medium hull with one can fit large. And likewise I'm pretty sure a heavy tank chassis can load a superheavy gun.

I already mentioned that in my post, but my point is that it in reality it would always be possible to build a superstructure that is cheaper than an equally "powerful" turret. If I want to build a cheap tankette with a small gun or just machine guns, I won't give it a huge and expensive superstructure that can fit a 105 mm howitzer.

But instead of just making it cheaper, it would probably be better to either add more types of superstructures or to have its cost scale with the gun you put inside of it.

 

[ETAIPOS]

>Superstructures would still have an indirect edge in cost efficiency by having higher reliability.

Note, they also allow you to mount weapons of the next size up. So a light tank with a fixed mount can equip medium guns. A medium hull with one can fit large. And likewise I'm pretty sure a heavy tank chassis can load a superheavy gun.

They could add a no cost superstructure that has reliability bonus, no BRK reduction but only allow small guns and CS guns - for tankettes and early Stugs.

 

[Nikarus]

I already mentioned that in my post, but my point is that it in reality it would always be possible to build a superstructure that is cheaper than an equally "powerful" turret. If I want to build a cheap tankette with a small gun or just machine guns, I won't give it a huge and expensive superstructure that can fit a 105 mm howitzer.

But instead of just making it cheaper, it would probably be better to either add more types of superstructures or to have its cost scale with the gun you put inside of it.

Well, that's what happens when you skim read a post at 2:11 in the morning. Sorry, I didn't notice you had mentioned that.

Cost scaling per the size of the gun is a solid idea. Could also add it to other turrets.