Why do secondary turrets reduce armor so absurdly? (and other ridiculous tank designer problems)

[Delpheus]

A -5% armor penalty for a secondary turret not only makes no sense, but it makes the option a "never take." A "never take" option is bad game design.
Furthermore, the Char B1 was the most heavily armored tank of its era and it had a secondary turret... So this historical design is now non-historical due to an unrealistic significant drop in armor.

Even if we forget history and we look at it just in game terms, no one is ever going to take it. And that's not the only tank component that is useless and debuffs your tanks. There are far too many "never takes" or some things that are very close to that category called "bad decisions."

The PE engine - increase to production cost and reduction of reliability.
Cast armor - absurd production cost.
Fixed superstructure - too much drop in breakthrough
Small cannon - drop in armor. Really? This debuff nerfs what is supposed to be the heaviest tank of its era...

There's too much in the designer that will go to waste.

 

[Cavalry]

I guess it presents more weak points in the armor, not just thick.

but it makes the option a "never take."

Many times the enemy don't have AT, so one may want to maximize soft attack

 

[Jays298]

I understand they are trying to gamify the differences in tank development.

I learned that rivets in tank armor had a tendency to become harmful projectiles if hit. So even if you didn't pierce the crappy armor you might lose crew.

But welding doesn't sound much more expensive. Just different process.

Would agree though that this particular issue with the specific turret that adds negative armor is kinda wrong.

And yes it is a never use. Or a puzzle.

The regular secondary guns seem better. Or other choices.

Though the -5% isn't a deal breaker itself. The issue really is cost and benefits and other choices but it might be cool on that char.

 

[Iskulya]

There's a reason they don't make two turreted tanks.

Even without the armor debuff, the production cost alone would make it not worth it.. I'm not a grognard historian like some around here seem to be, but I imagine that something like a second turret does indeed throw in more design hurdles than the benefits it provides in practical use.

Whether that makes for good gameplay is another question, but I don't have strong opinions on the matter one way or another. I interpreted the fact that they even provided an option for a second turret in the first place as just a roleplaying or flavor option.

I do agree that the fine tuning of the balance around tanks feels definitely off, but I'm not sure two-turret tanks being cost ineffective is one of those issues.

 

[hjh]

I used Cast Armour just recently as a small minor trying to attach heavy flame tanks to my infantry to give them the armour bonus. My motivation was to preserve manpower and org damage on the defensive.

I didn't want to waste steel on upgrading my armour above level 4, as I need to trade for everything, and 5 and above incurs a penalty of one extra steel per mil factory.

That was an edge case where cast armour was very useful.

 

[CaptinObvious]

All multi-turreted tanks wound up being disasters

The expectation of a multi-turreted tank is an armoured behemoth fighting in all directions, but in reality, it's just impossible to command, note how the T-100 and SMK performed in Finland (and don't get me started on the T-35), and note how the only thing close to a successful Multi-turret are the ones with actually only one turret and a hull gun, and even then, they were actually crap

The main complaints about MTTs were:

1) Difficult to armour since the turrets added a lot of surface area

2) Impossible to command (one gun on one tank is hard enough as is)

3) Too industrially expensive to make (complex design)

4) Reliability issues since its a mechanically complex design

So you are correct, -5% armour is absurd, it should be -10% Armour, Reliability, and Breakthrough, with a +10% IC cost

I mean have you ever noticed how they don't exist anymore?

 

[Xiziz]

The -5% is in practical effect very small, one click on the armour upgrade gives +7.5% for 0.25IC. They are added upp with all other multiplicative changes before multiplying the base armour(chassi + skirts).

The high added IC cost(5.5) of extra turrets is what makes them useless. Thats more than 1ic/sa. Its only in for the historical flare.

 

[Gyrvendal]

I agree the tank designer is full of imbalances and "never take" options. That said, from a historical perspective secondary turrets sucked for many reasons and were an experiment quickly abandoned. They cost too much, lack space for 3-man crews for efficient handing, add vulnerabilities to the tank, add too much weight for speed, etc...

That said, if you design a low-armor vehicle anyway, they can actually be of use in-game. You don't want every vehicle to be heavily armored, it's too costly.

 

[mursolini]

A -5% armor penalty for a secondary turret not only makes no sense, but it makes the option a "never take." A "never take" option is bad game design.
Furthermore, the Char B1 was the most heavily armored tank of its era and it had a secondary turret... So this historical design is now non-historical due to an unrealistic significant drop in armor.

It makes perfect sense. Secondary turret is more behind armor volume for extra crew, extra ammo, weapon, of extra hatch, and more surface area to armor, on same chassis.

They were historical when there was no dedicated AT guns, but once those appeared, multiple turrets were dropped.

Even if we forget history and we look at it just in game terms, no one is ever going to take it. And that's not the only tank component that is useless and debuffs your tanks. There are far too many "never takes" or some things that are very close to that category called "bad decisions."

It buffs firepower, and unless you face dedicated AT, it's not a bad option.

The PE engine - increase to production cost and reduction of reliability.

But gains a lot of speed.

Cast armor - absurd production cost.

Maybe you are one of the few countries that did afford it.
Armor bonus is worth it if you have to use cast to get it.

Fixed superstructure - too much drop in breakthrough

Yet bigger gun is good.

Small cannon - drop in armor. Really? This debuff nerfs what is supposed to be the heaviest tank of its era...

Char 2C wasn't particularly heavily armored.

I don't really have a problem with tank designer, some components were indeed dead way, not worth it in practice. That is the reason almost every tank during late WW2 was almost exactly same design, with minor variation of gun caliber and armor thickness.

 

[KRBLACK]

Honestly I kind of agree with OP that the tank designer is full of imbalances.

IIRC you can make a super heavy tank with a light turret and still mount the largest cannon available on it.

 

[GC955]

Honestly I kind of agree with OP that the tank designer is full of imbalances.

IIRC you can make a super heavy tank with a light turret and still mount the largest cannon available on it.

I noticed the same thing and open a thread, the developers say me that they are aware of it and they will patch it after Christmas.

 

[Surimi]

As mentioned, multi-turreted tanks were kind of a bad idea IRL.

Here's the thing. Your early tanks are going to be rubbish anyway and their armour is going to be completely useless later on, so you could just completely ignore the armour stat. Focus on making cheap crappy tanks and treat them like super early mechanized. Use high breakthrough and hardness to mitigate some damage, and get an early production line going so you have loads of them when you go to war. They'll be penetrated and some of them will die, but as long as you have a lot of them that's not going to matter too much.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

I learned that rivets in tank armor had a tendency to become harmful projectiles if hit. So even if you didn't pierce the crappy armor you might lose crew.

But welding doesn't sound much more expensive. Just different process.

It's more about man-hours, complexity of tools used - that kind of stuff: Covenanter didn't become first GB welded tank exactly because they lacked specialists. If we dig a bit deeper, riveted vehicles need a frame - something to rivet armour plates to. This means more metal used, more mass, less speed. Mass was actually consideration for Allies at the time, because they could not reliably transport stuff over certain weight.

 

[Delpheus]

It makes perfect sense. Secondary turret is more behind armor volume for extra crew, extra ammo, weapon, of extra hatch, and more surface area to armor, on same chassis.

They were historical when there was no dedicated AT guns, but once those appeared, multiple turrets were dropped.

It buffs firepower, and unless you face dedicated AT, it's not a bad option.

But gains a lot of speed.

Maybe you are one of the few countries that did afford it.
Armor bonus is worth it if you have to use cast to get it.

Yet bigger gun is good.

Char 2C wasn't particularly heavily armored.

I don't really have a problem with tank designer, some components were indeed dead way, not worth it in practice. That is the reason almost every tank during late WW2 was almost exactly same design, with minor variation of gun caliber and armor thickness.

Char 2C? I assume that's a typo.
The 2C was a super heavy designed pre war and deployed post war. But...

We're talking about the Char B1.
The Eure took 140 hits from German tanks, all failing to penetrate, and killed 13 in return.

The Char B1 was a bad tank for other reasons pointed out, but not because it had bad armor. Now the game has another new historical inaccuracy because if a french player wants to use historical B1 designs they will not be as armored as they should be. If panzer III equivalents can penetrate it, this is just simply stupid and wrong.

 

[Cavalry]

I used Cast Armour just recently as a small minor trying to attach heavy flame tanks to my infantry to give them the armour bonus. My motivation was to preserve manpower and org damage on the defensive.

Well latest trick! The cost only 15 HT, halft the cost of a light tank battalion but more armor and same breakthrough, and tons of bonus for attacking in rough terrain.

 

[JohnnyDepressio]

An extra turret is a weakspot in the armor. It is also additional weight that can not be invested in armor.
So the -5% are justified. It is a very niche option you probably don't want to take, but that is historical as it turned out to be a bad idea and most tanks that where designed during the war did not have them. It is an option however as it was done.
Building a heavy tank with such a turret and still enough armor is possible as long as you do not care about it beeing very slow and not super reliable which should be sufficient to represent the B1 IMHO.

 

[mursolini]

Char 2C? I assume that's a typo.
The 2C was a super heavy designed pre war and deployed post war. But...

Heaviest tank of the era is Char 2C. Unless you want to argue that it either wasn't a tank, or that 28 is more than 68.

We're talking about the Char B1.
The Eure took 140 hits from German tanks, all failing to penetrate, and killed 13 in return.

And most of them were ingloriouly lost to either big guns.
Like Vittmans Tiger or Kolobanovs KV-1, occasionally heavily armored vehicle running into troops out of position, without heavy AT capacity wrecked havock. Those cases also were so rare, we remember them all.

The Char B1 was a bad tank for other reasons pointed out, but not because it had bad armor. Now the game has another new historical inaccuracy because if a french player wants to use historical B1 designs they will not be as armored as they should be. If panzer III equivalents can penetrate it, this is just simply stupid and wrong.

Unless you are arguing that what Char1b was the maximum armor for 28 tonne tank (spoiler, it was not), and that it was impossible to create Pz3 that can penetrate it (spoiler again, most late 1940+ versions of Pz3 could), there is nothing stupid or wrong.

It's just a case of Germany being somewhat behind the curve in 1940 historically, mismanaging delivery of 50mm guns. Soviets, in contrast had wide amounts of 45mm, 57mm and 76mm At guns, each easily gutting B1, even British 2pounder could, in favourable condition.

 

[thebaronofsd]

Char B1 was the most heavily armored tank of its era and it had a secondary turret

mmm, not really.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-R-kl9_yPhlg/VhyZT5D_M5I/AAAAAAAAJSw/EiRdJ-dPeik/s1600/013g.jpg

One turret and one the hull 75mm could elevate but only had 1 degree of left/right travel. The M3 Lee had more left/right traverse but wasn't a 'good' design.

Frankly, having the option and having the penalty just highlights how awful a 'dual turret' design was in real life.

 

[Secret Master]

Are secondary guns... I mean, secondary turrets... really that bad? They are not what I consider the most optimal decision in terms of design, but they aren't atrocious, either.

Let's compare 40w divisions with some TDs with secondary turrets and divisions with TDs that lack secondary turrets. Let's use 1941 techs (not the 1943 chassis), because why not? Henshel as designer because I'm a boring elderly man who hates memes. And we'll use my current favorite fun-time tank design philosophy, which is "Why kill tanks with other tanks, when you can use tank destroyers to do it for you?"

The division template for this test:

One version of this template will use TDs with secondary turrets, one will use them without secondary turrets. We'll look at stats in the field, obviously, because the division designer is prone to not understanding how to display stats when you select specific equipment for use.

We will use three different tanks/tank destroyers in these divisions.

The Werferpanzer uses rockets to be cheaper and avoid tungsten. It also uses rockets to obliterate infantry. It has no ability to kill other tanks, but really, who cares? It's an expensive medium tank that focuses on armor and 8kph speed so it can keep up with MECH 1. Reliability isn't great, but it's not bad enough to lose sleep over.

StuG IV is a tank destroyer with a big gun on it and enough speed to keep up with MECH 1 and Werferpanzers. It has plenty of armor and piercing. It's reliable enough, and the cost isn't out of control.

JagdPanzer IV is a hideously expensive tank destroyer. I'd have mounted more secondary turrets, but Arheo won't let me. It has considerably more firepower than StuG IV, slightly less armor, and it's far less reliable. Part of that is due to the turrets, be we can't discount the extra engine upgrades required to overcome the speed reductions from those turrets.

At the division level, what do these stats mean?

Identical equipment except for the tank destroyers.

Of immediate note is that the armor rating between the two divisions is basically indistinguishable. Yeah, the StuGs have slightly better armor, but you won't know the difference. The Jagdpanzers use more fuel (engine upgrades). The Jagdpanzers do have significantly more firepower, though. In fact, I'd argue that the increase in firepower is enough to make a difference when you factor in what that difference looks like with tactics, planning bonus, generals, and superior firepower in play.

But the lower reliability, even with MAINT, is an issue. And the cost of those Jagdpanzers is through the roof. Lower reliability and higher cost might make those secondary turrets a significant liability. I'm not sure I like how the numbers shake out; on the other hand, it's TDs. You aren't going to be losing as many as you would be if you put those secondary turrets on frontline tanks.

Now, there is an argument to be made that using this kind of TD set up, but instead making 4 kph infantry TDs, would work well. In that case, it makes sense to use them for Space Marine purposes as a secondary production line or something.

I wouldn't recommend using secondary turrets on flametanks due to the stat nerf they get for being a support company.

 

[wyskass]

There is an error in the calculation of armor stats for divisions.
When I replaced light tanks with modern armor, my armor and hard attack went down in the division stats. I didn't believe it, but this was false, and in the actual field division stats it was correct.
So I am suspicious of Armor stat calculations in the division template designer.