"Switchable" units; "ranged direct" fire

[Molve]

Hi,

Two questions:
1) Are there any limits on what units can be made switchable, and what they can switch into?
(The german 8.8 cm FlaK is "switchable". As far as I understand there are really two separate 8.8 cm units, one AA and one AT, and what the "switch" really does is replace one with the other. At least in the scenario editor I can deploy both.)
Perhaps wild examples, but I want to know the restrictions on the switchable condition, if any: Is it possible to make infantry switch into artillery? A naval destroyer into a fighter airplane?

2) Does the game engine support ranged direct land fire?
I.e. can you designate a tank, say, to shoot its hard attack two hexes? Or does range>1 automatically make the fire indirect (like artillery, mainly suppressing rather than killing)?
If so, how does this differ from range=1 indirect fire (like StuG close infantry support)?
There are two aspects of "direct" fire I find desirable in my context:
a) that it kills, not suppresses
b) that it initiates a fire exchange (i.e. the defender gets to shoot back, possibly first depending on Initiative).
Artillery firing on artillery does not.
I have noticed that naval combat is exactly what I'm looking for here, so another way of phrasing it would be "can tanks become land battleships just by editing the unit stats?"

I haven't delved into the unit editor so far, and thought your expert advice would help me along the way. If you're wondering why I'm looking for these kinds of abilities, I would be happy to elaborate. But to keep things on track, I would like to finish this post without going into those details

Any insight into the innards of the game engine would be most welcome!

[El_Condoro]

1) In the equipment.pzdat file there is a 'multi-purpose' column. Whatever equipment number is in that column the unit can switch into, is my understanding.

2) ATM there is no ranged direct fire. Any ranges over 1 are treated like artillery, so units can fire 'through' mountains, cities etc.

There are plenty of people who would like ranged direct fire (I'm one, H.Balck's 1 hex = 1km scale needs it, too) but I'm not sure if it's on the devs' agenda.

[Molve]

1) In the equipment.pzdat file there is a 'multi-purpose' column. Whatever equipment number is in that column the unit can switch into, is my understanding.

2) ATM there is no ranged direct fire. Any ranges over 1 are treated like artillery, so units can fire 'through' mountains, cities etc.

Thank you for your swift reply.

1) So you mean I could design, I don't know, a bomber aircraft that could "switch" into a panzer land unit (and back again, unless you switch into a completely regular panzer unit)? And this would work when playing, not crash the game etc...?

2) Do you mean that there is a hard-coded exception for naval combat then? (Since a cruiser firing at another cruiser makes a killing rather than suppressing attack, and that the attacked ship gets to fire back).
Is this exception tied to the naval attack value then (which I presume is selected when you are attacking a naval target)?

And how does the game differentiate between range 1 direct fire (Panzer) and range 1 indirect fire (StuG)? I mean, is it a setting which we can edit ourselves, or is it hardcoded (and if so, tied to what value?)...


Again thanks

[El_Condoro]

1) That's right. I ran a test and turned a Wehrmacht INF into a Pz II.

2) I think so. Ran a test where I changed Wehrmacht INF and USSR regulars to have range 2 and a type of 12 (Cruiser). Combat could take place at range 2 (indirect fire, though, not direct) and the target fired back.

A range 0 will only attack adjacent hexes, a range 1 StuG can actually give support fire to range 2 if the supported unit is attacked from the hex opposite the StuG.

All settings in the equipment.pzeqp file can be edited - see the editor on this forum by Mark Garnett. viewtopic.php?t=26898
You can also use Excel.

[Molve]

Just to be clear: when you differentiate between "direct" and "indirect" fire, are you thinking about things like shooting through mountains?

I'm asking because that's not my concern at present. What I want to keep separate is
1) the kind of fire a tank fires:
a) it doesn't cause suppression (in fact, it "releases" previously suppressed strength points - assuming they survive, that is)
b) it allows the target to shoot back (making Initiative important)
2) the kind of fire an arty fires*:
a) it mainly causes suppression (and even when it kills strength points, it doesn't "release" previously suppressed points)
b) the target doesn't shoot back
*) After thinking about it, tac and level bomber fire is much more like "direct" fire. The target shoots back (if capable), and surrounding AA might get to support the defense (much like arty fires in support of ground defense). The main difference between "shooting forward" and "shooting downward" is you can choose between suppressive and killing fire for air attacks (by designating the unit to be a tactical or strategic bomber, I guess).

The reason I'm asking is when you say...

Combat could take place at range 2 (indirect fire, though, not direct) and the target fired back.

...do YOU mean the fire was suppressive (like arty) or deadly (like naval)?

I have called 1) "direct" fire and 2) "indirect" fire, completely ignoring actual trajectories (i.e. checking for intervening terrain) but I could change my terminology to 1) "killing" and 2) "suppressing" fire if you wish.

[El_Condoro]

The combat was the same as two cruisers going at it, except it took place on land. By 'indirect' fire I mean it has a trajectory and can fire over and obstacles between it and the target. By 'direct' I mean obstacles would prevent firing. Currently direct fire occurs between adjacent hexes so obstacles are not an issue.

So if a unit has type 12 it engages in combat like a cruiser. In your terminology, that would be 'deadly' or 'killing' fire.

[AgentX]

A naval destroyer into a fighter airplane?

I always thought a destroyer should be able to switch to AA mode and shoot at planes. DD's have good AA capability and were used for that purpose to protect capital ships. Maybe give them just a 1 range, though, since they have 6 movement and an Air Attack value of like 7 or 8.

[Molve]

The combat was the same as two cruisers going at it, except it took place on land. By 'indirect' fire I mean it has a trajectory and can fire over and obstacles between it and the target. By 'direct' I mean obstacles would prevent firing. Currently direct fire occurs between adjacent hexes so obstacles are not an issue.

So if a unit has type 12 it engages in combat like a cruiser. In your terminology, that would be 'deadly' or 'killing' fire.

Thank you.

This sounds promising. Did you double check that the unit still moved like infantry (and wasn't stuck on land like a real cruiser unit would be, since it is only being capable of sea movement)?
Man, I need to learn the equipment editor...

If changing to type 12 actually means you've created a new cruiser unit (that is attacked by the naval attack rating; moves on sea hexes etc) that is of little use for me. Panzer Corps is a mainly land-based game; I don't intend to base my mod on the limited naval warfare.

At this point I'm only asking: do the game engine support ranged killing (non-suppressive) fire on land (or is this hard-coded to only occur for water-moving units).

[Molve]

I always thought a destroyer should be able to switch to AA mode and shoot at planes. DD's have good AA capability and were used for that purpose to protect capital ships. Maybe give them just a 1 range, though, since they have 6 movement and an Air Attack value of like 7 or 8.

Since this is another topic, I answered you in another thread:
viewtopic.php?p=258230#258230

[TheGrayMouser]

Very cool, didnt realize the engine was so flexible in using the role shifting function .

Would be very usefull for pre 20th century mods ie change role from mounted to dismounted for cavalry, assault column to skirmish line for infantry etc.

[El_Condoro]

@Molve. All of what I said was just to confirm that it could be done. There will be all sorts of issues with actually doing it. INF could still move normally because their movement type remained as Leg. I don't think the game can do what you want it to (not that I have a good idea of exactly what you want to do!)

[Molve]

(not that I have a good idea of exactly what you want to do!)

Guilty as charged! You've been very helpful, and now that the answers seem to indicate most of my concerns are possible, I can go ahead and write up my idea. Keep a look out for a new thread on "Imperium Corps"...

[Molve]

Very cool, didnt realize the engine was so flexible in using the role shifting function .

Would be very usefull for pre 20th century mods ie change role from mounted to dismounted for cavalry, assault column to skirmish line for infantry etc.

True. However, keep in mind the AI probably can't cope with too big changes.

So I might end up not using the switch function to any greater degree after all, if it would mean disabling even the basic resistance put up by the AI.

I haven't checked if the AI, given 88s, will even use them as AT guns. It's very possible the AI implementation is simply "ignore the switch and use the unit in its basic configuration only", since for the few WWII units that have the capability that would be "good enough".

(My guess is that if the scenario designer deploys them in AT mode, the computer will then use them as AT, so an Africa scenario could still work. Point is: do the AI ever consider pressing the switch button?)

[spiritxx]

never seen it, on russia there are some SU that can switch, but ai don´t use it

[rezaf]

I think it's been stated that the AI in inable to use the feature.
Same as Paratroopers.

I think Rudankort should get his act together and teach the AI at least some basic means of coping with these things.
_____
rezaf

[spiritxx]

or give us the ability to mod the AI^^

[Molve]

I think it's been stated that the AI in inable to use the feature.
Same as Paratroopers.

Just a short comment on that - personally I'm not too keen on the comparison, since not switching switchable units is perhaps unfortunate, but nowhere as serious a shortcoming as the AI's inability to deploy paras.

(And in fact not much of a shortcoming at all. The AI still uses the switchable units, after all. It just doesn't switch them.)