Stug change

[airbornemongo101]

I have a an update for the community about the change of role of the early Stug's (A&B) and I would welcome some input.

I changed the class of the StugA & B form Arty class to Anti-tank class in the upcoming re-release of the SS-GTPG mod . I know it's taking forever,but I have alot of depressing personal stuff going on right now and trying to find the time to work on the mod ,between working and family obligations is tough.

The reason for the change is that the early Stug's were not really artillery units,they were assault guns, (as everyone is aware). They used direct fire,not indirect fire, to support infantry.

I know alot of people love using them as support weapons,but in the scale of PZC (assumed to be 1 to 5 klicks or better) the gun wouldn't have had the range,nor could they have elevated enough,due to the gun carriage and veh chassis, to impart any real range to the main gun.

The Stug's weren't really able of ranged fire until the Stuh42 came into service ,which along with the SturmPz.1 was reduced to a range of 2 in SS-GTPG and the Elite Units. The StrumPz. had a short barrel and the Stuh42 ,while having an excellent main gun, could not elevate it high enough

There is also the "historicall aspect" that most of the Assualt Gun Battalions/Abt's that were equiped with Stug A & B's were changed over to Stug III's when they became avl.

With the Stug A & B's listed in the Arty. class they could only be upgraded to Stuh42's .

I myself am not a historical accuarcy fanatic,but I do try use a historical TO&E on the battlion level in SS-GTPG and if one of my divisions is a PzGren. Div it's supposed to have 3 arty. batts,1 assault gun batt,and 1 anti-tank batt (2 105mm batts,1 150 mm batt,1 Stug batt,1 PanzerJager/Marder/Nashron batt,The Pzj. batts were changed over mainly to Stug's anyway late in the war in real life ). Of course the Infantry and Panzer Rtg's/batts are not included in the above.

In reality the all of the Stug's excelled in the offensive anti-tank ,supporting both panzer and inf ,role (thus the later long gunned verisons) due to their low chassis and thick armor,while the anti-tank batts were used in the defensive role .

I have tested the changes and they work quite nicley. The player gets a good mobile offensive anti-tank unit that can take a hit ,even in urban enviro's (which again is mirroring real life) w/o changing gameplay and or game balance.

The player also can later upgrade them to the later Stug III's a little cheaper and keeping their expericence level to have a very good offensive anti-tank unit.

The downside is that you lose a tough support unit.

Let me know what you think of the changes and if there is alot of negative feeback I will change them back to Arty class.

Thanks in advance for any and all input and I will try my hardest to find the time to get the update done and handed over to Nikkivdd so he can release it.

[El_Condoro]

I am in favour of them as AT, although they can also be switched so both are possible. In PG2 the StuGs were AT.

[airbornemongo101]

Thanks alot for the input EL C

[Radoye]

Why not make it a switchable multirole unit?

We currently have the unpurchasable StuGIIIA which shows up in the Poland scenario and later we can purchase StuGIIIB which has pretty much exactly the same stats except arrival date.

Just make one of these into a StugIIIB AT w. range = 0, everything else same, and keep the other as-is, StugIIIB ATY, range = 1. Then the player can decide how he prefers to use it.

While we're at it, howsabout an idea:

To make submarines "submerge" and "surface" using the same multirole trick - surfaced submarine would then be in destroyer class, would keep current spotting and movement, and (in case of deck armament) would be able to HA / SA and have passive AA. Submerged submarines would remain in submarine class, would have no HA / SA / AA, could move only at a limited rate (of course - this is not applicable to the late war Typ XXI Elektrobote) and would have spotting of 1.

[airbornemongo101]

Thanks for the input Radoye

I forgot to add I made the StugA avl. for purchase in May. I upped the Stug B ini+1 (to reflect crews working on the series for two-three months),but that's all I changed,

Since there have been two replies to make the Stug A & B dual role I will do it...later. I have to concetrate on getting the update done a give it to Nikki asap.

Once the update is released I will go back and enable dual roles for the Stug A & B.

I just wanted to make sure everybody was ok with the Stug A & B now being in the AT class for the 1st release of the update.

I honestly don't want to mess w/ the naval aspect,but when everything is said and done I will look into it.

[Uhu]

Not a bad idea (although OFFtopic ) about the multirole-submarine!
In that way, I would say, the submerged U-Boot would have the same stats, but with only move 2. While surfaced it would have a 4-5 (?) move but very low defense stats to simulate the defenseless state of a surfaced submarine. In that way, maybe the submarines wouldn't be anymore a "super-hiding" war equipment in PC.
But it had to be tested, because it can happen also that with these changes, it would be too weak.

To make submarines "submerge" and "surface" using the same multirole trick - surfaced submarine would then be in destroyer class, would keep current spotting and movement, and (in case of deck armament) would be able to HA / SA and have passive AA. Submerged submarines would remain in submarine class, would have no HA / SA / AA, could move only at a limited rate (of course - this is not applicable to the late war Typ XXI Elektrobote) and would have spotting of 1.

[Radoye]

Not a bad idea (although OFFtopic ) about the multirole-submarine!

Yeah sorry for hijacking the topic, but this trick could be useful for many units - switching between indirect and direct fire for artillery (ATY and AT classes respectively - many ATY guns were on occasion used as direct fire antitank guns), then between AA and AT (again, many AA guns not just the 88 were used to engage ground targets in direct fire mode, most notably the 40mm Bofors, also most of the FlaK carrying vehicles were used to engage ground targets too), or between air superiority and ground attack missions for fighterbombers (FTR and TB class)... There are many more possibilities.

This "multirole" feature together with ease of modding is what i like the most comparing PzC with PG series and its derivatives. I feel it is really underused.

[rezaf]

The problem with multiroling is that the AI is completely unaware of this possibility. I would hope this is one of the AI improvements promised for the Afrika Korps expansion, but I wouldn't count on it.
Regardless, the new DMP expansion is advertised to make heavy use of this to overcome another engine limitation: you cannot limit units to specific types of transports...

Btw., another problem with the specific UBoat switching idea is that the surface uboat, as a destroyer, could hunt down other uboats with waterbombs...
_____
rezaf

[nikivdd]

I like the idea of the StuG change. I have always been fond of this unit in a supporting role. I'm eager to see it perform in an AT role.
I wonder who will get the idea for tanks to change between HE and AP rounds

[Radoye]

Btw., another problem with the specific UBoat switching idea is that the surface uboat, as a destroyer, could hunt down other uboats with waterbombs...

yeah, a submarine that uses depth charges that would be somewhat odd.

however, historically in ww2 submarines did engage each other in torpedo duels quite often, so i would have no problem with seeing subs attacking subs.

[4kEY]

I agree with the change, but I'd like a switch mode kinda thing. If you don't wanna do that I can in my own file, it's cool. Can you make an offset for AT mode, so it fires straight?

My Panzerjaeger is getting the crap knocked out of him.

[airbornemongo101]

I agree with the change, but I'd like a switch mode kinda thing. If you don't wanna do that I can in my own file, it's cool. Can you make an offset for AT mode, so it fires straight?

My Panzerjaeger is getting the crap knocked out of him.

That's the main reason I wanted to make the switch it kinda mirrors real life also.


That's the way it what happened in real life. Until the Marder's and Nashorn's came out the Sutg's were the only real SPAT the Wehrmacht had (even tho it was desgined as a assualt gun),of course they continued to be superlative above all others in the AT role until the Hetzer and Jagd series came into forntline service and even then the Stug's played the lead role as far as SPAT guns went,with most Whermacht formations.


I'm gonna do the arty switch (but I have to get the other stuff done 1st and get it to Nico so the re-release can be released),but I'm leaving the range at 0,so it can support defensively in "arty mode" but not really act as a SP Arty,which it wasn't in real life.

Thanks for the continued input guys,it is appreciated

[airbornemongo101]

Just a heads up on the stug change,that I forgot to add

The only thing the stug a&b lose is the defensive arty support for other friendly units. When it attacks it kills and suppresses enemy units and does not suffer from enemy defensive fire at all. This is realistic with the gun having a little range,but not enough to have ranged fire on the scale of PZC

I personally love the change. The veh now acts like a true assault gun and not an arty piece.

[deducter]

Your change is an interesting one and adds significantly to the difficulty in 1941/1942. Your changes certainly are a more accurate representation of what assault artillery should be. Not having a mobile artillery piece to defend against Russian attacks makes the game much, much harder. That is the main why I shied anyway from making such a change myself. Having a SP artillery adds more tactical flexibility for the player in 1941/1942, and range 1 does have its limitations. I consider the "sin" of having less realistic StuG III Ausf. A/B to be better than the alternative of not having any mobile artillery, because the Sturmpanzer is significantly more limited in my mod.

One thing to keep in mind is that combat always takes place in the hex of the defender. So in theory, if you attack with a StuG with range = 1 as an artillery, then you are still moving that unit into the hex of the defender. It functions almost like "attaching" it to a panzer or infantry unit. This is one way you could rationalize how the StuG arty works in the vanilla game. Of course this interpretation is not necessarily better than any other.

Just a heads up on the stug change,that I forgot to add

The only thing the stug a&b lose is the defensive arty support for other friendly units. When it attacks it kills and suppresses enemy units and does not suffer from enemy defensive fire at all. This is realistic with the gun having a little range,but not enough to have ranged fire on the scale of PZC

I personally love the change. The veh now acts like a true assault gun and not an arty piece.

To accomplish this change, did you have the StuG be a AT unit with range = 1? Because that's the only way I can think of in the current game engine make it not suffer from enemy defensive fire.

[airbornemongo101]

@Deducter
Yes I left the range at 1.

I screwed up in my above post. I had meant to say I left the range at 1,my bad.

I was going to make a dual range arty w/ a range of 0,but there is no real need to make a dual role unit out of the stug now with it serving as a direct fire assault gun.

If people still want it as a dual role unit after they try the change I will make one,later

[Chris10]

This is indeed a change for good..going to implement it too...

[Razz1]

Ja, I missed the Anti tank unit as it was earlier. Then took advantage of the artillery aspect.

You should see what happens in a multiplayer game.
It makes the German player unstopable.
Advance, move up Stugs, and the Russian player can not counter attack.
You can try to hit them from the sides but the German player is always strong.
If there is only one it is not bad, but on my MP map Operation Zitadell there are two in the same area.
Perhaps ading a switch is better but they should be much more expensive.

[ivanov]

The early Stugs III ( versions A-E ) were primairly designed to be an infantry support weapons. It's short barreled-gun wasn't well suited for the anti-tank role. Of course the Stugs could successfully engage the lightly armored tanks ( like for example the BT-7s' ), but they wren't really a remedy for the T-34's not to mention the KV's. Due to that, the stats of the Stug IIIB in the PC are quite spot-on. They are very simmilar to the ones of the Panzer IVE/F.

It is true that early in the war, the Germans severely miss an effective SPAT weapon system, but that's the way it was historically. The only true SPAT of this period was the Panzerjager I, but it wasn't particulary powerfull and it's armour protection was really poor. I think that fighting for example the Soviet tanks in the 1941 with a combination of the towed AT, 8.8cm flaks and the TAC, makes the game more challenging and historically acurate.

I also think, that it would be interesting, if the game allowed Germans to use the captured Soviet 76mm guns in the AT role, as it was really the only type of captured equipment, used by the Wehrmach in quite significant numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PaK_36(r)