The Sturmpanzer 1 is too long ranged

[impar]

Developer input on this?

The reason why this unit exists in the game at all is to have an early self-propelled option. Historically very few were produced, so it is already a stretch.
The question I ask myself is:
- Do people buy Sturmpanzer now?
- Will they buy it if its range is dropped to 2?
Some opinions on these two points would help to decide what to do.

People play with Sturmpanzer I now and will continue to play if range is reduced to 2, the biggest appeal is the self-propelled function, not the range, and there is no other SP ART in the first years.
The way Sturmpanzer is modelled now in the game makes the Sturmpanzer I very similar to the Hummel, yet the guns they carry have very different ranges.

[Ritterkreuz]

Developer input on this?

The reason why this unit exists in the game at all is to have an early self-propelled option. Historically very few were produced, so it is already a stretch.

The question I ask myself is:
- Do people buy Sturmpanzer now?
- Will they buy it if its range is dropped to 2?

Some opinions on these two points would help to decide what to do.

In parallel to my FM campaign through the DLCs, Istatrted a Rommel campaign.
My first 3 purchases were SIGs due to their range and possibility to save prestige by softening everything because tanks are expesive to repair. They are at 12 and I think they are very strong!

[Rudankort]

Historically very few were produced, so it is already a stretch.

I dont think this is a good argument to use. There are more units in game, produced in similarly small ammounts f.e. the JagdTiger - 88pcs or the Mouse -2 prototypes, there might be more.

Of course, all such units are a stretch from historical point of view, not only Sturmpanzer. And all of them were introduced for pure gameplay reasons. For example, Maus and JagdTiger are in the game because they are so cool and people love to play them, same goes for some jets.[/quote]

[Rudankort]

In parallel to my FM campaign through the DLCs, Istatrted a Rommel campaign.
My first 3 purchases were SIGs due to their range and possibility to save prestige by softening everything because tanks are expesive to repair. They are at 12 and I think they are very strong!

So would you buy them with range reduced to 2?

[impar]

I kept the range of 3 for the wespe , 105mm towed, Hummel and 150 mm towed and upped it to 4 for the 170 mm and the 210 mm as well as all forts.

Thats a big no-no. The 17cm had way more range than the 21cm gun, around double the range.
The way PzC models the 7,5cm and 10,5cm, giving 2 and 3 range respectively, can be understood due to gameplay reasons (and if the 10,5cm has 3 range the bigger weapons should have at least 3 range too, also for gameplay reasons, the exception being the 17cm, it was an absolute long range gun).
From Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII, by Chris Bishop:
7,5cm - 9.425m (if its designation in PzC is corrected to leFK 18, the FK16nA had 12.875m, a 3 range gamewise)
10,5cm - 12.325m
15cm - 13.325m
17cm - 29.600m
21cm - 16.700m

The sIG 33, the gun of Sturmpanzer I and sIG38(t) M, had 4.700m range (still missing in the game the sIG33 with PzII chassis).

It hasnt popped out yet, but the StuH 42 shouldnt have a 1 range and the Stug IV should be in the AT class and never with a 2-range in ART mode (carried the same wepaon as the latters PzIV).

[Longasc]

So would you buy them with range reduced to 2?

Yes. Maybe a few less and some more 3-Range 15cm SFH. I think impar said it already, their main appeal is the ability to move and fire which a normal artillery can't.

They would have nice range upgrades in late 1942, Hummel and Wespe. (I just checked, Wespe's were in use from 1943, not 1942.)


Still, I would sleep some nights over it. People got used to it by now and it would be one of these "nerfs" that usually cause players to rage.


Also, what impar said: StuH42 and StuG IV seem to be caught in design confusion. I think he makes sense when he says 2 range for the StuH and 1 for the StuG. (see above)

[Tarrak]

So would you buy them with range reduced to 2?

Yes. Maybe a few less and some more 3-Range 15cm SFH. I think impar said it already, their main appeal is the ability to move and fire which a normal artillery can't.

Well normal artillery can move and fire as well just only one hex. Interestingly quite often, if you manage the front line properly this is enough for a siege of the same stronghold. If you are moving to next one then self towed artillery get a bonus but the Sturmpanzer is slow enough to still stay behind if the move is longer. As i already said before i personally would really reconsider buying them at 2 range.

They would have nice range upgrades in late 1942, Hummel and Wespe. (I just checked, Wespe's were in use from 1943, not 1942.)

Still, I would sleep some nights over it. People got used to it by now and it would be one of these "nerfs" that usually cause players to rage.

Here i tend to agree. "Nerfs" are usually not well perceived. Especially if someone is in the middle of a DLC campaign with a few Sturmpanzers in the core that suddenly get crippled down to 2 or even 1 range with a patch.

[Rudankort]

Here i tend to agree. "Nerfs" are usually not well perceived. Especially if someone is in the middle of a DLC campaign with a few Sturmpanzers in the core that suddenly get crippled down to 2 or even 1 range with a patch.

For this reason changes in eqp file do not affect games in progress, but... this may change in 1.06, based on feedback from mod designers.

[impar]

I personally think the Sturmpanzer is fine as it is now. Maybe not from the historical point of view but certainly from game balance point of view.

The balance card is weird to play in this matter.
You want to balance Sturmpanzer I against what allied SP ART?

People got used to it by now and it would be one of these "nerfs" that usually cause players to rage.

And that is indeed the biggest disadvantage to correct Sturmpanzer I stats. People are now used to a Hummel in 1939. The sooner it gets corrected, the better.

Especially if someone is in the middle of a DLC campaign with a few Sturmpanzers in the core that suddenly get crippled down to 2 or even 1 range with a patch.

1 range, although probably historically, would make it hard to use in gameplay, it doesnt have the defense needed to be in the front line.

[Tarrak]

I personally think the Sturmpanzer is fine as it is now. Maybe not from the historical point of view but certainly from game balance point of view.

The balance card is weird to play in this matter.
You want to balance Sturmpanzer I against what allied SP ART?

No from the "keep the unit useful" point of view. You need to accept that PC is a very abstract system, you just can not apply all historical facts 100% to it and expect it to work in same way. Reducing the range of Sturmpanzer, even only to 2, makes the unit a lot weaker and it may push it into the "useless unit" corner like the StuG was before the revamp. Reducing it'S range to 1 certainly will do that.

P.S. I really wonder why no one is concerned with the fact that the Sturmpanzer only can carry 4 ammo. Compated to the 15cm towed artillery (it got same HA and SA as the Sturmpanzer) which got 7 its only half as much. Considering artillery uses ammo on offense and quite often multiple times on defense it is a real important factor imho.

[Rudankort]

Looking at the stats, this rebalance might work for Sturmpanzer I:
- Range to 2
- Speed to 5 (after all, it was based on PzIB chassis, and quick search shows that its speed was even a bit higher than that of PzIB)
- Maybe +1 ammo
- Maybe slight reduction in price

Thoughts?

[Ritterkreuz]

P.S. I really wonder why no one is concerned with the fact that the Sturmpanzer only can carry 4 ammo. Compated to the 15cm towed artillery (it got same HA and SA as the Sturmpanzer) which got 7 its only half as much. Considering artillery uses ammo on offense and quite often multiple times on defense it is a real important factor imho.

3/4 of my ART are SIGs.
The low ammo is a downside. I believe in PG it was even only 3.
It compensates by the fact that it can be handles more flexible by move to hotspot and then fire, so it feels more "available", so if one has to reload the others can jump in. Just try it - then you see the advantages.

It's like with the recon-the advantage of it crossing through enemy ZOC or capturing a bridge and disappear again compensates for its vulnerability.

[impar]

I personally think the Sturmpanzer is fine as it is now. Maybe not from the historical point of view but certainly from game balance point of view.

The balance card is weird to play in this matter.
You want to balance Sturmpanzer I against what allied SP ART?

No from the "keep the unit useful" point of view. You need to accept that PC is a very abstract system, you just can not apply all historical facts 100% to it and expect it to work in same way. Reducing the range of Sturmpanzer, even only to 2, makes the unit a lot weaker and it may push it into the "useless unit" corner like the StuG was before the revamp. Reducing it'S range to 1 certainly will do that.

P.S. I really wonder why no one is concerned with the fact that the Sturmpanzer only can carry 4 ammo. Compated to the 15cm towed artillery (it got same HA and SA as the Sturmpanzer) which got 7 its only half as much. Considering artillery uses ammo on offense and quite often multiple times on defense it is a real important factor imho.

From the same source as before, the 15cm sIG 33, the gun of the Sturmpanzer I, had a length of 165cm, a muzzle velocity of 240mps and a range of 4.700m.
The 15cm sFH 18, the gun of the Hummel, had a length of 440cm, a muzzle velocity of 520mps and a range of 13.325m.
In PzC, Sturmpanzer I has 3 range, 12SA, 9HA, 9RoF.
In PzC, Hummel has 3 range, 12SA, 9HA, 9RoF.

[Tarrak]

Looking at the stats, this rebalance might work for Sturmpanzer I:
- Range to 2
- Speed to 5 (after all, it was based on PzIB chassis, and quick search shows that its speed was even a bit higher than that of PzIB)
- Maybe +1 ammo
- Maybe slight reduction in price

Thoughts?

Scratch the maybes and it looks ok imho. The added ammo and speed compensate for the loss of the range and it should keep the history fanatics happy as well

[impar]

Looking at the stats, this rebalance might work for Sturmpanzer I:
- Range to 2
- Speed to 5 (after all, it was based on PzIB chassis, and quick search shows that its speed was even a bit higher than that of PzIB)
- Maybe +1 ammo
- Maybe slight reduction in price
Thoughts?

Range should be 1 historically, but agree that 2 is best for gameplay sake.
Speed should be 4. Dont know if you noticed but if you divide road speed in miles by 5 you get the PzC speed on most units. PzIB had a maximum road speed of 25mph, with a 100hp engine and a 6.000kg weight.
Sturmpanzer I had a maximum road speed of 21,75mph, a 150hp engine and a 12.500kg weight.
From Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII, by Chris Bishop.
Ammo, the ammo the vehicle itself carried was always supplemented by other vehicles in the unit. Never really understood how this stat was modelled. Although, how would a +1 ammo in Sturmpanzer I affect sIG 38(t) ammo? And, are we saying that ammo was as available (4+1) to a 15cm SP ART as it was to a 21cm field gun (5)?
Price, if range is reduced, then price should be also tweaked downwards.

[Rudankort]

Speed should be 4. Dont know if you noticed but if you divide road speed in miles by 5 you get the PzC speed on most units. PzIB had a maximum road speed of 25mph, with a 100hp engine and a 6.000kg weight.
Sturmpanzer I had a maximum road speed of 21,75mph, a 150hp engine and a 12.500kg weight.
From Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII, by Chris Bishop.

You would expect me to know how we derived various unit stats. But you are right about technical data. I looked in a wrong place apparently.

However, 25 and 22 mph is not THAT huge difference, in fact, 22 is on the edge (23/5 would be rounded to 5 already), so I don't see a problem with going this way if we think this would benefit the gameplay. I think, in this particular case it is warranted.

[impar]

You would expect me to know how we derived various unit stats.

Now that you mention it...

[airbornemongo101]

I kept the range of 3 for the wespe , 105mm towed, Hummel and 150 mm towed and upped it to 4 for the 170 mm and the 210 mm as well as all forts.

Thats a big no-no. The 17cm had way more range than the 21cm gun, around double the range.
The way PzC models the 7,5cm and 10,5cm, giving 2 and 3 range respectively, can be understood due to gameplay reasons (and if the 10,5cm has 3 range the bigger weapons should have at least 3 range too, also for gameplay reasons, the exception being the 17cm, it was an absolute long range gun).
From Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII, by Chris Bishop:
7,5cm - 9.425m (if its designation in PzC is corrected to leFK 18, the FK16nA had 12.875m, a 3 range gamewise)
10,5cm - 12.325m
15cm - 13.325m
17cm - 29.600m
21cm - 16.700m

The sIG 33, the gun of Sturmpanzer I and sIG38(t) M, had 4.700m range (still missing in the game the sIG33 with PzII chassis).


It hasnt popped out yet, but the StuH 42 shouldnt have a 1 range and the Stug IV should be in the AT class and never with a 2-range in ART mode (carried the same wepaon as the latters PzIV).

Thanks Impar,,stats changed.

I know the next book I'm purchasing. I had already dropped the stug ranges to 1.

Thanks again.

[impar]

Rudankort,

Although, how would a +1 ammo in Sturmpanzer I affect sIG 38(t) ammo? And, are we saying that ammo was as available (4+1) to a 15cm SP ART as it was to a 21cm field gun (5)?

Also the range of sIG 38(t) as it has the same gun as Sturmpanzer I.

Guess there is no chance on implementing a Sturmpanzer II?
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/sig33.htm

7,5cm - 9.425m (if its designation in PzC is corrected to leFK 18, the FK16nA had 12.875m, a 3 range gamewise)

The name of the 7.5cm should be changed.

[Rudankort]

Guess there is no chance on implementing a Sturmpanzer II?

It might be added in one of the future updates, but no promises at this point.

7,5cm - 9.425m (if its designation in PzC is corrected to leFK 18, the FK16nA had 12.875m, a 3 range gamewise)

The name of the 7.5cm should be changed.

ok