Slitherine

I don't remember the turn number, but it's the first June 44 turn.
I think it's clearly better to kill the invading force while they are still on sea transports. They don't retaliate, you don't need to suppress them either and it is relatively safe to finish the sea transports with your fighter planes.

Right, now I would like to attempt to sort out the StuG artillery problem as I think there are several inconsistencies with the vanilla units.


StuG IIIB: GD up to 11 from 10 (it had 50 mm max solid front armour and all other tanks with such armour have GD 11) - even 12 could be considered due to its low silhouette (?)

Should be made multipurpose with secondary role as AT as it was often used in the AT role, and also its successor, the StuH 42 has AT switch by default in the vanilla game, so why the StuG IIIB does not have it?
In AT mode it should have SA 8 and HA 7 as it had the same short 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 gun as the Pz IV D-F giving it a limited AT capability and a much increased assault gun role. Because of the multi switch its price would go up to like 420 (currently the 105 mm gun equipped StuH 42 costs 460 in the mod).

At the start of Barbarossa there were about 300 produced and thus there is one StuG IIIB already placed on the map (one tank unit represents about 200 vehicles in the mod) so it should be made 'nopurchase' to avoid that the player can have more in turn 1. Thus a later version, the StuG IIIE would become available for purchase or upgrade at around Oct 1941 with the same stats so that the player can have more later if he wants. (About 450 StuG IIIC-E were produced by March 1942 and in July 1942 there were 619 StuG IIIIA-E combat ready.)


StuG IIIF-G would stay the same (only AT) as these were mainly used in the AT role.


StuH 42: in artillery mode its SA would go down to 9 from 12 as it had the same 10.5 cm gun as the Wespe. However, in AT mode its HA would go up to 11-12 to represent the increased AT capability of the 105 mm gun over the previous 75 mm one. Its max ammo would go down to 5 from 6 (it could carry only 36 shells).


StuG IV: it was basically a StuG IIIG superstructure fitted on a Pz IV chassis (instead of the Pz III). It was used together with the StuG IIIG in the very same manner in the AT role. Thus it should not be multipurpose with artillery role. It should be the same as the StuG IIIG with +1 ammo and more range and thus slightly more expensive. Additionally, it should be in the same upgrade family with the JagdPz IV/48 and 70.


I know it is a dangerous area, but it has to be done. I would like to make a distinction based on how these vehicles were used in the first place. Those which were mainly used as assault (infantry support) guns (StuG IIIA-E and StuH 42) should be multipurpose, and those which were mainly used in the AT role should only be mobile AT.


Any input on this is welcome.

Hi,

Overall I tend to agree with you, most of your suggestions feels good. It would probably be more consistent to do as you say from a gameplay point of view.
There is no doubt that the Stug IIIB or StuH42 were occasionally used in AT roles but it was often as an emergency measure, or maybe early in the war vs weakly armored AFVs. However their primary role was certainly mobile armored direct fire artillery. I'm not sure if they were used as deliberately as AT guns as the Soviets did with there SU assault guns. I think it was more a sort of self defense measure. The Germans designed so many assault guns specifically for the AT roles from 1942 onward. Considering the size of the units represented in the game I wonder if they deserve offensive AT capabilities of such a magnitude. Additionally the Stug IIIB with had a short barreled gun compared to the StuH 42, the later usually carried slightly more HEAT round than the Stug IIIB. So it is not that shocking to see one able to switch to AT and not he other, later in the war the soviet or allied tank were a much more significant threat for Germans AFVs.
On the other hand when they are attacked by an enemy tanks they barely have any effect. So it might be reasonable to give the player the option to assume a defensive stance by switching to AT.

Currently the Stug IIIB, as an artillery unit, has SA 7 and HA 8, I wonder if this is intentional or if this is a typo with both values reversed compared to Pz IV D.
AFAIK the gun data should be identical to the Pz IVD, on the other hand the Stug IIIB carried only 44 75mm rounds , whereas PzIV D or E had 80 rounds often 50% HE and 50% HEAT

From "Die Deutschen Panzer 1926-1945", by FM von Senger und Etterlin:

Stug IIIB ,StuK37 gun vertical elevation was only +20/-10° and horizontal traverse only +/-12.5°
SthuH 42 was even worse with vertival values of +20/°-6° and horizontal +/- 10°
In contrast the Sturm PzIV is recorded as having +85/0 and +/-10

Armor values in mm are
Pz IVD: front 30/80°, side 20/90° turret 30/79°, 20/64°
Pz IVE: front 30+30/80°, side 20+20/90° turret 30/79°, 20/64°
StuG IIIB: front 50/75°, side 30/60° tank height is 65 cm smaller than the Pz IVD but 10 cm larger.

McGuba wrote:Right, now I would like to attempt to sort out the StuG artillery problem as I think there are several inconsistencies with the vanilla units.

I know it is a dangerous area, but it has to be done. I would like to make a distinction based on how these vehicles were used in the first place. Those which were mainly used as assault (infantry support) guns (StuG IIIA-E and StuH 42) should be multipurpose, and those which were mainly used in the AT role should only be mobile AT.

Any input on this is welcome.

Excellent. I don't think it is a dangerous area, just one with a lot of opinions. I have a slightly different logic with respect to the switchability (I'll explain further down), but I think the most important thing is what Delta66 mentions, and I agree with:

Delta66 wrote:Overall I tend to agree with you, most of your suggestions feels good. It would probably be more consistent to do as you say from a gameplay point of view.

So, I'll try to be critical but constructive, with some numbers sprinkled around.

McGuba wrote:StuG IIIB: GD up to 11 from 10 (it had 50 mm max solid front armour and all other tanks with such armour have GD 11) - even 12 could be considered due to its low silhouette (?)

GD: I put it at 11 for now, but 12 is not too high I think. In armour thickness, it is equal to a PzIVF, which is easier to hit, so the StuG's GD can be a little higher.

From the StuG III C/D model on a vulnerable 'shot-trap' was eliminated from the front plate (there was a cutout for the gunsight on the A/B models). So I thought I'd put the 'B' at 11 and he 'C' through 'F' model at 12. I might make them both a little higher in the future. Why? Well, the vanilla 'F' model has GD 14 but in reality has the same defensive properties as the 'C'. So arguably the 'B' can be put at 12 or even 13 GD.

Should be made multipurpose with secondary role as AT as it was often used in the AT role, and also its successor, the StuH 42 has AT switch by default in the vanilla game, so why the StuG IIIB does not have it?
In AT mode it should have SA 8 and HA 7 as it had the same short 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 gun as the Pz IV D-F giving it a limited AT capability and a much increased assault gun role. Because of the multi switch its price would go up to like 420 (currently the 105 mm gun equipped StuH 42 costs 460 in the mod).

I am making it multipurpose. I agree with Delta66 that is wasn't designed as an AT weapon, and was only supposed to defend itself against tanks.

Delta66 wrote:There is no doubt that the Stug IIIB or StuH42 were occasionally used in AT roles but it was often as an emergency measure, or maybe early in the war vs weakly armored AFVs. However their primary role was certainly mobile armored direct fire artillery. I'm not sure if they were used as deliberately as AT guns as the Soviets did with there SU assault guns. I think it was more a sort of self defense measure.

I'll re-quote myself from here: viewtopic.php?f=125&t=33153#p363885

The StuG (B) had a maximum range of indirect fire (ARTY mode) of 6000 metres. Simple, as that was the design demand and the range to where to sights were calibrated. It had no doctrinal anti-tank role unless in self-defence or when nothing else was available. It was to be used as an attached unit to deal with enemy strongpoints, preferably attached to infantry units, secondarily tanks. Tertiary use was as divisional artillery (indirect firing) but this was advised against as it was a waste of their abilities.

Direct fire range (against enemy bunkers or tanks) was max. 1500 metres, design specs called for 500m direct firing range and at this range all existing tanks should be penetrated (which ment 40mm armour penetretation at the time). So these 1500m/6000m ranges were the maximum ranges allowed by the sighting equipment. The gunner had to physically switch the sight unit to be able to change between direct and indirect fire. So this is actually pretty consistent with the switching modes in the game! Note that a lot of people think this was just a Panzer III chassis with the gun of the Panzer IV (D) mounted, but the frontal armor was far heavier than those tanks (early Panzer III=30mm, similar StuG III=50mm), it was specifically designed to attack well-defended hard targets. They were very succesful during the Battle for France, especially when supporting infantry.

All the doctrine went out of the window during Barbarossa, and they started to operate more and more as offensive mobile anti-tank units, out of pure necessity.

McGuba wrote:At the start of Barbarossa there were about 300 produced and thus there is one StuG IIIB already placed on the map (one tank unit represents about 200 vehicles in the mod) so it should be made 'nopurchase' to avoid that the player can have more in turn 1. Thus a later version, the StuG IIIE would become available for purchase or upgrade at around Oct 1941 with the same stats so that the player can have more later if he wants. (About 450 StuG IIIC-E were produced by March 1942 and in July 1942 there were 619 StuG IIIIA-E combat ready.)

Just referencing my StuG book by Spielberger, it lists 272 availabe at the start of Barbarossa. And check my modded unit list below, a few months ago I actually put the 'E' start of availability at October, so that looks very nice.

StuH 42: in artillery mode its SA would go down to 9 from 12 as it had the same 10.5 cm gun as the Wespe. However, in AT mode its HA would go up to 11-12 to represent the increased AT capability of the 105 mm gun over the previous 75 mm one. Its max ammo would go down to 5 from 6 (it could carry only 36 shells).

What range are you going to give it? I've been looking at the possible gun ranges for these units, and estimated these max. range stats as a guidance for ARTY modes:

StuG III Short barrel: 6000m
StuG III Long barrel/StuG IV : est. 7500m
StuH : est. 8000m

To give some perspective:

Sturmpanzer I (SiG33): 4700m (in-game range: 3)
Nebelwerfer 15cm: 6000m (range: 2)
Nebelwerfer 21cm: 7800m (range: 2)
Nebelwerfer 30cm: 4500m (range: 2)

7,5cm FK16nA: 12300m (range: 2)
10,5cm leFH 18: 10600m (12325m with long-range charge) (range: 3)
15cm sFH 18: 13325m (range: 3)
17cm K18: 29600m (range: 3)
21cm mrs.18: 16700m (range: 3)

The biggest problem for me is not just the range, but the damage they can inflict. They may have the same caliber shells, but they were not equally effective. A towed artillery piece had a decent rate of fire (large crew and room to operate), but a small crew in a cramped metal box would be far less effective in keeping a good rate of fire. So if you take the 10.5cm leFH as a baseline, the StuH should have less SA in indirect mode or a lower RoF. The Wespe would sit right in between those two. I use this same principle to 'cheat' with ammo stats, because these units would not consume their ammo at the same rates.

StuG IIIF-G would stay the same (only AT) as these were mainly used in the AT role.

StuG IV: it was basically a StuG IIIG superstructure fitted on a Pz IV chassis (instead of the Pz III). It was used together with the StuG IIIG in the very same manner in the AT role. Thus it should not be multipurpose with artillery role. It should be the same as the StuG IIIG with +1 ammo and more range and thus slightly more expensive. Additionally, it should be in the same upgrade family with the JagdPz IV/48 and 70.

Sound logic. But to play the devil's advocate here: I'm not sure about the lack of a switchable mode for these units. My doubts come from the fact that unlike tanks, these assault guns were often assigned as direct support weapons for infantry, and technically were still considered artillery.

And personally, I have an unreasonable/irrational wish to keep all of the StuG IIIs in the same unit family, so if it suddenly lacks a switch it would be a bit weird perhaps. Although the true upgrade for the IIIB etc. is the StuH, as that was supposed to fill the direct fire role when the longer barreled versions started to be used as AT guns. This seems to be the logic used by the game, and it basically comes down to personal preference I guess.

My preference for now is giving the long-barreled StuG models an 'arty' switch but with range 1 and both HA and low SA lower than the AT version. This way they can be put behind other units (entrenched infantry) and help defend against armored attacks, and for offensive action you'd have to switch them. Same with the Soviet SU models. But, I haven't tested it yet, and it might turn out to be a bad idea. If anything, I think this works best if they have lower SA/HA in arty mode, to make sure the AT switch is the most effective.

Another subject you mention is ammo/fuel and availability dates. I'm using these numbers for now, which are not very accurate because I adjusted them for 'gaming purposes'. I'm not using all of these versions, but I was making a list so I added them all in case I needed it for reference.

unitname fuel/ammo (available from)
StuG IIIA 5/40 (1.5.1940)
StuG IIIB 5/36 (1.7.1940)
StuG IIIC 5/36 (1.4.1941)
StuG IIID 5/36 (1.6.1941)
StuG IIIE 6/36 (1.10.1941)
StuG IIIF 5/33 (1.4.1942)
StuG IIIF8 5/33 (1.9.1942)
StuG IIIG 5/32 (12.1.1943)

StuH 42 4/33 (22.11.1942)

StuG IV 6/45 (28.12.1943)

I am thinking of adding a 'late' model StuG IIIG , to represent the continuous stream of improvements that were still added to this 'final' version.

So, that is all for now... I'll check back later, but I think you are on the right track already.

StuG IIIB:
The basic principle for its use was to provide close support to the attacking infantry 'support for the infantry in attack is the chief mission of the assault gun' (StuG III Assault Gun 1940-42, Osprey). Also, 'it will only infrequently be employed as divisional artillery, ... is not to be included in the divisional artillery fire plan' - and still, currently it is classed as an artillery unit in the game with no offensive attack capability. However, the pre-war manual states that 'it is not to be used for anti-tank purposes, and will only engage enemy tanks in self-defense...' BUT, the later, 1942 manual states that 'may be successfully used against light and medium tanks' - most likely due to the experience gathered during the first two years of its combat use.

In its report for the period of June-Dec 1941, StuG Abteilung 185 claimed to destroy or capture 130 artillery pieces, 79 AT guns, 45 AA guns 315 MGs and 91 tanks for the loss of nine StuGs, meaning it had to be used against tanks and soft targets alike.

Delta66 wrote:There is no doubt that the Stug IIIB or StuH42 were occasionally used in AT roles but it was often as an emergency measure, or maybe early in the war vs weakly armored AFVs.

StuG Abt 185 claimed 2 KV-2, 29 KV-1 and 27 T-34 tanks destroyed or knocked out between Febr-Apr 1942 for the loss of 8 StuG. Those are not really weakly armoured AFVs.

It is not really the AT role which I think is really needed, but the offensive attack capability of the early StuG III in general. I am aware that it only carried a limited amount of AP and HEAT rounds (the same report claims they used 12,000 HE, 5,100 AP and 1,300 HEAT rounds during the first four months of 1942). Currently in the game it can only be used as a rather ineffective mobile artillery unit, which can only cause suppression in most cases by indirect artillery fire, while historically it was rarely used in such a way. Also, currently it is just impossible to reach such impressive kill-to-loss ratios with this unit.


And still, players already got used to the fact that it is nothing more than a mobile indirect artillery unit in the game and it would be strange for some to change it, even though it would make some sense, IMO...

ThvN wrote: McGuba wrote:StuG IIIB: GD up to 11 from 10 (it had 50 mm max solid front armour and all other tanks with such armour have GD 11) - even 12 could be considered due to its low silhouette (?)


GD: I put it at 11 for now, but 12 is not too high I think. In armour thickness, it is equal to a PzIVF, which is easier to hit, so the StuG's GD can be a little higher.

From the StuG III C/D model on a vulnerable 'shot-trap' was eliminated from the front plate (there was a cutout for the gunsight on the A/B models). So I thought I'd put the 'B' at 11 and he 'C' through 'F' model at 12. I might make them both a little higher in the future. Why? Well, the vanilla 'F' model has GD 14 but in reality has the same defensive properties as the 'C'. So arguably the 'B' can be put at 12 or even 13 GD.

If it becomes multipurpose with AT role its slightly higher GD would slightly compensate for its initiative penalty which comes from the fixedturret trait. Making it a unit which takes the first hit in attack, but then...

ThvN wrote:The gunner had to physically switch the sight unit to be able to change between direct and indirect fire. So this is actually pretty consistent with the switching modes in the game!

That's a good point pro.

ThvN wrote:What range are you going to give it? I've been looking at the possible gun ranges for these units, and estimated these max. range stats as a guidance for ARTY modes:

StuG III Short barrel: 6000m
StuG III Long barrel/StuG IV : est. 7500m
StuH : est. 8000m

To give some perspective:

Sturmpanzer I (SiG33): 4700m (in-game range: 3)
Nebelwerfer 15cm: 6000m (range: 2)
Nebelwerfer 21cm: 7800m (range: 2)
Nebelwerfer 30cm: 4500m (range: 2)

7,5cm FK16nA: 12300m (range: 2)
10,5cm leFH 18: 10600m (12325m with long-range charge) (range: 3)
15cm sFH 18: 13325m (range: 3)
17cm K18: 29600m (range: 3)
21cm mrs.18: 16700m (range: 3)

The vanilla PzC gun ranges are pretty much confusing IMO. I already claimed previously that I think simply the old Panzer General ranges were taken over i.e. all 7.5 cm guns have range = 2 and all 10,5 cm guns or above have range = 3, with no regard to their hisorical ranges. I tried to fix it to some extent in my mods i.e. guns with a maximum effective range between ~6-10 km have range = 2 (short range guns and howitzers), guns with range over ~10 km have range = 3. And I gave range = 4 to some very long range guns.

However, there could be some 'artistic freedom' in some cases. For example the Sturmpanzer I with a range of only 1 would be pretty much useless due to its low defense (but the vanilla range = 3 is really hillarious - another silly stat taken over from PG IMO), while I would not really give range 2 or more to any the StuGs due to their limited max elevation (20°), which definitely limited their use against targets covered by natural obstacles like hills or houses and stuff. As I understand these StuGs were mainly used against visible targets from as close as feasable and not as indirect artillery so I would go for range = 1 for all for now. In this regard I tend to agree with the vanilla values.

EDIT: I just realized that in vanilla PzC the StuG IV (est range = 7500 m) has range = 2 and the StuH 42 (est range = 8000 m) has range = 1. Do not ask me why.

Anyway, for now I think range 1 would do for all of these units. Their strong armour would protect them to stand next to most enemy units.

ThvN wrote:The biggest problem for me is not just the range, but the damage they can inflict. They may have the same caliber shells, but they were not equally effective. A towed artillery piece had a decent rate of fire (large crew and room to operate), but a small crew in a cramped metal box would be far less effective in keeping a good rate of fire. So if you take the 10.5cm leFH as a baseline, the StuH should have less SA in indirect mode or a lower RoF.

.

What only makes me wonder why the StuH has higher SA in the vanilla game than the 10.5 cm leFH. Other than that I tend to agree with you, a 1 or 2 ROF penalty for self propelled artillery would be easy to justify. The only problem is that most players would not be aware of it, as currently the ROF value is not visible in-game.

ThvN wrote:Another subject you mention is ammo/fuel and availability dates. I'm using these numbers for now, which are not very accurate because I adjusted them for 'gaming purposes'. I'm not using all of these versions, but I was making a list so I added them all in case I needed it for reference.

I am using very similar values, I think 4-5-6 ammo is best for these units in general.

ThvN wrote:I am thinking of adding a 'late' model StuG IIIG , to represent the continuous stream of improvements that were still added to this 'final' version.

I also think it is a good idea. The G model was produced for a long time during which it went through several upgrades. Thus I had already added another StuG IIIG to this mod with the full name 'StuG III Ausf. G (late model)'. In v1.3 it is basically the same as the early model, but it has the Schürtzen (+ 2 bonus to close defense) and it is much cheaper to make the player purchase more to represent the large number produced until the end of the war. However, in v1.4 I decided to reduce the GD of the early model to 14 from 16 as it seems that some early G had 50 + 30 mm frontal armour instead of the solid 80 mm one and it also lacked the Saukopf gun mantlet.

ThvN wrote:My preference for now is giving the long-barreled StuG models an 'arty' switch but with range 1 and both HA and low SA lower than the AT version.

Another interesting idea which take the whole thing one step further. If I am right, you only want to make it multipurpose so that it can stay in the same family with the other StuGs. I am not sure if it even had a tertiary use as divisional artillery, though.

BiteNibbleChomp wrote: Also, don't you ever overwrite saves?

No

I always use a different save slot. I suppose there's no real difference, but it's a habit I have.

McGuba wrote:[merchant ships] did have lookouts and some were even armed by the British Admirality so they acted like warships

They were armed solely for self-defense, so not quite like warships. Their highest priority was of course to deliver their cargo, not to do ASW.

On the topic of the merchant ships, why are they ingame? Doesn't getting the 50 prestige a turn per unit in the appropriate hex represent the sinking of merchant ships? Surely the u-boats aren't getting that prestige just by sitting around in the Atlantic! So the ship units are redundant.

McGuba wrote: Sorry, but I really wanted to add this restriction (the only infantry the player can purchase from 1945 is Volkssturm), otherwise who would puchase such a weak unit? And in fact it is quite historical as well, as the Germans had really run out of men by the end of the war so they had to recruit teenage boys and elderly to fill the ranks.

I think cheap units have a value of their own. However, I do agree that the severe manpower shortages should be represented. Maybe you could make an all purpose "Infantry 45" unit, which would be stronger than the "Infantry 44", but cost a lot of prestige, to represent the numerous difficulties forming such a unit would encounter. It would cost enough so that the historical Germany player would not have enough spare prestige to purchase it, but that a player doing well could afford it. I think this is acceptable because there is also the Maus tank that you can buy, despite them never seeing service, so I think an expensive infantry unit having the new 1945 technology is also within the realm of possibility.

My main issue with the Volkssturm is not that I couldn't buy new infantry, it's that I couldn't upgrade the old ones. So I was permanently stuck with the 1939 tech infantry because they were otherwise occupied during 1944.

1/
Some values from the vanilla PzC game are really strange indeed.
75mm arty with range 2, sIG 33 range of 2, or the very few differences between the Stuh42 and the Brummbär feels a bit on the fantasy side of things.

I also agree that self propelled artillery should have a lower rate of fire, and lower ammo than the field guns of similar caliber.

I wonder why the StuG IV is listed with a Rate of fire of 11 in the artillery tab of the Equipment Editor program.

BTW: I'm correct in thinking that, in this editor, to see the values of a switchable units I should search the entry in both Arty and AT tabs, or is there a way to see both set of value for a switchable unit from the same entry.

2/
About StuG switchable possibility.
Above posts by McGuba and ThvN were very interesting.

I had been thinking about it overnight, and I also think that the long barreled StuG IIIG, was technically at least as effective as the shorter barreled one in the artillery support role, firing the same HE shells and the longer gun helping for accuracy at longer ranges. Moreover it also had dedicated antitank capabilities by design. So from a technical point of view, it is this version that deserve the switchable trait the most. I also tend to think that the StuG IIIG was more often used to provide direct HE support to accompanying infantry, in particular in assaulting urban areas, than the StuG IIIB was used in an anti tank role.

From my point of view this should be a gameplay based decision rather than one based on hardware capabilities. Considering the large number of AT guns at start in your mod, it is a common possibility to upgrade the at start 37mm Pak to StuG IIIG or better when they become available. Especially if you are doing well vs the Soviets the extra mobility gained by upgrading towed AT guns to self propelled armored ones is a great benefit (On the other hand if I'm not doing so well on the eastern front I'm would rather upgrade then in family to cheaper higher caliber towed PaK instead).
In effect this can lead to a large number of long barreled StuG III in play as most axis minor also have a long StuG III upgrade available.
In my last campaign I probably had around 10 StuG IIIG, or better, in 1944. Having so many units switchable to artillery could be a serious balance or gameplay issue IMHO.

In contrast we start Barbarossa with only 1 artillery capable StuG, and if I get a free spot for an artillery unit, another fully armored one is not a priority for me. Depending on the situation I would rather choose a sFH18 for the moderate price, or a versatile Hummel if I can afford it. Range 1 is such a big limitation for artillery, the extra armor protection doesn't balance it IMO.

I also agree that, as it currently is, the StuG IIIB feels underpowered even in 1941, and in practice it is not efficient to use it as a front line, with so many T34 roaming the countryside. In the end it feels a bit underused. Although as far as I know Stug IIIB crews were of very high quality in general. So increasing its values somehow not only from an historical hardware perspective but for gameplay reason could be considered. I mean giving him values to entice player to use it the way it was historically used rather than sticking to the hardware specs. And if that it the case, maybe clarifying this is the manual.

PS: I don't challenge your report from the 185 Stug Abteilung, as I have no specific data on the subject. However I'm not sure of what they mean by "Claiming" a victory. Technically I don't see how the low velocity 75mm L/24 gun shells could pierce the KV-2 armor even from the side or rear, as the Germans recorded many difficulties in engaging KV tanks even with Panzer dedicated to AT combat. Not to mention the famous Rasienay episode where they struggled for a complete day to engage a single KV-2, even with 88mm Flak and demo charges set by pioneers On the other hand it could also mean the possibility of capturing the vehicle by having the crew surrender for various reason, irrelevant to their own tank survivability. This often happened during the French campaign in 1940, when french tanks crew surrendered to the Germans whose guns were not a real threat to the french tanks.

So now we have the pros and cons which seamingly balance each other. I knew I was wandering to dangerous territory when it comes to the depiction of assault guns in this game. Maybe there is no ultimate solution for this problem.

Delta66 wrote: I also agree that self propelled artillery should have a lower rate of fire, and lower ammo than the field guns of similar caliber.

OK, let it be. Now we only have to convince the develper(s) somehow to make the rate of fire value visible in-game in a possible later patch.

Delta66 wrote: Considering the large number of AT guns at start in your mod, it is a common possibility to upgrade the at start 37mm Pak to StuG IIIG or better when they become available. Especially if you are doing well vs the Soviets the extra mobility gained by upgrading towed AT guns to self propelled armored ones is a great benefit (On the other hand if I'm not doing so well on the eastern front I'm would rather upgrade then in family to cheaper higher caliber towed PaK instead).

Exactly, that is why I placed more and more AT guns on the map with the subsequent releases. Historically the Germans become more and more reliant on the cheaper and easier to produce StuGs than on tanks. This should be represented IMO. And towed AT guns played a role, too.

Delta66 wrote:In effect this can lead to a large number of long barreled StuG III in play as most axis minor also have a long StuG III upgrade available.
In my last campaign I probably had around 10 StuG IIIG, or better, in 1944. Having so many units switchable to artillery could be a serious balance or gameplay issue IMHO.

That is absolutely right. Since the StuG III was Germany's most produced armoured fighting vehicle in the war I see no problem at all having many of them by 1944, moreover, I tried to advocate its large scale use by making it cheaper and cheaper. However, making them multipurpose with arty role would seriously change the existing balance of this mod as the player would end up an army of well armoured self-propelled artillery units, for a very low price. And the price of artillery units in general were deliberately made higher by deducter and by this mod as well. So instead of reducing the number of inconsistencies, I would create a new one.

Thus, I think the StuG IIIF-G and IV should be AT only for now.

Delta66 wrote:In contrast we start Barbarossa with only 1 artillery capable StuG, and if I get a free spot for an artillery unit, another fully armored one is not a priority for me. Depending on the situation I would rather choose a sFH18 for the moderate price, or a versatile Hummel if I can afford it. Range 1 is such a big limitation for artillery, the extra armor protection doesn't balance it IMO.

Basically that's why I thought it might be a good idea to make it multipurpose with limited AT capability. It would make it a better unit and some players would consider purchasing or upgrading to another one - remember, in 1941 there were some 300 StuG III with short 75 mm gun, but by next year this number had risen to 600. And there were 1200 StuH 42 produced, which should be the obvious upgrade option for the StuG IIIB/E unit(s) when it becomes available. On the other hand the StuG IIIB should not be made a super unit in 1941/42 to avoid having too many of them as it was not that numerous at that time compared to the tanks.

Delta66 wrote:I also agree that, as it currently is, the StuG IIIB feels underpowered even in 1941, and in practice it is not efficient to use it as a front line, with so many T34 roaming the countryside. In the end it feels a bit underused. Although as far as I know Stug IIIB crews were of very high quality in general. So increasing its values somehow not only from an historical hardware perspective but for gameplay reason could be considered. I mean giving him values to entice player to use it the way it was historically used rather than sticking to the hardware specs. And if that it the case, maybe clarifying this is the manual.

And that would be the other way to go: leave it as it is in the arty class with no switch option but making it more effective. We have already agreed on increasing its GD to 11, maybe it could go up to 12/13 then so that it can withstand the attacks of the T-34s. And its attack stats could go up a little higher, too, to represent that it is more effective than a 'traditional' artillery unit of the same caliber because it fires on targets dead ahead instead of indirectly on non-visible targets.

Delta66 wrote:Technically I don't see how the low velocity 75mm L/24 gun shells could pierce the KV-2 armor even from the side or rear, as the Germans recorded many difficulties in engaging KV tanks even with Panzer dedicated to AT combat.

I guess they used HEAT rounds. "By mid-1940 Germany introduced the first HEAT round to be fired by a gun, the 7.5 cm fired by the Kw.K.37 L/24 of the Panzer IV tank and the Stug III self-propelled gun (7.5 cm Gr.38 Hl/A, later editions B and C)." (Wiki) The armour penetration of the H.C. (Igr. 38 Hl/A) was 90 mm regardless of the distance, if I am right. Most other German tanks were only equipped with AP rounds which did have a difficulty penetrating the armour of those Soviet tanks and even the StuGs and PzIVs had just a limited amount of HEAT rounds.

Delta66 wrote:On the other hand it could also mean the possibility of capturing the vehicle by having the crew surrender for various reason, irrelevant to their own tank survivability. This often happened during the French campaign in 1940, when french tanks crew surrendered to the Germans whose guns were not a real threat to the french tanks.

Yeah, but from the gameplay point of view it does not really matter if an enemy unit is literally destroyed or just knocked out or just surrendered IMO. There were reported cases when a tank was hit so many times that its crew just panicked and abandoned it even though the armour was not penetrated.

Kiane wrote:On the topic of the merchant ships, why are they ingame? Doesn't getting the 50 prestige a turn per unit in the appropriate hex represent the sinking of merchant ships? Surely the u-boats aren't getting that prestige just by sitting around in the Atlantic! So the ship units are redundant.

I think it would be weird to have U-boots fighting only destroyers and other warships as historically they rather tried to avoid them (I mean the destroyers). So I thought it would be nice to have some merchant ships as a flavour and to represent the Allied convoys.

Kiane wrote:My main issue with the Volkssturm is not that I couldn't buy new infantry, it's that I couldn't upgrade the old ones. So I was permanently stuck with the 1939 tech infantry because they were otherwise occupied during 1944.

Ah, now I see. However, not all German units were 'upgraded' in 1944/45 and equipped with the Sturmgewehr assault rifles and stuff. So I see no problem with having some units having only 1939 standard equipment in 1945. Still, it might be a better option to make those late infantry available for purchase and upgrade in 1945 and give the player a few Volkssturm units as 'presents' appearing on the map in 1945, especially, if the player is not doing too well. Yeah, I think it should be like that in the next verison.

Overall, maybe go for a switchable Stug IIIB. with AT attack value mode similar to the Pz IVD.
And keep the StuG IIIG and Stug IV as AT only.
If you introduce a late StuG IIIG version I think they also had a remotely controlled AA machine gun and later version of StuH 42 too.

Having RoF data available in the game would be great, though it is clearly an advanced value who may confuse casual players.
I don't know if you have the equipment file for your mod available as a spreadsheet or text document, in that case you can add it to the mod downloadable archive.


About HEAT ammo for the 75mm gun.(release date, perforation) from http://www.panzerworld.com/7-5-cm-kw-k-l-24
Gr.38 HI, june 1939, 45 mm
Gr. 38 Hl/A, may 1942, 70 mm
Gr. 38 Hl/B, dec 1942, 75 mm
Gr. 38 Hl/C, apr 1942, 90 mm

Delta66 wrote:Overall, maybe go for a switchable Stug IIIB. with AT attack value mode similar to the Pz IVD.

OK, I think I will do so. Anyway, it will need to be tested for sure. Obviously I do not want to make this unit too good, but I do think that it is a real underdog with the current vanilla stats.

I don't know if you have the equipment file for your mod available as a spreadsheet or text document, in that case you can add it to the mod downloadable archive.

That is another great idea. I am using an Excel spreadsheet for editing all the stats as I find it the easiest and fastest. It would not hurt sharing it with the public so that people can browse it. Even though it is a bit chaotic at the end with all the new units added for the different minor nations...

About HEAT ammo for the 75mm gun.(release date, perforation) from http://www.panzerworld.com/7-5-cm-kw-k-l-24
Gr.38 HI, june 1939, 45 mm
Gr. 38 Hl/A, may 1942, 70 mm
Gr. 38 Hl/B, dec 1942, 75 mm
Gr. 38 Hl/C, apr 1942, 90 mm

My fault, it is just some sources gave 90 mm for the Gr. 38 HI/A. But I think even the 70 mm penetration was enough to penetrate the early T-34 frontal armour and the side and rear armour of the KV-1. And some other sources claim that it was introduced in June 1941, just in time for Barbarossa:

by M.Rausch
Hi, I can give some more detailed data based on original sources.

The Gr. 38 (no HL used in the designation on introduction) was not in use in 1939, since the final ballistic firings for the ballistic table were made in March 1940. The first manual containing it was printed in July 1940 and it was officially introduced in June 1940, so there is a chance it was used during the BoF, but there is no combat report pointing its use out found till now (have to admit that I never looked for one also ).

The Gr.38 Hl/A was introduced for the 7.5 cm IG and 7.5 cm Kw.K. in June 1941, I have the original introduction publications from the Heeresverordnungsblatt. The first Gr. 38 Hl/B were introduced in 1942, the first Gr. 38 HL/C in 1943. The time span for the introduction of the new ammunition types depended a lot of the guns firing it. There were differences of over an year. E.g. the first gun types received a Gr. 38 Hl/C types in 1943, others not before second half of 1944.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9&start=15

That is another great idea. I am using an Excel spreadsheet for editing all the stats as I find it the easiest and fastest. It would not hurt sharing it with the public so that people can browse it. Even though it is a bit chaotic at the end with all the new units added for the different minor nations...

As a minor technical issue, many users didn't have a fully functional Excel version and instead use Open Office. If The Excel spreadsheet doesn't use any fancy functions Open Office should load it without trouble. But it could be worth checking before distributing the file.


Interesting link for 75mm HEAT ammo, it seems that the effective date of introduction vary a lot depending on the sources.

I am using Open Office, too

Interesting link for 75mm HEAT ammo, it seems that the effective date of introduction vary a lot depending on the sources.

As I understand, the first HEAT ammo was a kind of secret weapon: German reports often refer to it as 'special rounds' and soldiers were instructed to destroy them before surrendering to avoid falling into the enemy's hands. Thus it is possible that they did not even record its firts use at all to keep the secret as long as possible.

Heat ammo. I could make that:

1) Get a bullet. A large caliber is preferred
2) Set it on fire
3) Get a heat-proof gun and insert bullet
4) Fire!

First use: not long after gunpowder was invented. So possibly 1200s

Also, the StuG gun won't really be OP until it is both much stronger than a PzIV, and considerably cheaper. However, given its heavy use, why not make it a very attractive option? It will take a lot of convincing to get me away from the mightiest of them all - the Tiger II!

- BNC

So I am testing v1.4 with the multipurpose StugIIIB and I am quite pleased with it. It is much more useful in 1941-42 with the AT switch, but gets obsolete in 1943, just in time when the StuH 42 upgrade becomes available. I was really thinking to upgrade one of my 3 range towed arty to a StuG IIIE early on as now it is a tempting option. In the end I did not, but probably I will in a later game.

Initially, though I had some problem differentiating the two modes because of the short gun, so I made two modified icons:

I also standardized the Axis 105 mm assault howitzers (StuH 42, Semovente 105/25, Zrinyi II) as they were seemingly quite similar so now all these are multipurpose with range two in arty mode. (In the vanilla game the StuH 42 is multipurpose with range one in arty mode, but the Italian Semovente 105/25 is just arty with range two. This change makes them comparable to the Soviet SU/ISU series in the mod.)

It looks good.
The smaller icons looks all the same though with the gun in artillery mode. Well I don't know if other switchable units small icons change too?

Two suggestions:
1/ Would it be possible to change a little the 'switch' icon to better highlight the different modes, Either by removing the tank in the crosshair or maybe by changing the icon's color?
2/ Another possibility would be to have the tank leader visible out of the turret hatch in one of the mode.

Here are two replays of my earlier victories! Hope, it helps you to achieve your victories.

- Both replays are representing a full victory (DV).
- Played on Rommel difficulty, with version 1.2. No cheats were used for making the game easier. Some icons were modified.
- In the first one, bonus prestige for blocking the Atlantic merchant routes and capturing major objectives (Malta, Moscow, etc.) were taken.
- In the second one, these given prestige were abandoned (with cheat), so the game was played without any extra prestige! It could be finished in turn 82.

http://panzercorpsmods.wordpress.com/20 ... e-pzc-mod/

Delta66 wrote:The smaller icons looks all the same though with the gun in artillery mode.

Ah, yeah, true, I was just too lazy to change that one as well, but I will.

1/ Would it be possible to change a little the 'switch' icon to better highlight the different modes, Either by removing the tank in the crosshair or maybe by changing the icon's color?

Yeah, it could be changed, but it would require some more work. For simplicity I just used the vanilla graphic from the UI button "unit switch" to make it clear that the given unit can be changed by clicking on that button.

2/ Another possibility would be to have the tank leader visible out of the turret hatch in one of the mode.

I like this more but, I am afraid that it would be hardly visible.

Uhu wrote:Here are two replays of my earlier victories! Hope, it helps you to achieve your victories.

Thanks, I am sure some will find it useful. One just need to prepare some sandwiches for a marathon replay watching.

Hmm, I realised, that playing the mod in historical way (not capturing many major objectives, retreating from certain areas, using units only in that region, where they were historically used, attacking only, when it historically occured - until the mid nov of 1942!) is quite a level increase of difficulty! And I'm just at the end of 1941 - what will I face in 1943...?

My experience with the U-Boat mod is, that it made "uboating" much harder - although with more strategic possibility. The only benefit is, that I can stationate my O-Boats longer on convoy routes, as in dive mod they will get destroyed slower.