StuGs and Marders oh my

[airbornemongo101]

Just one post on this subject

Stugs were used exstensivley in the later part of the war by both the Heer and the Waffen SS in place of tanks

Many Panzergrenadier divisions "panzer regiments" were actually composed entirely of stugs and at least 1-2 battalions of the late war Panzer Brigades were stug equipped.

This was done due to their ease of contruction,,(a little known fact was that some of the "armor" on the front of one model was actually formed concrete,I forget which one ,but I'll look it up in one of my books if somone wants to know)

So the stugs should be made a priority,,how I'unsure ,,without disrupting game play.

Marder(s) were used defensivley and usally fired from a concealed ambush position and with infantry support.

Their doctrine was to fire once or twice from a distance and then displace to a new prepared firing postion (I have often wondered if NATO'S Cold War AT doctrine had been contrived from this practice),,thus the high rate of speed and almost a total lack of armor protection. (a .50 cal could penetrate the armor).

They could be used in the DCL as aux. units or as available as core in a defensive orieneted campaign and given a high range value

[impar]

StuG...
...
My interpretation of the values, Initiative has been reduced because of the lack of turret, Ground Defense has been increased because of the extra armour, Soft Attack and Close Defense have been reduced because of the lack of machine guns, Hard Attack was halved because... !?

Continuing with this.

"Designed primarily as a close-support weapon, the vehicle carried 84 rounds of ammunition that comprised 55 high-explosive and eight smoke shells, but only 21 armour-piercing rounds." - German Tanks of World War II, Dr. S. Hart and Dr. R. Hart, page 62.

So, if the main weapon is the same as the early PzIV and the early StuG carried armour-piercing rounds, why was the Hard Attack value reduced from 7 to 4

[Longasc]

Hehe...


*Important Announcement of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW)*

Dear posters!
We know how we used our StuGs and that they were great!
While we appreciate that you remind us how we used them to great effect the mission objective is slightly different:



How to make StuGs more viable and useful in Panzer Corps - that's the problem!


Just a reminder - we are about to get stuck in the history of the StuG part of the debate. We should really rather brainstorm how to make them about as interesting to us in Panzer Corps as they apparently were during WW2 from 1942-1944.

[Longasc]

So, if the main weapon is the same as the early PzIV and the early StuG carried armour-piercing rounds, why was the Hard Attack value reduced from 7 to 4

"Soft attack" value you wanted to say.

Lack of turret and coaxial MG maybe? Late StuG IIIG had one, though. The question is if AT penalty and reduced initiative and close defense are not enough penalty for that.

The thing is, all "tank destroyer" AT units in Panzer General are very much designed around the high hard attack and rather low soft attack philosophy.

We can reflect the easier and lower cost fabrication in even lower prestige cost but then we still have the "more bang for the slot" issue in campaign mode (fill the last slot with a Jagdpanther or a StuG III? You have the Prestige for a lot more, what do you chose?)

[TheGrayMouser]

Stugs: original purpose: close infantry support by DIRECT FIRE ie Assault guns
later when upfitted with long 75's proved to be very good in the AT role

Marders/Wespes nashorn's etc stopgap measure early mid war by the Wehrmact to motorize larger caliber AT weapons since the Mark 3 chassis could not support anything larger than a 50mm gun in a rotating turret
i would call these things Self Propelled AT guns

Jadgs etc etc (hetzers included) another stopgap measure late war to provide anti armour vehicles that cost less and were likly as good on the defence as tanks, but much cheaper and easier to produce in #'s ( at least the Jagds IV's and Hetzers, how many Jadgpanthers/tigers were built ? 200 at most?)
I would call these tank destroyers

So what to do maybe?
I would not like to see stugs given artillery/AT tank duality across the board
early stugs with the stubby 75's or even the later 105's should remian as artillery and as such are currently very useful units inmho

**the 75 stugs should remain as AT but as others have said should get the same hard attack AND soff attack as equivilent caliber tanks

Machine guns or no I really dont think that made much differnce Why ? Look at all the footage of tanks in action, you rarely IF EVER see the pintal mounted m-guns on top of the turrrt in place. Heck, most of the time you dont even see the hull mounted Machine gun at the ready. Most accounts of tanks in close combat relay that they relied on the HE in the main gun to deal w infantry (obviously there are exceptions like the turret mounted machine guns "coax" in the early war tanks, and of course shermans left the 50 cal ready on the pintal since it likly couldnt FIT in the tank) My guess is thos xtra machine guns were only mounted when in march column to give some form of portection vs air attack.

Tank destroyer types (jadgs) again same basically as stugs maybe a slight boost in HA, reduce SA just to make them a little difernt and highlight they wernt as doctinly flexible as the Stugs

the self propelled types(Marders) maybe these units should be classed as TOWED AT but given the track movement, give them the advantages of close terrian/entrenchment thht towed ones aledgedly have

[El_Condoro]

Machine guns or no I really dont think that made much differnce Why ? Look at all the footage of tanks in action, you rarely IF EVER see the pintal mounted m-guns on top of the turrrt in place. Heck, most of the time you dont even see the hull mounted Machine gun at the ready.

An account I read recently explains that it was the close support between the infantry and the assault guns that saw the MGs removed from the StuGs and put in the hands of the infantry who could make better use of them and not require a crew member to stick himself in harm's way to use it. The centrality of the MG-er to the German infantry meant an MG34/42 was a great asset and more effective when not on an AG.

[edahl1980]

You would have to be suicidal to mount a m-gun on a turret. Especially on the eastern front with all the snipers.
That is why no one did it.
And one more thing. Most combat photos are staged and recreated after the battle was over.

There are very few actual combat photos from world war 2.

[Molve]

What would really make the StuGs work in the game?

Make the game support killing fire as supporting fire.

That is, when the russian tank attacks the infantry, the StuG that's covering it gets to provide supportive cover using its Hard Attack to directly shoot at the russian tank, shooting to kill (not the suppressive kind usually associated with ranged fire in Panzer Corps).

Then the StuG wouldn't need two "modes" (which the AI can't currently handle) - it would simply be a close support vehicle that isn't just good to support against attacks by infantry, but attacking armor as well.

[TheGrayMouser]

You would have to be suicidal to mount a m-gun on a turret. Especially on the eastern front with all the snipers.
That is why no one did it.
And one more thing. Most combat photos are staged and recreated after the battle was over.

There are very few actual combat photos from world war 2.

Exactly, which is why I dont think whether a stug or whatnot "offically" added a machine gun mount in a new version should drastically alter the SA values.
(this is the one thing I think the Steel panthers game got wrong where avery tank could fire a ridiculous amount of lead from all three machine guns , and the main gun, all at the same time, lol)

I am well aware of propaganda films, yet a lot of footage is from vehicles very close to entering a battle zone or in the immediate aftermath of one and you dont see those mg's .

[impar]

So, if the main weapon is the same as the early PzIV and the early StuG carried armour-piercing rounds, why was the Hard Attack value reduced from 7 to 4

"Soft attack" value you wanted to say.

No. I meant Hard Attack.
With the same main weapon StuGIIIB has 4HA while PzIVD has 7HA.
Whitout knowing the reason behind this, its hard to suggest improvements. And remember that the original PzIV was also meant for support.

[skarczew]

First step of "fixing" StuGs:
- get their stats to the real power they should have (according to a paper); it has been mentioned by impar and other people that StuGs have lowered HA - why not fix it first?
"But they were without turret" is not an argument, as they are already in a handicapped AT group;

Second step:
- this is actually harder; something should be done with the hi-end units like IS-2, King Tiger, that would limit their numbers;
It is not only StuG that is weak, it applies to many other units. Light tanks, medium tanks - all are cannon fodder to heavy and super efficient heavy tanks.

The easiest step - and probably the most controversial - would be including limits (like it was in the reality). King Tiger available? Sure, but limit it to 20 strength points available. This way a player can equip 2 fresh units, or add replacements to few damaged ones. StuG IIIG could have 100 strength points available at the same time.
Limit the amount of units that can be bought during one turn.
Hi-end units still way too efficient? Limit their mobility, limit ammo.

Another idea that just came to my mind - amend formulas. It can't it be that Iosif Stalin jumps into river and kills AT unit that is on the other side (e.g. Hetzer). This is just wrong.

[HBalck]

I will bring all the variants in my next upcomming mod for the european theater at Oktober 2011 - Believe me I have all variants in 3D - also the typs with french chassis.

H.Balck

[TheGrayMouser]

First step of "fixing" StuGs:
- get their stats to the real power they should have (according to a paper); it has been mentioned by impar and other people that StuGs have lowered HA - why not fix it first?
"But they were without turret" is not an argument, as they are already in a handicapped AT group;

Second step:
- this is actually harder; something should be done with the hi-end units like IS-2, King Tiger, that would limit their numbers;
It is not only StuG that is weak, it applies to many other units. Light tanks, medium tanks - all are cannon fodder to heavy and super efficient heavy tanks.

The easiest step - and probably the most controversial - would be including limits (like it was in the reality). King Tiger available? Sure, but limit it to 20 strength points available. This way a player can equip 2 fresh units, or add replacements to few damaged ones. StuG IIIG could have 100 strength points available at the same time.
Limit the amount of units that can be bought during one turn.
Hi-end units still way too efficient? Limit their mobility, limit ammo.

Another idea that just came to my mind - amend formulas. It can't it be that Iosif Stalin jumps into river and kills AT unit that is on the other side (e.g. Hetzer). This is just wrong.

Some good ideas there. Something I was thinking about (as i really at heart am against limiting core slots for high end equipment ) is maybe do something like Steel panthers ( and it was an option too) : assign a rarity factor to certain units. So , a tiger tank might be given a value of two for the campaign where the game engine states likly you shouldnt have more than two tigers in your core. So if you chose to purchase a 3rd you CAN but the cost is base x150%, a 4th base x 250% or something like that. Common equipment like mark 3's, 4 f's might have slight or no rarity factor. A good thing about such an option, is if part way thru you want to maybe bypass this limitation, just use the cheat code to add in some free $ to get that unit you want

[edahl1980]

I love how people complained about Bagration because Soviet had so many IS2's
While they themself fielded King Tigers only.

Increase cost on King Tiger.

[ffl310]

Just one post on this subject

Stugs were used exstensivley in the later part of the war by both the Heer and the Waffen SS in place of tanks
As early as 42.

Many Panzergrenadier divisions "panzer regiments" were actually composed entirely of stugs and at least 1-2 battalions of the late war Panzer Brigades were stug equipped.

This was done due to their ease of contruction,,(a little known fact was that some of the "armor" on the front of one model was actually formed concrete,I forget which one ,but I'll look it up in one of my books if somone wants to know)

Late G models.

So the stugs should be made a priority,,how I'unsure ,,without disrupting game play.

YES YES YES

Marder(s) were used defensivley and usally fired from a concealed ambush position and with infantry support.
YES

Their doctrine was to fire once or twice from a distance and then displace to a new prepared firing postion (I have often wondered if NATO'S Cold War AT doctrine had been contrived from this practice),,thus the high rate of speed and almost a total lack of armor protection. (a .50 cal could penetrate the armor).

They could be used in the DCL as aux. units or as available as core in a defensive orieneted campaign and given a high range value

They were crash program to get bigger guns to stop russians tanks. So when in 42 the main tank pzIII had still a short 50mm, you already had Marder with Pak38 Long barrel 50 or captured russian 76. When the J came with the 50mmL60, Marders and Stug had 75mm long barrels. etc.
Most of the time they had the most punch. Not the Tanks. Then 1943 came and the PzIV G series filled the gap.
Stugs IIIG took part of Citadel. They were just less photographed by the KP photographers and history only remember the Elephant and it's failure.


For the game :
Stug F/8 and G should be almost equal with PzIVF/G.
For the Marder series... How to replicate the Ambush/Retreat doctrine ? Quite hard with the game philosophy.

First post. Terrific game

[Kerensky]

New stats for StuGs and Marders have gone into preliminary testing, thanks everyone for your input and information.

[skarczew]

Stugs IIIG took part of Citadel. They were just less photographed by the KP photographers and history only remember the Elephant and it's failure.

Actually, I highly doubt about the myth "Elephant's failure".

When used properly (as a tank killer, given the support it should have), it was a very deadly machine. Kill : loss ratio against enemy armored vehicles only support this thesis .

[Molve]

I love how people complained about Bagration because Soviet had so many IS2's
While they themself fielded King Tigers only.

I think that is because they fielded the King Tigers expecting to totally dominate the field. Having the opposition field almost nothing but IS-2 diminishes that feeling.

Remember: this game is much about the fantasy of a power trip; not so much about actual history.

[skarczew]

Remember: this game is much about the fantasy of a power trip; not so much about actual history.

But it is boring when all that you have to do is spamming some "best available" unit. If I would want to do it, I would play some mouse-killer RTS game.

Even chess have only one very best "unit". Half of "units" are the weakest ones.

[Ryben]

For the Marder series... How to replicate the Ambush/Retreat doctrine ? Quite hard with the game philosophy.

Not sure if this could be modelled in the current engine but a solution could be giving them a very high initiative value if attacked by other units, but lowering dreatically if you are using them offensively.

This could reflect the fact that Marders and such were succesfully employed in defence (firing from prepared positions and laying ambushes) but were disastrous if trying to use them as a tank in offensive maneuvers.