Question for WWII Civ Buffs

[Caspian]

What do you think is the best way to represent Tank Destroyers / Assault Guns in a Civ Scenario? You know, vehicles such as the German Jagdpanzer IV and Soviet SU-122.

Should they have high attack and low defense factors to represent the large guns but poor performance in mobile battles due to limited traverse of weapon?

Alternatively they could have high defense and low attack stats to show that a destroyers best tactic is to hide in a hull down position and let enemy tanks come on to them.

What do you reckon?

[Pavlov]

High attack, low defence, low movement. Is this for that scenario from a German point of view?

[Caspian]

Well Pavlov, I had originally intended it to be an events driven, German only scenario. However, it seems like a good idea now to try and create a 3 player PBEM version. However, my head is so flooded with ideas at the moment, I'm abit overwhelmed in the implementaion area

[Caspian]

Oh, and thanks for your point of view on the tank destroyer question. Can I ask, why do you think this is the best way to represent thse weapons?

[Pavlov]

Uh well I want to use them like they were used on a tactical level (played too much Close Combat), attack quickly with a devastating round, then run for your life.

There's quite a difference between the Allies and the Axis of course. For example, the M10 and the SU series were thinly armoured and especially easy to kill from above. That means low defence. The Germans had those beasts Jagdpanzer and Ferdinand, two TD's I wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley.

3-player PBEM eh? Allies, Soviets and Germans I assume?

Edit: damm yuo, sppelink!

[Caspian]

Yes, that is the 3 civs that would be playable. The Soviets Counter attack at Stalingrad and try to deal the Germans a decisive blow before moving on Berlin. The Allies concentrate on the strategic boming campaign before launching their own assault in Europe. The Germans have to conduct a fighting withdrawal in the east, perhaps turning occasionaly to deal the Russians a bloody nose, while in the West do their best to stem the Allied bomber offensive. The ultimate aim is to hold of defeat until the secret weapons are developed which may turn the tide and or at least allow a stalemate to be reached.

[Pavlov]

It sure sounds interesting. Plus having only three players make the turns go faster.

I'll be waiting...

[Caspian]

LoL Pavlov, I hope you've got something warm to wear and maybe a couple of sandwiches to keep you going... It may be some wait

[Stefan Härtel]

Uh-oh, I used the "reply" instead of the "new thread" option
Sorry

[Dr. Nick]

Also, medium hit points and medium firepower (not quite like artillery in fire power, but just below probably).

[Caspian]

Thanks El Awrence. I have all the information now to use TD's

[kobayashi]

From a historical perspective, the Axis destroyers should have

lower attack

cause they couldn't traverse their guns and it is essential to do this when on the offensive. If it wasn't the case, they would have stopped making tanks with turrets altogether.

and higher defence.

The sloped frontal armour and lower profile makes them much more suited for defense. They also had higher calibre/diameter guns which could penetrate thicker frontal armour (but only if they were prepositioned properly)

lower cost

less parts and easier construction.

higher speed

they used the same engines as the equivalent tanks but weighed less.

[Caspian]

Oh dear kobayashi, that's just the opposite of what Pavlov said. Obviously Civ2 doesn't have the ability to properly distinguish TD's from tanks.

Well, I think I tend towards the high attack, low defense stats. I think that tank destroyers were more effective when they chose their own time to attack (whether it be sitting in a hull down position or advancing from the cover of a forest) and faired badly if the enemy had the initiative. The only way to represent this in Civ is to give the Attack stat priority. If the TD is attacked it has low defense, so you can consider this as a skillfull tank crew getting behind and out manouvering it. It's not perfect, but it seems logical enough for me.

[Boco]

Don't want to start a flame war, Caspian, but I'd place my vote with Kobe. He's summarizing a lot of good points. Note that he is talking about Axis TD's. Excepting the Marder and the Nashorn, they were more heavily armored than the tank built on the same chassis. They were built to be cheap defensive replacements for tanks, but were particularly unsuitable for attack against tanks.

Also, I wouldn't call SU-85's, SU-100's, and especially SU-122's thinly armored. You're right about the SU-76, though.

Any way you look at it, a turreted AFV is better able to maintain initiative on the attack than a hull mounted gun AFV. Otherwise, tanks would have disappeared 60 years ago. I know it's the traditional Civ approach to give tanks and arty high af's, but there's some good logic behind the tradition.

The tension created by the advent of Wunderwaffen sounds excellent.

[Case]

It's worth noting that US tank destroyers were intended for offencive uses. US doctrine called for using the M4-Shermans primarily as infantry support tanks, while the M-10s, 18s and 36s hunted down and destroyed any tanks which were spotted. As such, American tank destroyers tended to be fast and well armed, but were lightly armoured.

Hence, the best way to model American tank destroyers in a tactical level civ scenario is to give them high attack and movement points, but only low defencive points.

[techumseh]

This is always a difficult problem to simulate in any game, unless you are at the single vehicle level. Case is right, it's partly a matter of doctrine, ie. how the vehicle was used. US tank destroyers were lightly armoured, but heavily armed. They also had turrets. German and Soviet assault guns were generally heavily armoured and heavily armed, but didn't have turrets.

IMHO, an American tank destroyer could have one more attack factor than an equivalent tank, and one less defense. It should be slightly faster, as well.

A German or Soviet assault gun could have one higher attack and two higher defense factor than an equivalent tank, and a reduced movement factor. The reduced MF doesn't necessarily reflect a lower vehicle speed, but a reduced tactical manouverability due to the lack of a turret.

[Boco]

The old Panzer General games had a nice trick for this. TD's had high unit stats, according to their often superior armament and armor. However, whenever they attacked tanks, the tank automatically got the first shot. Tended to give tanks the upper hand. Can't do that in Civ2, since firing is always simultaneous.

The pikeman defensive bonus would be nice here if it weren't so far reaching: tanks have it and TD's fit the cavalry definition (1hp, >2m). Unfortunately, it isn't very practical. Forces a lot of units to be 1hp for parity's sake, a high price for many designers. Plus I wouldn't know how to assign mf's to 'noncav' tank units.

Tec's suggestions may be a good compromise to dealing with the limitations of the Civ2 combat engine. One key is using only slightly differing unit stats. The lower mf for Axis/Soviet TD's is as good a way as any to reflect the diminished attacking ability of these AFV's. Lowers their ability to move after a successful attack. His ideas can have the benefit of keeping TD's from becoming super weapons - a cure all offensive weapon for all occasions.

The key to success should be to reward a combined arms approach. Unit strengths and availability should be carefully managed to promote the use of multiple unit types in an assault and advance.

How are you going to handle the 'ignore city walls' flag? Giving it to infantry but not to most AFV's has been a good way to restore the value of infantry in an urban environment.

[Caspian]

Well, I think the hard and fast rule with regards to representing TD's is that there are no hard and fast rules. Each different vehicle will have to have different factors depending on the actual vehicle. However, I want to keep constant the historical truth that TD's were cheaper to build than the equivelent tank.

Now Boco...how dare you try to flame me.
I was originally thinking that a low defense factor would not represent poor armour but poor maneuvrability if attacked. Also low movement, not because of poor speed (the Hertzer was very manouverable I think) but to prevent the TD's from making multiple attacks and overunning enemy positions like tanks do, without being left in the open vulnerable to a counter blow. I guess I want TD's to have some offensive potential and not just be defensive.

To give infantry the edge in street fighting I thought I would use the well tested method of renaming city walls to tank defenses and give them negate city wall ability.

Thanks for the comment on the wonder weapons. For anyone who is interested, here is a thread that I started several months ago regarding this scenario http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...685#post921574

[Caspian]

While we're on this topic, I've seen nemo style graphics for nearly every german armoured vehicle except the Jagdpanther IV. Does anyone know if there is such a thing in existence?

[Caspian]

Oh, I've gone through the whole Graphics Show case thread already. Just incase anyone was thinking of trying