Move and Fire Realism

OV-10Bronco · Post by **OV-10Bronco** » Wed Jun 04, 2003 10:15 pm

The ability of a tank to move its full movement allotment and then fire a slightly reduced number of rounds from the main gun seems unrealistic and rewards unrealistic tactics. For example, if the tank remains stationary it can fire five rounds from the main gun. This would represent the crew working as fast as they can to load and accurately fire the main gun for the 2-5 min. one turn simulates. Moving the full movement allowance would represent driving the tank at the maximum safe speed for the same 2-5 min. However, the game allows the tank to move its full movement allowance and then fire three rounds. I read on this forum this represents the tank moving, stopping to fire a round, and then moving some more. Tanks are heavy and relatively underpowered. A 50 ton tank with a 500 hp engine would accelerate like a 2000 lb car with a 10 hp lawnmower engine. To move, stop, fire, and move would significantly reduce the distance you can move in a given amount of time. Shooting a non stabalized main gun while moving would have no accuracy and was almost never done even by American tanks with stabalization. In areas of possible hostile fire tank units in WWII used the move-overwatch-move tactic. A 4 tank platoon would move 2 of its tanks while the other 2 were stationary and ready to fire, then the process would reverse. Because of the ability to move and fire with a relatively low penalty in rate of fire and accuracy this realistic tactic is not required in SPWAW. Anyway that's what I think, what do you all think?

rbrunsman · Post by **rbrunsman** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 2:11 am

I think if it was made more realistic it would greatly favor the stationary player. You would get "meeting engagements" where neither side wants to move. Since SPWAW favors the aggressor, you get more bang for your buck and the games are much more exciting.

OV-10Bronco · Post by **OV-10Bronco** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 9:03 pm

Probably would slow the advance some. SP1 allowed you to fire your 5 shots, then move your full movement allowance; SPWAW cuts your movement for each shot you fire before you move. This is more realistic and did not destroy the dynamics of the game. Subtracting more shots for movement would increase realism and IMHO not give huge advantage to the defense. Ultimately we play simulations because they are simulations and not just games. Currently I can take my Tiger 1 and fire 4 shots without moving, or I can move the full movement allowance and then fire 3 shots with a reasonable probability of hit on the third shot, this just isn't realistic.

rbrunsman · Post by **rbrunsman** » Thu Jun 05, 2003 11:35 pm

Well, I can't agrue with you on that fact.

Panzer Leo · Post by **Panzer Leo** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 12:51 am

Keep in mind, that the whole turn thing is very abstract and difficult to handle. The opportunity fire in the opponents turn are also shots made in "your" turn of 2-5 minutes.
So a tank can fire up to 8 or 9 times during these 2-5 minutes, sometimes even more. A vehicle that moved looses a lot of this opportunity fire...you will see the number of shots go down drastically...

Also I think, that firing the 3rd shot with a good to hit chance is very realistic. None of the shots you take is considered to be on the move...all are taken with a halted vehicle...the ones after moving are just much more hasty and not as well planned as the ones before moving, but a normal gunner should be able to get some good results after watching two rounds being fired...

just my 2 cents

rbrunsman · Post by **rbrunsman** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 2:32 am

Originally posted by Panzer Leo
just my 2 cents

What would YOU know about it?:rolleyes:

VikingNo2 · Post by **VikingNo2** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 4:17 am

RB has not changed I see :rolleyes:

Orzel Bialy · Post by **Orzel Bialy** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 4:20 am

haven't seen a post from you in a long while...glad to see you back!

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 5:46 am

If I remember correctly, and most folks my age aren't real good at that, we addressed this issue during development.

If Mike or Tom see this, they can correct me if I'm wrong. It was decided that the coding takes would take away from the accuracy of the fire the further you move. Also notice that when you do move, stop and fire, you lose some move points.

In a turn based game that would appear to be the best way to handle it.

So to answer your question, Bronco, you might check on this and see if you can detect a lack of accuracy in your firing if you move compared to firing while sitting still.

I'm quite sure I'm right on this one but a little testing to prove it would be in order.

Grenadier · Post by **Grenadier** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 7:49 pm

The more you move the fewer and less accurate your shots are. Look at the hit percentages before and after moving after selecting a target. Tyhe Kunel still has it:)

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 9:50 pm

Grateful for that, Grenadier! If you want to know, this man knows. He wrote the manual for SPWAW. He should. What a great piece of work that is...though it added a touch of gray to his hair. Looks distinguished though, sort of Charles Coburnish

The silver gray Kunel

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:19 pm

Question about your name OV-10 Bronco...

What is an OV-10 Bronco?

Because here in the Philippines they designate these planes as OV-10 Bronco "Bombers" Are they really such?

Or are they (gasp) really improvised crop dusters (hence there's a sort of a bomb bay?)

Not mch of an air force here anyways, for those wishing to invade, there's exactly !5! 1950s era F-5 freedoms in various sad states, a bunch of OV-10s, a helluva a lot of Hueys and some huey and boeing gunships (w/ chinese made free-fire rockets)

Hehehe

Hades · Post by **Hades** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 6:24 am

I think they are COIN airplanes from Vietnam.

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 5:55 pm

COIN? Sorry for my ignorance but what does that stand for?

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 6:38 pm

COunter INsurgency, afaik

Voriax

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 6:44 pm

Ah ok, that's nice... so it really is an army plane used for war? Did it ever drop bombs? Napalm or otherwise in the vietnam war?

DerC · Post by **DerC** » Sun Jun 08, 2003 7:01 pm

Hi, here are two sites about the OV-10 Bronco. It seems to be quite a versatile aircraft.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/ov-10.htm
and
http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/fov10.asp

OV-10Bronco · Post by **OV-10Bronco** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 6:35 pm

I appreciate the response. A comment from W.B. , kind of like the 4 star Gen. commenting on something the Lt. wrote. Several good points Leo. I didn't realize your op fire was cut by movement. I also agree 3rd shot accuracy should be pretty good. Yes, there is an accuracy penalty of approx. 50% for fire after full movement. You state that all shots are considered to be from a stop. This gets to my main point, if my Tiger can fire 4 shots without moving, or move its full movement allowance and still fire 3 shots from a full stop, the shot penalty for movement is not eneough. Full movement should result in no shots execept for possibly a reduced number of op fire shots. Something does not compute.

P.S. I will answer Vetkin's what is a Bronco question with another thread.

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 6:36 pm

PLease do, thanks

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 7:23 pm

Thanks, OV. The question is a good one and I appreciate your thought.

You have a good point about a Tiger movement and fire or any tank for that matter.

Gyroscopes at the end of the war helped solve this problem but the likelihood of a hit while on the move was very unlikely.

Still, I can only imagine the feeling of panic while under duress and a tank scooting and shooting instead of shooting and scooting!

Only a tanker would understand that kind of pressure that would force him to fire while "getting out of Dodge" or even "into Dodge."

WB