raptor34

Proposal - Increased reload times for single man turreted tanks

29 posts in this topic

Proposal: Increase the reload times for single man turrets to better simulate the difficulty of commanding, aiming, firing, and finally reloading the main gun. French armour, in particular, suffers from this design choice; while it did lower the size and crew compliment of the vehicle in question it also had major drawbacks in regards to combat efficiency. 

Current reload times for the S-35, H39, and R35 are all around 4 seconds. I would suggest that this be doubled to around 8-9 seconds per shot to simulate the commander firing, reaching down to grab a shell, reloading it, and then returning to the gun sight. This would place WW2OLs reload times inline with what Warthunder has regarding single man turreted French tanks, which according to its developers is to simulate the same thing. I am still researching the topic for more hard data and I would invite anyone here with information on the topic to comment. @jwilly

This change would also help address a common complaint of axis tankers that French armour does not suffer any of the consequences of the single turret design that it did historically, giving early French armour a higher than historical advantage; this would address this to some degree. The armour affected by this change would be the following: R35, H39, S-35, Char B1 bis.

In line with this change, all armour reload times should be reviewed to ensure simulation consistency. Please discuss, 

Cheers!

(Red Orchestra 2 had a quite well done reload animation for the single man turreted T-70 light tank that visually shows some of the difficulty that the gun operator would have faced, for example, having to leave the gunsight to reload each round)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some reload times were changed not that long ago.

Personally I don't see the need to make the French tanks slower at reloading. Allied tankers would counter with "make tiger turret as slow as it should be" - personally I like the faster tiger turret speed and would not want that to be "fixed" when the French early tier tanks get their reload speeds fixed.

I wish more people would post things that would help make the game more enjoyable and increase player numbers, rather than focusing on curtailing one side or another's perceived advantage. I don't argue that the reloading is too fast historically, but really, how will doubling the reload speed get more subscribers?

IMHO any/all changes need to bring either more players to the game, or get existing players playing for longer right now. Any change just for the sake of greater historical accuracy and to hell with its effect on player participation is just another self-inflicted wound.

S! Ian

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, ian77 said:

Personally I don't see the need to make the French tanks slower at reloading. Allied tankers would counter with "make tiger turret as slow as it should be" - personally I like the faster tiger turret speed and would not want that to be "fixed" when the French early tier tanks get their reload speeds fixed.

There is nothing to fix
It is already faster than hand cranking it, and slower than running the engine at max recommended rpms.

R35 S35 B1 and H39 by the way did get reload increases
checking vs an old version of the game, they used to be about 2.5 seconds
which was too fast.

If we could make you look away from the gunsight while reloading, we probably would, if for no other reason cause it is the real way it would happen
but i dont think we can make any of them do that right now.

And if it was easy, we'd eliminate having to use the phantom crew 2 for the cuppola view also

Edited by Merlin51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, raptor34 said:

Proposal: Increase the reload times for single man turrets to better simulate the difficulty of commanding, aiming, firing, and finally reloading the main gun. French armour, in particular, suffers from this design choice; while it did lower the size and crew compliment of the vehicle in question it also had major drawbacks in regards to combat efficiency. 

Current reload times for the S-35, H39, and R35 are all around 4 seconds. I would suggest that this be doubled to around 8-9 seconds per shot to simulate the commander firing, reaching down to grab a shell, reloading it, and then returning to the gun sight. This would place WW2OLs reload times inline with what Warthunder has regarding single man turreted French tanks, which according to its developers is to simulate the same thing. I am still researching the topic for more hard data and I would invite anyone here with information on the topic to comment. @jwilly

This change would also help address a common complaint of axis tankers that French armour does not suffer any of the consequences of the single turret design that it did historically, giving early French armour a higher than historical advantage; this would address this to some degree. The armour affected by this change would be the following: R35, H39, S-35, Char B1 bis.

In line with this change, all armour reload times should be reviewed to ensure simulation consistency. Please discuss, 

Cheers!

(Red Orchestra 2 had a quite well done reload animation for the single man turreted T-70 light tank that visually shows some of the difficulty that the gun operator would have faced, for example, having to leave the gunsight to reload each round)

Why?.........you want to play against AI?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bmw said:

Why?.........you want to play against AI?

I'm Allied so I don't think there is a concern there ;)

@ian77 The intent of this proposal is part of an effort to model all units with the greatest accuracy possible within the limitations of the engine. Part of this is in line with the historical TOE, the axis have less well-armoured tanks and few to no tanks in their infantry brigades but French tanks have a realistic limitation based on the difficulty in operating a one-man turret.

@Merlin51 Ideally an internally modelled crew visual with movement would help here. Something for 2.0 I guess. Although it could also be modelled by blacking out the sight while reloading. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, raptor34 said:

I'm Allied so I don't think there is a concern there ;)

@ian77 The intent of this proposal is part of an effort to model all units with the greatest accuracy possible within the limitations of the engine. Part of this is in line with the historical TOE, the axis have less well-armoured tanks and few to no tanks in their infantry brigades but French tanks have a realistic limitation based on the difficulty in operating a one-man turret.

@Merlin51 Ideally an internally modelled crew visual with movement would help here. Something for 2.0 I guess. Although it could also be modelled by blacking out the sight while reloading. 

 

I am not disagreeing with you regarding the turret speed and difficulty for the one man turret crew to spot, acquire, train, fire, reload, and watch the fall of shot. You are right, and it would be more realistic to implement your suggestion. BUT, IMHO the game just does not need another adjustment towards realism right now that is only going to dishearten more players than it will please. I think any implemented changes should first and foremost have to answer the question "will this reduce the number of people paying subscriptions and reduce the number of people logging in to the game?" If the answer is "yes" then for the time being  it should not be implemented.

Now, for the future when we hopefully have some numbers playing again post 1.36, and including the needed optics fix as Bmbm points out, that seems far more sensible and likely to have a greater acceptance and welcome from the playerbase - that said, side chat will still be full of "OMG CRS hates allies they nerfed our reload speed and that stug shot me three times while I was reloading" etc etc.

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All.

In relation to the issues with the French Single Man Turret design, I only have only one problem with the current implementation. In-game NOW it is possible for the affected French vehicles to fire the main gun, reload the main gun, fire the co-axial mg, reload the co-axial mg and traverse the turret to locate the next target "at the same time". Even the typical 3 man turrets would have difficulty completing those tasks "at the same time". I don't feel increasing the reloading times adequately represented the issue inherent in the single man turret design. An interesting little piece of information, the S35 actually has 3 crewmen. Driver, Commander/gunner and radio operator/purveyor . In the vehicle the purveyor (observer) sits to the left of the Driver. Believe it or not. . . !

The functions in question:
* Traverse the turret to seek new targets, Fire the main gun / co-axial mg.
* Reload the Main gun.
* Reload the mg.

A Solution:
For single man turrets;
Limit the Commander/gunner to being able to preform a single function. This would require the setting up of suitable keyboard commands to initiate the reloading of the main gun or the mg. This function would no longer automatically occur and would temporarily move the player to an internal view for the duration of the reloading process. It would also halt turret traverse/elevation changes that may be in progress at the time.

For multi-man turrets;
Make the reloading of the main gun and the mg sequential (player defined - default = main first). If the Loader is killed the reload times for both the main and mg's should be extremely long (obnoxiously so even). In actuality I do feel if the vehicles loader was killed, the vehicle in question would actively seek to disengage rather than be posthumous recipients of their countries bravery awards.

This has been an issue that has been around for quite a long time. Just because it has been incorrect for a long time, doesn't make it any less incorrect.

Cheers
James10

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, james10 said:

Hello All.

In relation to the issues with the French Single Man Turret design, I only have only one problem with the current implementation. In-game NOW it is possible for the affected French vehicles to fire the main gun, reload the main gun, fire the co-axial mg, reload the co-axial mg and traverse the turret to locate the next target "at the same time". Even the typical 3 man turrets would have difficulty completing those tasks "at the same time". I don't feel increasing the reloading times adequately represented the issue inherent in the single man turret design. An interesting little piece of information, the S35 actually has 3 crewmen. Driver, Commander/gunner and radio operator/purveyor . In the vehicle the purveyor (observer) sits to the left of the Driver. Believe it or not. . . !

The functions in question:
* Traverse the turret to seek new targets, Fire the main gun / co-axial mg.
* Reload the Main gun.
* Reload the mg.

A Solution:
For single man turrets;
Limit the Commander/gunner to being able to preform a single function. This would require the setting up of suitable keyboard commands to initiate the reloading of the main gun or the mg. This function would no longer automatically occur and would temporarily move the player to an internal view for the duration of the reloading process. It would also halt turret traverse/elevation changes that may be in progress at the time.

For multi-man turrets;
Make the reloading of the main gun and the mg sequential (player defined - default = main first). If the Loader is killed the reload times for both the main and mg's should be extremely long (obnoxiously so even). In actuality I do feel if the vehicles loader was killed, the vehicle in question would actively seek to disengage rather than be posthumous recipients of their countries bravery awards.

This has been an issue that has been around for quite a long time. Just because it has been incorrect for a long time, doesn't make it any less incorrect.

Cheers
James10

5

Very valid points as well; I thought about including some of these but I decided to focus on the simple fix first, the reload time alone. 

Having crewmen killed should absolutely affect the operation of the tank, full stop. 

"This has been an issue that has been around for quite a long time. Just because it has been incorrect for a long time, doesn't make it any less incorrect." Agree fully.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ian77 Thank you for taking the time to make a constructive reply at least, unlike some others. I hear your concerns. Though I am personally not sure there is ever a good time to make changes like this, which while required for simulation, will be unpopular with someone somewhere. I'd argue to roll it into the armour audit then, post 1.36 launch.

Where we can both fully agree I'm sure is communication. As CRS gets around to fixing and updating old issues (like the LMG) there is bound to be a response by some in the community who view it as a threat. If the valid historical reasons for the change are well laid out, communicated in the patch notes, the in-game unit manual, and on the side chat, then maybe CRS can get ahead of the negative press. And we as players are also responsible for combatting some of the really negative side chat as well.

@BMBM Awesome post in regard to the episcopes, I learned something new today. Would be great to see that modelled correctly someday soon!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Just because it has been incorrect for a long time, doesn't make it any less incorrect"      - no disagreement, but, you do want this game to continue? You do realise that it is a game and not a 1940 French Tank sim?

 

"Just because it has been incorrect for a long time", does not mean it has to be changed

 

And I am sure that your keyboard command will be as successful as the keyboard commands for the Havoc/DB7 having to switch to their number two position to drop bombs. Yes is will screw casual players, but those using the equipment will soon marco the solution.

 

Please worry about stuff that can help get more people to play, and not things that will IMHO just lead to even fewer active players.

 

S! Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to fix the LMGs, need to fix the tanks.  All for limitations for 1 man turret tanks - should have been in from the start.

And get correct reload speeds in -for all units.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Ian, how are you?

7 minutes ago, ian77 said:

"Just because it has been incorrect for a long time, doesn't make it any less incorrect"      - no disagreement, but, you do want this game to continue? You do realise that it is a game and not a 1940 French Tank sim?

 

"Just because it has been incorrect for a long time", does not mean it has to be changed

 

And I am sure that your keyboard command will be as successful as the keyboard commands for the Havoc/DB7 having to switch to their number two position to drop bombs. Yes is will screw casual players, but those using the equipment will soon marco the solution.

 

Please worry about stuff that can help get more people to play, and not things that will IMHO just lead to even fewer active players.

 

S! Ian

I am aware this game is not a 1940 French Tank sim. It, as far as I'm aware, aspires to be a Military Grade Combined Arms Combat Simulation on the Western Front from 1940 - 1945. I made suggestions to the way it could be changed to better represent the outright design flaw suffered by most French tanks. Although to be consistent with the apparent aspirations, then it probably should be changed. It really depends on what this game is.

The keyboard commands would provide the same functionality regardless of any macros setup. The purpose is to prevent the performance of functions, that for the single man turret were impossible to do simultaneously. It did also include a revision in a similar area that the more common multi-man turrets in regards to the currently unimportant loader crewman.

I am wholly in favor of getting more people to play. It is a question of attracting the right players for this game. Who are they? Well maybe you can answer that one.

Cheers
James10

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ian77 I am also aware that the game is more than 1940 French Tank sim; it is, however, the only 1940 French Tank sim as far as I am aware. More importantly, as james10 said, I treat WW2OL as a combined arms simulation first and foremost - that is the starting point I work from in regards to any gameplay issue. This isn't saying I don't understand certain gameplay related compromises and issues, I'm only trying to point out another thing that could be improved as far as our simulation goes. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, bugs and stuff that can be improved are dealt with: in due turn; as time allows; without bias. Last year we processed a great quantity of legacy bugs/issues of greater or lesser magnitude, from blocked TT gangways and PzII TC/gunner view disparity to missing Churchill interiors, gun shields and collider issues. This particular nonfeature (missing episcopes) is certainly one of the oldest and most debilitating, and I’ll be taking care of it as soon as current critical tasks are finished.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am for any/all fixes that take the game towards more historical accuracy.  As always, the goal should be (my opinion):  Give the players accurately modeled equipment, in accurate spawn ratios (with allowances made for stand-in vehicles/weapons), and let the players decide the outcome.

 

I do not believe increasing the load time on applicable French tanks would decrease Allied numbers---and I do not believe that game development decisions on fixes of inaccurate models should be made only if CRS thinks the community will be in favor of it.  This game is not COD, or Post Scriptum, or any other pretender to the crown of most realistic WWII wargame.  As such every effort should be made to continue and improve upon that which sets this game apart from the rest:  No battle-size limitations, and historically accurate performance models.

 

Allied tankers rolling in R35s and Chars know we're getting into the slowest, least likely to kill enemy tank, tanks in-game.  If they've been playing under the illusion that these tanks match up well with german tanks, slowing down the reload times won't convince them otherwise, and if they are of the mind to leave because these tanks don't match up to the panzers very well, odds are they are already long gone from the game.

 

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, augetout said:

I am for any/all fixes that take the game towards more historical accuracy.  As always, the goal should be (my opinion):  Give the players accurately modeled equipment, in accurate spawn ratios (with allowances made for stand-in vehicles/weapons), and let the players decide the outcome.

 

I do not believe increasing the load time on applicable French tanks would decrease Allied numbers---and I do not believe that game development decisions on fixes of inaccurate models should be made only if CRS thinks the community will be in favor of it.  This game is not COD, or Post Scriptum, or any other pretender to the crown of most realistic WWII wargame.  As such every effort should be made to continue and improve upon that which sets this game apart from the rest:  No battle-size limitations, and historically accurate performance models.

 

Allied tankers rolling in R35s and Chars know we're getting into the slowest, least likely to kill enemy tank, tanks in-game.  If they've been playing under the illusion that these tanks match up well with german tanks, slowing down the reload times won't convince them otherwise, and if they are of the mind to leave because these tanks don't match up to the panzers very well, odds are they are already long gone from the game.

 

S!

My thoughts exactly, well said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 9:07 PM, raptor34 said:

I am still researching the topic for more hard data and I would invite anyone here with information on the topic to comment. @jwilly

No quantitative reload timing info here. Pachy or one of the other early-days France-forces researchers might have something.

We however do know that S35s out-fought the mixed German tanks arrayed against them at Hannut, in a relatively set-piece battle where the Germans maneuvered to get flank shots and the French mostly were stationary.

Per that battle result and other 1940 history, I don't agree with the proposed remedy. I would like to see various tank realism fixes, affecting both sides, but only as a set all at once...not one or a few individually.

Reloading in the S and B tanks consisted of the commander/gunner, while keeping his sight picture to maintain SA of the last-shot target, opening the breech which ejected the fired shell onto the tank floor, then holding downward his open hand and calling out the desired 47mm shell type. The radioman/shell handler was ready for this, and slapped the next shell into the commander's hand in the correct orientation. A 47mm shell can be grasped with one hand and brought to the breech. Just as I can go back and forth between the keyboard, the mouse and my beverage while keeping my eyes on the screen, the commander then would load the shell and lock the breech without having to watch it, by practiced knowledge of the necessary geometry. 

The shortcomings of this sequence were not reload speed or loss of sight image. They were the inability of the commander/gunner, while reloading, to be looking through his scopes to maintain SA outside of the gunsight field of view, and his inability to either turn the turret or change the gun elevation, to follow the current target if it moved or to acquire the next target.

(The commander also was likely unable to reload while the tank was jouncing due to offroad movement. That however wasn't particular to one man turrets. No one, including separate loaders in three man turrets, could safely load a WWII tank moving cross-country. You really didn't want to drop a live shell in a tank, or bang the fuze against the gun or some other hardware in the turret.)

Reloading in an H tank was similar, but the shell handler was the driver, who couldn't simultaneously drive. The commander/gunner had the same limitations as above.

Note that the PzKpfW II also had a one man turret, with the radio operator acting in this case as the magazine handler. Because removing the empty magazine, exchanging it with the radio operator for a full (10 round, ~15 pound) one and loading that full magazine within the tight volume of the turret was more difficult, the PzKpfW II commander/gunner could not simultaneously maintain the sight view, nor could he aim the gun or maintain his external SA.

Two-man-turret tanks had reloading issues too--whoever was handling the ordnance couldn't be simultaneously doing something else requiring vision or full attention. That included the PzKpfW 38(t) and the Vickers Mark VI. I believe both the B and C models' heavy MGs used magazine feeds, not belts. In any case, their reload process only applied when their full-auto guns emptied their ammo supply, but the subsequent reload process was more time-consuming.

 

 

Edited by jwilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jwilly said:

No quantitative reload timing info here. Pachy or one of the other early-days France-forces researchers might have something.

We however do know that S35s out-fought the mixed German tanks arrayed against them at Hannut, in a relatively set-piece battle where the Germans maneuvered to get flank shots and the French mostly were stationary.

Per that battle result and other 1940 history, I don't agree with the proposed remedy. I would like to see various tank realism fixes, affecting both sides, but only as a set all at once...not one or a few individually.

...

I agree, for everyone allies equipment audited, a similar and comparable axis unit should receive the same treatment. It's not bias to introduce some limitations to certain equipments, that's suppose to be the beauty of asymmetrical, that each side brings it's own strenghts and weaknesses. It should be attempted to remove all biases that don't match up with the equipment, given if a tank is using one man doing the jobs of 3 on other tanks, well that's just a weakness of the tank and should be noticed historically that hey, this tanks suffers from a cramped turret therefore it's reload speed is diminished to reflect as close to historical numbers as gameplay allows us, ya know before it starts becoming a drag. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that CRS 1.0 may have buffed out the S35's commander workload issues in return for the Germans getting a greater ratio of PzKpfW III, IV and 38(t) relative to PzKpfW II (also standing in for I), compared to actual history.

There are various ways to achieve balance. Design buffs vs. numbers is one that works, and over time has been popular with both sides.

Edited by jwilly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

line firing rate for a B1 or S35 is about 15 rounds per minute (Which is what is recently got reduced to from a lot faster)
that is the rate that all canons in game fire at.

As jwilly accurately notates, putting round in the gun was not the issue nor was keeping the sight picture, doing any other asppects of commanding the tank while playing gunner was, and artificially reducing the firing rate is not the answer.
If you want to do something to make the tank more correct, figuring a way to eliminate crew 2 position and allowing the turret commander
to move up and down with the same having to pic one thing or the other, somewhat like the pzIIc and pz38t do comes to mind.

There are things that inhibit firing rate, and not one single unit in game is saddled with those issues

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Merlin51 said:

that is the rate that all canons in game fire at. (...) There are things that inhibit firing rate, and not one single unit in game is saddled with those issues.

Ouch.

It's a game...check...but "all rates of fire the same" is too red = blue simplfied. Ditto for "not one single unit in game" and "things that inhibit firing rate".

S!

(As a minor input, the PzKpfW II gun should fire at the same rate as the FlaK 30 2.0 cm AA gun--two modes, semiautomatic or full auto--because...except for using a 10 round magazine instead of 20 because of limited space...it's the same gun.)

Edited by jwilly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tell ya, if the interiors were updated, the lighting accurate, and the crews modeled (like the early spitfire), then any and all included shortcomings would probably be forgiven by most folks who play this game; when you see whats going on, and so understand the why of it, its easier to accept. Would be hecka immersive. So sad can't be done any time soon, would be the ww2ol gaming dreams are made of. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.