Forums

This is not really an observation new to me. But just one I thought I would pass on to the rest of you, And see what your thoughts are on it.

In the game practically all SP (Turretless) guns (ISU-122's,Jagdpather's ect.) have a firing cost of 50 points. The cost is the same regardless of ammo size and other factors that might weigh in to how much more effective one type of SP wapon system may have been getting and actual projectile to strike it's target. However given the scale of the CS game, I don't see any problem with firing cost as they are for all SP weapon systems.

My observation and concern even with the scale of the CS game is when we compare firing cost of tanks like the Russian IS-2 tank and say a American Sherman tank. The IS-2 tank has a firing cost of 45 points and the Sherman's is 35 points. Now I for one am perfectly fine with the IS-2's firing cost. It certainly seems fair and logical given the firing cost of SP weapon systems. But I kinda got scratch my head when I see that an IS-2 tanks firing cost is only 28.5% greater than that of a tank like the Sherman and several other types that don't really need to be mentioned at the moment.

Case in point: The IS-2 tanks did not have a power traverse turret system like the Sherman and most other US/UK tanks. The IS-2's had to load a much larger and heavier round than would a Sherman having to load say a 75mm or 76mm round. The gun optics used by the IS-2's were not really all that great and the optics used in a tank like the Sherman or a Hellcat TD were in all likelyhood a bit better at pin pointing and hitting another target like an enemy tank. The IS-2's only carried 28 rounds of ammunition versus 104 rounds for a 75mm Sherman and 71 rounds for a 76mm armed Sherman. This stands out as there were alot more rounds available for a Sherman to fire off making it not as neccassary for it to conserve it's ammo trying to hit it's target. The IS-2 gun wasn't as well balanced a design as was found with the Sherman models and in addition it had alot more recoil and muzzle blast that could partially cloud it's vision for a follow on shot than would be the case for a Sherman. So my point is this. If the IS-2 tanks firing cost is 45 points, And I think thats fine. Than have tanks like the Sherman been given a proper firing cost of 35 points?.
What a particular round does to a target once it hits it is one thing. And we all know what kind of damage a 122mm shot will do to it's target if it hits versus a smaller shot. My point/observation is that in all likelyhood a much lighter 75mm, 76mm or even 90mm rounds fired from a platform set up with power traverse turret and better optics would get off or have better than a 28.5% chance to strike it's target in the same time frame.

Presumably its all taken account of in the firepower value.

Otherwise you are left with the farcical situation of having to set new AP costs for every type of gun calibre and fire rate. For example, a lot of what you said would equally apply to, say, an M16 qud .50cal which could just hose down its target and keep pouring in the bursts. Or a German 20mm armed armoured car firing five round bursts....should it have an AP cost of 20?

50 points means you can't move and fire twice. That makes sense for SPGs. 45 points means its very hard to fire twice and move, but it can be done....more usual to move and fire once though. That makes sense for slow firers. 35 points means you can fire twice and still (depending on your speed) move a reasonable distance. It all works pretty well in my estimation. I think the nitty gritty of power traverse, optics, reload times are part of the wealth of factors that go into that one overall elegantly simple firepower value.

McIvan, Thanks for your response and well put explanation. I looked it over a bit more closely regarding fire power values ( in particlarly with the IS-2 tanks ), And did see a dramatic drop off in HA attack values as the ranges increased beyond 4 hexes. Something you don't see nearly as dramatic as with say a Panther or Sherman tank. Original designers did their research well.