Stug3G question, and some others. -1 reply

Please wait...

[11PzG]matyast

[11PzG] clan leader

50 XP

5th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,175 Posts

0 Threads

#11 16 years ago

I think the StuG IV was a generally improved version on a panzer IV chassis...




the_unborn

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

3rd November 2003

0 Uploads

219 Posts

0 Threads

#12 16 years ago

Stug IV came out when allies bombed and destroyed factory where Panzer III's were produced. So they modified plans a bit and made Stugs from Pz IV's insted of Pz III's.




[11PzG]matyast

[11PzG] clan leader

50 XP

5th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,175 Posts

0 Threads

#13 16 years ago

Not really....it was already planned to put the successfull design on a better chasis...it kinda makes sence...




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

29th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#14 16 years ago

Driver, yeah... same with oncoming infantry, even on flat ground. Gotta "rock" the thing by moving forward a bit and then stop, to swing to nose down. And even that is very much hit and miss.

Beast of War, yeah, I about 8000 of those were StuG III Gs. That's why I was disappointed when 0.5 had so few StuGs in it. Luckily 0.61 fixed that for the most part!

As for the StuG IV, it had the coaxial machine gun and and a remote-controlled AA machine gun the late type (Saukopf) III Gs also had. The remote-controlled AAMG (in late G models since Sept '44) was controlled from inside the tank. This would be nice for StuG gameplay, when the machinegunner wouldn't be in constant danger of being shot by infantry. Also if driving alone, you could jump to the MG controls to kill the infantry without getting shot yourself and the StuG ending up in enemy hands, in case the coaxial machine couldn't be aimed low enough. So like I've suggested before, put in either a late-type StuG III G or a StuG IV. They would be a nice addition, and wouldn't require much work to implement! As a note, the IV had more frontal armor, but also didn't look as nice ;)




shrinerr

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

1st October 2003

0 Uploads

1,258 Posts

0 Threads

#15 16 years ago

Is the Stug3G's ammo a realistic number? I tend to run out rather quickly, like wise with the IS2.




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

29th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#16 16 years ago

Yeah, the StuG III G's standard loadout was just 54 rounds. Of course crews could sometimes load in a little extra, piling them to the floor and so on. But if you run out of ammo, well... never happened to me! Guess I'm just not good enough since haven't survived that long :D

The IS-2 was infamous for its low ammo load, as well as slow firing speed. Those were the two main drawbacks of that tank.




shrinerr

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

1st October 2003

0 Uploads

1,258 Posts

0 Threads

#17 16 years ago

Yes and the IS2's drawbacks are represented well in FH.




Ohioan

Not Wise Shitashi - Cheston

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,604 Posts

0 Threads

#18 16 years ago

Roger. The King Tiger's drawbacks seem to be completely forgotten though. Like the horrid quality of the armor, the mechanical failure.. it's as uber a tank as you can get in FH and that just isn't right. If the IS-2 has to suffer from its disadvantages, it's only fair the the KT needs to suffer from its disadvantages as well. I don't know how you'd make mechanical failure a factor (increased respawn time? roll down hills easy?) but armor quality dosen't take a leap of imagination to code.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#19 16 years ago

Im thinking that if you lowered the nose and raised the tail of the Stug then there would be more chances of a roof armor shot. That might become problematic.




shrinerr

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

1st October 2003

0 Uploads

1,258 Posts

0 Threads

#20 16 years ago

Yes, thats a good point Ohioan. The KT's drawbacks can't be represent unless they are like ammo and weak spots etc.