Certainly intended. Reading Glantz indicated all the issues the Soviets had with building an effective force all across the board. So, the initial artillery units have their disadvantages. The later iterations are are all available as the scenario progresses, as seen below [:)]Directive 21 scenario ... the net effect is going to make German infantry dramatically more effective at forcing Soviet units to retreat.
ORIGINAL: Lobster
Kind of. They could still set up an artillery piece and have the fire directed by an FO. It just has to be close to the action because the Soviets were short on radios and used wire.
ORIGINAL: Lobster
But that would be true of any guns included with any unit in any scenario wouldn't it? Unless it had a ranged symbol? I mean firing directly.
ORIGINAL: Lobster
Agreed. An artillery piece separated out has the same shell as an artillery piece included as part of a combined unit. What he says is shell weight isn't calculated unless it's bombarding. If it's part of a unit that does not use a ranged symbol that shell weight isn't used in the calculations because it isn't bombarding. And that is a problem if that is what is happening. So if that is correct you are correct in your statements. It should be fixed.
the designer has shown his preference that the unit be able to fire indirectly.
If the trajectory is not ballistic then there is no earth-churning of entrenchments - therefore no disentrenchment effect.ORIGINAL: Lobster
The easiest thing to do would be to make any equipment with the long range flag apply it's shell weight for AP regardless of what unit symbol is present unless it's artillery or HQ. A shell weighs the same whether it's fired directly or indirectly. And then you have to get into what exactly is direct fire. Just because a gun is not an infantry gun does not mean it isn't capable of direct fire. A 105mm howitzer is quite capable of killing a tank with direct fire. To fire any artillery in direct fire the barrel simply has to be suppressed enough.
The following is from the wiki and fairly describes the differences between direct fire and indirect fire. So direct fire can occur as far as a target can be observed regardless of the artillery short of a mortar. If a target can be observed but there's also a FO is it direct fire? If a gun crew can see a target but it's fairly far off and a guy next to the gun pit has binoculars and is giving correcting information is he a FO?
Keeping it simple is best. Just use the shell weight regardless of the unit's symbol when artillery is involved vs soft targets except for HQ and artillery symbols. Having artillery in a unit with a non artillery symbol implies direct fire but the shell weight is used to resolve combat. Since HQ are treated differently regarding artillery there's no need to change that. Just leave it as is.
Wiki:
Direct fire refers to firing of a ranged weapon whose projectile is launched directly at a target within the line-of-sight of the user. The firing weapon must have a sighting device and an unobstructed view to the target, which means no obstacles or friendly units can be between it and the target. A weapon engaged in direct fire conversely exposes itself to direct return fire from the target.
This is in contrast to indirect fire, which refers to firing a projectile on a curved ballistic trajectory or delivering self-accelerated munitions capable of long range and various degrees of homing abilities to alter the flight path. Indirect fire does not need a direct line-of-sight to the target because the shots are normally directed by a forward observer. As such, indirect-fire weapons can shoot over obstacles or friendly units and the weapons can be concealed from counter-battery fire.
ORIGINAL: Lobster
No one is talking about earth churning.
The vast quantity of artillery is less than 150mm. So you off handedly dismiss the vast number of shells.
Furthermore, at scales greater than 1km per hex who is to say they shell is not ballistic?
And how would you account for mortars greater than 120mm?
If the weapon is large enough and its trajectory will be ballistic enough it should go into a ranged unit. Designers therefore have the tool to make that call themselves.ORIGINAL: Lobster
Have you been seen an earthen bunker hit by a 150mm infantry gun? That will churn the earth and it's direct fire. It will ruin fieldworks in a breath and that was the intent. The Soviets intent for their KV2 was the destruction of fortifications. If that didn't churn earth nothing did.
So somehow, because I put a 600mm mortar in a unit with a non artillery, non HQ symbol it magically no longer churns not even butter. Like GD said, the magic of separate artillery.
Norm said so. For sure it operates differently in a non-artillery unit: It doesn't have a range. And I would think it is better to leave designers a choice how they want the artillery to function, rather than cramming your presumptions down their throats. This is a tool in their toolkit.ORIGINAL: Lobster
So artillery functions differently in a non artillery unit differently than it would in an artillery unit simply because you say so. I get it.
ORIGINAL: cathar1244
GD, so, in these tests you did that forced units to withdraw, did the towed gun units advance into the vacated hex? That would be a gamey outcome.
Cheers
ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
Furthermore, at scales greater than 1km per hex who is to say they shell is not ballistic?
The designer: when he decides to put the gun in an infantry unit instead of an artillery unit.
ORIGINAL: Lobster
Seriously? Norm said so for the entire game.
