HE effectivness in direct fire - suggestions please !
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
Jon Grasham
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: St.Louis, MO, US
Well, if you max out the arty to 250% effectiveness, yes, it would become the uber weapon of the game, but, have you tried kicking it up by 10%,20%, 30%, etc? A slight increase (compared to the 250%) but enough to give it a little extra kick? This would not really be unbalancing, as it would make only artillery more effective, which is what you seek, if I understand correctly. Granted, the troops in the trenches would be a bit worse off, but the troops in the open would be even more so, w/ no defensive benefits. I played around with an increase like that, and it seemed to work well. The guys in the trenches weren't getting vaporized, while the guys in the open were fairing worse. I do agree though, that perhaps there should be a check. If the unit moved during the turn the bombardment falls (either teams part of the turn, since it is during the "same" time span) then they incur a defensive penalty by x%. I don't know how hard it would be to implement though, I imagine fairely difficult.
?
Jon;
as far as i can tell at this point, increasing the artillery vs soft does not affect *direct fire* artillery, only indirect bombardment which as it stands (at 100%) i dont have a problem with. It causes decent casualties out in the open and under cover while it might not do much killing, does awesome suppression.
I've fiddled with the preference and saw no difference when firing single CS-Tank or Howitzer guns at infantry out in the open
Fiddling with the HE-kill produced some...er, interesting results heh.
as far as i can tell at this point, increasing the artillery vs soft does not affect *direct fire* artillery, only indirect bombardment which as it stands (at 100%) i dont have a problem with. It causes decent casualties out in the open and under cover while it might not do much killing, does awesome suppression.
I've fiddled with the preference and saw no difference when firing single CS-Tank or Howitzer guns at infantry out in the open
Fiddling with the HE-kill produced some...er, interesting results heh.
Artillery in 2.3 is actually pretty effective. I don't know how many people are supposed to die or get ko'd.. but when you drop a bunch of ordnance on guys they get screwed up. Not as many go down as the numbers above suggest should, (but not really all that far off either) In the game, I feel that artillery does what you want it to do, as long as you hit. Single, on-map barrels seem a little weak, but that's because when used individually they're really hit-or-miss. I'm playing right now and think that it's rather well balanced into the game system.
Tomo
Tomo
-
Jon Grasham
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: St.Louis, MO, US
I gotcha, I would agree, the batteries are awesome, especially if you get a nice group at ground zero. 
My only arty complaint is the fall pattern.. the old SP1 top to bottom line. Usually lands a hex or 2 deep, and effects may carry over a hex or 2 farther depending on tube size, but would be nice to have a circular, pattern for "blind" bombardments, or if you want to damamage a more spread out enemy.
My only arty complaint is the fall pattern.. the old SP1 top to bottom line. Usually lands a hex or 2 deep, and effects may carry over a hex or 2 farther depending on tube size, but would be nice to have a circular, pattern for "blind" bombardments, or if you want to damamage a more spread out enemy.?
-
Scipio Africanus
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Somerville, Ma, USA
Hi Paul, thank you for your timely and detailed response to this issue 
I must say that I agree with you completely in terms of HE effectiveness against "In Cover" or "entrenched" units: It should be quite low in effect, mostly useful as a supression tool.
But I also agree with Nikademus in that infantry can currently sprint across open ground when being heavily bombarded and still not suffer terribly. Since the rulebook states that casualties include troops that have not been injured, but who simply can't continue, I find it a little difficult to believe that regular infantry can so often face down a 75 or 105 in open ground. Soldiers with their faces down in the mud, deaf and screaming are casualties (tank crews bail and refuse to take orders in similarly threatening situations, or disperse, or get counted as casualties).
So far, by jacking up the art vs soft, I have seen very little increase in casualties for units that are in cover, entrenched, or moving slowly. I have seen a massive increase in casualties to infantry doing stupid things in front of big guns or FOs. One of the things that casualty per ton of shell statistics in WWII will tell us is that, in learning from the Great War, infantry were less often ordered to do stupid things in front of artillery, such as running around in front of it.
Further, these statistics are often skewed by the fact that 90% of all bombardment occurs against hardened or entrenched targets, where it has only a very minor casualty effect. Our concern here is with the ease at which infantry can charge large guns SPWAW, a tactic that has been extremely costly for the attacker during the past 2 centuries, (even when they eventually won).
As far as the 50CAL on the M7 goes, I would assume it was used primarily for close flank defense against assualting infantry (thus it can sweep, while the turretless main gun cannot), as well as a means by which one could suppress a direct fire target while reloading the main gun. The design intent of including a 50CAL on the M7 was AA, I should think (which was not likely its function in actual use).
What the general artillery tonnage statistics don't account for are certain tactical situations that are arising in SPWAW. We know from the seemingly endless accounts of these situations that infantry should suffer greatly when it finds itself moving rapidly in open ground.
If you are interested, or if you find this argument in any way convincing, or at least worthy of consideration, here is my positive suggestion
Artillery and direct fire guns would have an effect of 200-250% of their current values vs soft targets; at the same time, effect against units moving slowly (gone to ground), entrenched, in cover, etc. would be halved from their current values (thus, infantry moving slowly would only accept 12.5% artillery effect- entrenched units 10%), which would keep those units having such disposition at their current state of protection.
Thus infantry under fire by artillery would still be in good shape if they were doing tactically smart things, they can still advance slowly or in woods or by using APCs (which would not be affected by the change in artillery) or by using smoke- all of the things that they should currently be doing.
That is my argument and my suggestion, thank you Paul, for your time, your effort, your knowledge, and your consideration.
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
I must say that I agree with you completely in terms of HE effectiveness against "In Cover" or "entrenched" units: It should be quite low in effect, mostly useful as a supression tool.
But I also agree with Nikademus in that infantry can currently sprint across open ground when being heavily bombarded and still not suffer terribly. Since the rulebook states that casualties include troops that have not been injured, but who simply can't continue, I find it a little difficult to believe that regular infantry can so often face down a 75 or 105 in open ground. Soldiers with their faces down in the mud, deaf and screaming are casualties (tank crews bail and refuse to take orders in similarly threatening situations, or disperse, or get counted as casualties).
So far, by jacking up the art vs soft, I have seen very little increase in casualties for units that are in cover, entrenched, or moving slowly. I have seen a massive increase in casualties to infantry doing stupid things in front of big guns or FOs. One of the things that casualty per ton of shell statistics in WWII will tell us is that, in learning from the Great War, infantry were less often ordered to do stupid things in front of artillery, such as running around in front of it.
Further, these statistics are often skewed by the fact that 90% of all bombardment occurs against hardened or entrenched targets, where it has only a very minor casualty effect. Our concern here is with the ease at which infantry can charge large guns SPWAW, a tactic that has been extremely costly for the attacker during the past 2 centuries, (even when they eventually won).
As far as the 50CAL on the M7 goes, I would assume it was used primarily for close flank defense against assualting infantry (thus it can sweep, while the turretless main gun cannot), as well as a means by which one could suppress a direct fire target while reloading the main gun. The design intent of including a 50CAL on the M7 was AA, I should think (which was not likely its function in actual use).
What the general artillery tonnage statistics don't account for are certain tactical situations that are arising in SPWAW. We know from the seemingly endless accounts of these situations that infantry should suffer greatly when it finds itself moving rapidly in open ground.
If you are interested, or if you find this argument in any way convincing, or at least worthy of consideration, here is my positive suggestion
Artillery and direct fire guns would have an effect of 200-250% of their current values vs soft targets; at the same time, effect against units moving slowly (gone to ground), entrenched, in cover, etc. would be halved from their current values (thus, infantry moving slowly would only accept 12.5% artillery effect- entrenched units 10%), which would keep those units having such disposition at their current state of protection.
Thus infantry under fire by artillery would still be in good shape if they were doing tactically smart things, they can still advance slowly or in woods or by using APCs (which would not be affected by the change in artillery) or by using smoke- all of the things that they should currently be doing.
That is my argument and my suggestion, thank you Paul, for your time, your effort, your knowledge, and your consideration.
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Tombstone;
just to clarify, what were harping about is the effectiveness of 'direct fire' artillery (either say from a CS-Tank, or a howtizer gun crew), especially in comparison to accompanying small arms fire.
Often i'll see the defensive (and secondary) bolt action rifle of an artillery gun score equal to even *more* casualties than the howitzer itself. This happens even with super large calibur like the massive 152.4mm cannon of the KV-IIa.
If the infantry is in cover terrain and such, its true i would not expect a single cannon to do much more than cause suppression but i've consistantly seen little to no affect even against moving inf in open terrain.
adding to this distress is that the mentioned bolt action rifle in the same circumstance (even at long range) "will" often score a hit.
this happened to me in the bushmasters scenerio....twice i got suprised by a hidden Japanese 77mm infantry gun position, caught out in the open (and moving of course) only to score no injuries....'until' the secondary rifle fired, then causing a hit.
does'nt that sound strange to you too?
just to clarify, what were harping about is the effectiveness of 'direct fire' artillery (either say from a CS-Tank, or a howtizer gun crew), especially in comparison to accompanying small arms fire.
Often i'll see the defensive (and secondary) bolt action rifle of an artillery gun score equal to even *more* casualties than the howitzer itself. This happens even with super large calibur like the massive 152.4mm cannon of the KV-IIa.
If the infantry is in cover terrain and such, its true i would not expect a single cannon to do much more than cause suppression but i've consistantly seen little to no affect even against moving inf in open terrain.
adding to this distress is that the mentioned bolt action rifle in the same circumstance (even at long range) "will" often score a hit.
this happened to me in the bushmasters scenerio....twice i got suprised by a hidden Japanese 77mm infantry gun position, caught out in the open (and moving of course) only to score no injuries....'until' the secondary rifle fired, then causing a hit.
does'nt that sound strange to you too?
-
Scipio Africanus
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Somerville, Ma, USA
Just another quick thing on HE effect in open ground (so just how big is that hex?)
A hex that is 50 yards corner to corner has an area of ~1623 square yards.
Now let us assume that an infantry squad of 10 men is visible and walking upright, spread evenly throughout the hex (so they've moved at least 2 hexes this turn).
They're in open ground, this means: If they hit the deck they'll find some cover- some grass, a bump, the body of a cow, a rock, a burned out jeep, etc. But they have no recourse to tall grass (that would be a wheatfield), shellholes, big rocks/ rolling hillocks (that's rough terrain), trees (maybe one or two, but nothing major). Of course, currently they are walking
A shell from a 105 lands somewhere in the hex (It's coming from the M7 on the hill, some 200 yards distant, which our squad has foolishly decided to ignore). We are conservative (I believe) in assuming that the 105mm HE shell will put shrapnel into 80% of standing soft targets (the poor men)within a radius of 12.5 yards.
This gives us an 80% casualty blast area of ~490 square yards, ~30% of the area of the hex. Our men are spread out evenly, so this shell should drop 3 of them 80% of the time (but sometimes 2 or none, sometimes 5- most often 3).
A second shell comes in on the same turn, this time injuring/killing ~30% of the remaining 7 (2).
Fortunately that's all for this turn, but 2 105 shells have cost this foolish squad 5 men.
Next turn nobody moves: thinking better of it, the squad has gone to ground- one is behind a lone tree, two are in a little depression, etc. So this turn each shell has 1/8 of its rated chance to cause casualties (read my post above on this please). Thus, the now much smarter squad really only has a 3-4% chance of accepting casualties this turn. And in fact, they take none- but are surpressed by the 105s.
Next turn they rally, and the squad leader orders them to start crawling toward the gun.
I wonder if the gun has infantry support, I think I see a satchel charge on one of those guys...
The numbers are based on assumed lethal blast radius and the area of a hex as well as adjusted formulas for "in cover/moving slowly" modifiers. This is what I think should happen in such situations.
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
A hex that is 50 yards corner to corner has an area of ~1623 square yards.
Now let us assume that an infantry squad of 10 men is visible and walking upright, spread evenly throughout the hex (so they've moved at least 2 hexes this turn).
They're in open ground, this means: If they hit the deck they'll find some cover- some grass, a bump, the body of a cow, a rock, a burned out jeep, etc. But they have no recourse to tall grass (that would be a wheatfield), shellholes, big rocks/ rolling hillocks (that's rough terrain), trees (maybe one or two, but nothing major). Of course, currently they are walking
A shell from a 105 lands somewhere in the hex (It's coming from the M7 on the hill, some 200 yards distant, which our squad has foolishly decided to ignore). We are conservative (I believe) in assuming that the 105mm HE shell will put shrapnel into 80% of standing soft targets (the poor men)within a radius of 12.5 yards.
This gives us an 80% casualty blast area of ~490 square yards, ~30% of the area of the hex. Our men are spread out evenly, so this shell should drop 3 of them 80% of the time (but sometimes 2 or none, sometimes 5- most often 3).
A second shell comes in on the same turn, this time injuring/killing ~30% of the remaining 7 (2).
Fortunately that's all for this turn, but 2 105 shells have cost this foolish squad 5 men.
Next turn nobody moves: thinking better of it, the squad has gone to ground- one is behind a lone tree, two are in a little depression, etc. So this turn each shell has 1/8 of its rated chance to cause casualties (read my post above on this please). Thus, the now much smarter squad really only has a 3-4% chance of accepting casualties this turn. And in fact, they take none- but are surpressed by the 105s.
Next turn they rally, and the squad leader orders them to start crawling toward the gun.
I wonder if the gun has infantry support, I think I see a satchel charge on one of those guys...
The numbers are based on assumed lethal blast radius and the area of a hex as well as adjusted formulas for "in cover/moving slowly" modifiers. This is what I think should happen in such situations.
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
Excellent Feedback guys ! This sort of exchange is what really makes this forum shine! We really appreciate this level of detailed input!
One of the troubles we have is since the "balance" on the casualty system is complex (there are are 3 seperate routines that "feedback" into each other) when you try to increase light arty, you can increase heavy arty more than you want!
The other problem is that the game abstracts the "how many guys are standing up when the shells fall".
The WO I refed cited 105 HE and achieved only 2 kills per 3 rounds and that was against 81 targets in a 2x3 hex area. A single squad in that would likely have only suorred 2 casualties per 25 rounds or so. I understand teh effectiveness figures you cite, but they are aoften not realized in practice.
The target stance (upright or prone) REALLY has a large effect. A period study I read on the desireability of simultaneous time on target barrages said that 50 rounds that land at the same time are something like 15 times more effect than 50 rounds that land 5 at a time. This stems from the troops "hitting the deck" and only the first few rounds landing against "upright targets".
The game assumes that veteran troops (80+) are often able to "hit the dirt" before the rounds even fall becasue they can gauge the threat by the shell noises. At the least even poor troops get down after the first 2 or 3 impacts.
We are looking at one little tweak toward increased arty effect in ver 3, but the disparity of opinion makes this an area best customized by trading off inf toughness and Soft arty effect.
Its not so simple as just increasing HE kill or warhead or the defensive "save". Like any system with "feedback" a little change can suddenly throw the whole thing out of whack! And what seems good at 70 exp, is out of whack vs 50 or 90.
The point about casualties being other than killed is a good one, sources conflict on this, however some indicating that the desire to strike back after being caught impotant often instilled a near berseark rage, while others cite frequent shell shock (but stress the this effect is very often delayed by upt to several hours or as culminating effect of days in such conditions, making it moot in the time frame of an SP battle.
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited July 15, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited July 15, 2000).]
One of the troubles we have is since the "balance" on the casualty system is complex (there are are 3 seperate routines that "feedback" into each other) when you try to increase light arty, you can increase heavy arty more than you want!
The other problem is that the game abstracts the "how many guys are standing up when the shells fall".
The WO I refed cited 105 HE and achieved only 2 kills per 3 rounds and that was against 81 targets in a 2x3 hex area. A single squad in that would likely have only suorred 2 casualties per 25 rounds or so. I understand teh effectiveness figures you cite, but they are aoften not realized in practice.
The target stance (upright or prone) REALLY has a large effect. A period study I read on the desireability of simultaneous time on target barrages said that 50 rounds that land at the same time are something like 15 times more effect than 50 rounds that land 5 at a time. This stems from the troops "hitting the deck" and only the first few rounds landing against "upright targets".
The game assumes that veteran troops (80+) are often able to "hit the dirt" before the rounds even fall becasue they can gauge the threat by the shell noises. At the least even poor troops get down after the first 2 or 3 impacts.
We are looking at one little tweak toward increased arty effect in ver 3, but the disparity of opinion makes this an area best customized by trading off inf toughness and Soft arty effect.
Its not so simple as just increasing HE kill or warhead or the defensive "save". Like any system with "feedback" a little change can suddenly throw the whole thing out of whack! And what seems good at 70 exp, is out of whack vs 50 or 90.
The point about casualties being other than killed is a good one, sources conflict on this, however some indicating that the desire to strike back after being caught impotant often instilled a near berseark rage, while others cite frequent shell shock (but stress the this effect is very often delayed by upt to several hours or as culminating effect of days in such conditions, making it moot in the time frame of an SP battle.
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited July 15, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited July 15, 2000).]
We are conservative (I believe) in assuming that the 105mm HE shell will put shrapnel into 80% of standing soft targets (the poor men)within a radius of 12.5 yards.
I posted something similar in "Artillery effectiveness (yet again)" a week ago, using U.S. Ordnance Department results. Check it out, too long to post again
------------------
alea iacta est
sooperduk@hotmail.com
I posted something similar in "Artillery effectiveness (yet again)" a week ago, using U.S. Ordnance Department results. Check it out, too long to post again
------------------
alea iacta est
sooperduk@hotmail.com
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
-- George Orwell
-- George Orwell
I'm working on this Kursk scenario right now, and I've included a platoon of Brummbars with the german force. They do a really good job of causing casualties, at that range I don't think anything else compares. Occasionally MG's and rifles cause casualties at their extreme range, but not all that often. I was getting 1 or 2 casualties per fire with the 150 gun on the brummbar. I think direct fire HE is modelled pretty fairly. Remember, it's only one shell. It get's kills once in a while, that makes it's kills/shell pretty good.
Tomo
Tomo
-
Scipio Africanus
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Somerville, Ma, USA
Well the 150mm gun is huge, but you're also getting lucky.
I'm currently in a PBEM game of regimental proportions. From what I can tell, my opponent has a number of 120mm mortars, 2 Brumbars (150mm), and several 81mm mortars.
I have seven 4.2 inch mortars, 4 81mm mortars, 2 60mm mortars, 6 M7 105mm SP howitzers.
we're 6 or 7 turns into the fight, I have suffered 4 or 5 direct fire casualties, 0 indirect fire casualties. My opponent has suffered 0 direct fire casualties and perhaps 10-12 indirect casualties on a platoon of motorcyclists that decided it best to whizz around in open ground early in the fight.
No casualties have been suffered by any infantry in a "defend" stance, even from concentrated fire- Further, I've had troops moving quickly in the woods accept no casualties from multiple 150mm hits.
Did I mention that the artillery vs. soft targets is set at 250%
Did I also mention that most of my 4.2 mortars are depleted of ammo, that means I have fired off several hundred rounds of large caliber HE.
These results actually look about right to me- the motorcyclists screwed up and suffered, but man I wish I could kill that tough 105mm recoilless rifle on the hill (which is well dug in). But, this is with 250% vs soft targets.
Despite a map made up of at least 70% open ground, my infantry regiment is succeeding in its attacking maneuvers, despite a great deal of high quality enemy artillery. I'm having to be careful (yet I have an engineer company moving forward fast on the left wing), but the artillery is far from decimating my ranks (as I said, under heavy fire, much of it on target, my regiment has taken 5 casualties and is moving forward well).
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
I'm currently in a PBEM game of regimental proportions. From what I can tell, my opponent has a number of 120mm mortars, 2 Brumbars (150mm), and several 81mm mortars.
I have seven 4.2 inch mortars, 4 81mm mortars, 2 60mm mortars, 6 M7 105mm SP howitzers.
we're 6 or 7 turns into the fight, I have suffered 4 or 5 direct fire casualties, 0 indirect fire casualties. My opponent has suffered 0 direct fire casualties and perhaps 10-12 indirect casualties on a platoon of motorcyclists that decided it best to whizz around in open ground early in the fight.
No casualties have been suffered by any infantry in a "defend" stance, even from concentrated fire- Further, I've had troops moving quickly in the woods accept no casualties from multiple 150mm hits.
Did I mention that the artillery vs. soft targets is set at 250%
Did I also mention that most of my 4.2 mortars are depleted of ammo, that means I have fired off several hundred rounds of large caliber HE.
These results actually look about right to me- the motorcyclists screwed up and suffered, but man I wish I could kill that tough 105mm recoilless rifle on the hill (which is well dug in). But, this is with 250% vs soft targets.
Despite a map made up of at least 70% open ground, my infantry regiment is succeeding in its attacking maneuvers, despite a great deal of high quality enemy artillery. I'm having to be careful (yet I have an engineer company moving forward fast on the left wing), but the artillery is far from decimating my ranks (as I said, under heavy fire, much of it on target, my regiment has taken 5 casualties and is moving forward well).
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Point is - I often catch AI-Inf. in the open, moving rel. fast.
Despite of scoring hits with direct fire, there are 2 casualties at best with 75..90mm guns.
Best MG43 hit I've seen in such a situation is 5 (!) casualties, and regular score is around 2 casualties .
And even worse - even after beeing shot at (and not hit due to very low to-hit chances) the units still show as "moving", not "pinned" or the like - and the AI really moves them on - so one couldn't speak of low casualties because the tropps are "going to the ground".
And if the cal. is under 50 mm, it's a waste of time to shoot HE at Inf., and the rapid-fire 20..40mm AA guns, which where used against Inf. effectivly, aren't of much worth either.
So IMHO the direct fire effectivness should be boosted again - and if it's, as Paul said, not a matter of OOB-values, the programmers should put this on the wishlist for v3.0 .
Arralen
Despite of scoring hits with direct fire, there are 2 casualties at best with 75..90mm guns.
Best MG43 hit I've seen in such a situation is 5 (!) casualties, and regular score is around 2 casualties .
And even worse - even after beeing shot at (and not hit due to very low to-hit chances) the units still show as "moving", not "pinned" or the like - and the AI really moves them on - so one couldn't speak of low casualties because the tropps are "going to the ground".
And if the cal. is under 50 mm, it's a waste of time to shoot HE at Inf., and the rapid-fire 20..40mm AA guns, which where used against Inf. effectivly, aren't of much worth either.
So IMHO the direct fire effectivness should be boosted again - and if it's, as Paul said, not a matter of OOB-values, the programmers should put this on the wishlist for v3.0 .
Arralen
AMD FX-4300
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Kingston SV300 120 GB
Windows 8.1
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Kingston SV300 120 GB
Windows 8.1
Point is - I often catch AI-Inf. in the open, moving rel. fast.
Despite of scoring hits with direct fire, there are 2 casualties at best with 75..90mm guns.
Best MG43 hit I've seen in such a situation is 5 (!) casualties, and regular score is around 2 casualties .
And even worse - even after beeing shot at (and not hit due to very low to-hit chances) the units still show as "moving", not "pinned" or the like - and the AI really moves them on - so one couldn't speak of low casualties because the tropps are "going to the ground".
And if the cal. is under 50 mm, it's a waste of time to shoot HE at Inf., and the rapid-fire 20..40mm AA guns, which where used against Inf. effectivly, aren't of much worth either.
So IMHO the direct fire effectivness should be boosted again - and if it's, as Paul said, not a matter of OOB-values, the programmers should put this on the wishlist for v3.0 .
Arralen
Despite of scoring hits with direct fire, there are 2 casualties at best with 75..90mm guns.
Best MG43 hit I've seen in such a situation is 5 (!) casualties, and regular score is around 2 casualties .
And even worse - even after beeing shot at (and not hit due to very low to-hit chances) the units still show as "moving", not "pinned" or the like - and the AI really moves them on - so one couldn't speak of low casualties because the tropps are "going to the ground".
And if the cal. is under 50 mm, it's a waste of time to shoot HE at Inf., and the rapid-fire 20..40mm AA guns, which where used against Inf. effectivly, aren't of much worth either.
So IMHO the direct fire effectivness should be boosted again - and if it's, as Paul said, not a matter of OOB-values, the programmers should put this on the wishlist for v3.0 .
Arralen
AMD FX-4300
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Kingston SV300 120 GB
Windows 8.1
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Kingston SV300 120 GB
Windows 8.1
-
amatteucci
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ITALY
Speaking about HE effectiveness in the game one must also remember that what has to be modified is also the relative effectiveness of the various HE shells. Now the HE rating for artillery shells is more or less proportional to the calibre.
A short analysis of data will show that, for example, a 122mm HE-frag round has a TNT filler that weights about one half of the 152mm one. This should suggest that the increase of explosive power is linked (logically) to the projectile volume (since 122^3/152^3 is about 1/2), so it's proportional to the cube of the calibre.
Obviously one should also wonder whether the killing power in game terms is linearly growing with the actual amount of TNT delivered. This is a tricky issue but IMHO power dependence should be no less than D^(3/2).
Regards,
Amedeo
P.S. The effectiveness of direct fire HE weapons should be really increased. The red Army decided not to go on with the T-34-57 (or the IS-100), in spite of their exceptional AT performances, because they felt that a 76mm (122mm) HE round had a far more devasing impact than a 57mm (100mm) one. And BTW this suggests also that the killing power of an HE projectile goes not linearly vs its diameter.
A short analysis of data will show that, for example, a 122mm HE-frag round has a TNT filler that weights about one half of the 152mm one. This should suggest that the increase of explosive power is linked (logically) to the projectile volume (since 122^3/152^3 is about 1/2), so it's proportional to the cube of the calibre.
Obviously one should also wonder whether the killing power in game terms is linearly growing with the actual amount of TNT delivered. This is a tricky issue but IMHO power dependence should be no less than D^(3/2).
Regards,
Amedeo
P.S. The effectiveness of direct fire HE weapons should be really increased. The red Army decided not to go on with the T-34-57 (or the IS-100), in spite of their exceptional AT performances, because they felt that a 76mm (122mm) HE round had a far more devasing impact than a 57mm (100mm) one. And BTW this suggests also that the killing power of an HE projectile goes not linearly vs its diameter.
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
I may be lucky, but then I'm being lucky all the time. I'm using the defaults, and I get a really good result. Infantry that's entrenched takes very few losses, infantry out in the open take a few and get suppressed to all hell, and direct fire HE causes casualties once in a while. 75mm direct fire he shouldn't be anywhere near the effectiveness of a machine gun. What is can do is shoot a heck of a lot farther. It would be wierd if you could get 5 kills with a single 75mm shell. (unless it was a human sardine tin) 150mm on the other hand... heh.
Tomo
Tomo
good arguments both sides. Great debate! though it looks like the majority favors a greater HE effect.
Related question....i'm looking for opinions on the secondary weapons that are given to IG/AT guns and MG units.
Part of the frustration over the Artillery/HE issue is that even at long range these bolt action weapons (some have a SMG) seem to be more effective than the gun/MG itself!! I have another concern however...obviously these weapons were meant for self defence when the gun was either inoperative or supressed, or perhaps when the crew was boogying out of a hotspot. But during operation of the gun/MG would not the crew be too busy to fire this weapon?
Related question....i'm looking for opinions on the secondary weapons that are given to IG/AT guns and MG units.
Part of the frustration over the Artillery/HE issue is that even at long range these bolt action weapons (some have a SMG) seem to be more effective than the gun/MG itself!! I have another concern however...obviously these weapons were meant for self defence when the gun was either inoperative or supressed, or perhaps when the crew was boogying out of a hotspot. But during operation of the gun/MG would not the crew be too busy to fire this weapon?
I'm under the impression that secondary weapon use by gun crews is a bit over done, at least from an offensive standpoint.
Secondary weapon use by crews should be limited to defensive use only, not the "AT gun fires/secondary weapon fires" scheme that is in place now.
Here's my rationale behind this, taken from 10 years experience in the artillery branch. Although this applies to a modern weapon system, it can be applied to the majority of crew served weapons, regardless of time period.
The M224 60mm mortar currently used by U.S. Army has a crew of 3 (section chief, gunner, ammo bearer). Of the 3, only the section chief carries a rifle; the gunner and ammo bearer have pistols.
During a fire mission, the crew has the following responsibilities:
section chief - compute firing data, maintain communications.
gunner - set tube elevation/deflection.
ammo bearer - index rounds, load weapon.
This is the short list of tasks that are involved in a typical shoot, for a complete list check out FM 7-90 Tactical Employment of Mortars. It should also be noted that mortar crews are expected to be able to fire 20 rounds per minute (sustained)- this equals a round out of the tube every three seconds.
What does this boil down to? The crew can either fire the mortar or fire their personal weapons, not both at the same time.
This principle would apply whether you are crewing a mortar, anti-tank gun, or howitzer. As a member of a gun crew, you have a specific task to perform. Engaging targets with a rifle or pistol is not one of them, that's what grunts are for.
------------------
alea iacta est
sooperduk@hotmail.com
Secondary weapon use by crews should be limited to defensive use only, not the "AT gun fires/secondary weapon fires" scheme that is in place now.
Here's my rationale behind this, taken from 10 years experience in the artillery branch. Although this applies to a modern weapon system, it can be applied to the majority of crew served weapons, regardless of time period.
The M224 60mm mortar currently used by U.S. Army has a crew of 3 (section chief, gunner, ammo bearer). Of the 3, only the section chief carries a rifle; the gunner and ammo bearer have pistols.
During a fire mission, the crew has the following responsibilities:
section chief - compute firing data, maintain communications.
gunner - set tube elevation/deflection.
ammo bearer - index rounds, load weapon.
This is the short list of tasks that are involved in a typical shoot, for a complete list check out FM 7-90 Tactical Employment of Mortars. It should also be noted that mortar crews are expected to be able to fire 20 rounds per minute (sustained)- this equals a round out of the tube every three seconds.
What does this boil down to? The crew can either fire the mortar or fire their personal weapons, not both at the same time.
This principle would apply whether you are crewing a mortar, anti-tank gun, or howitzer. As a member of a gun crew, you have a specific task to perform. Engaging targets with a rifle or pistol is not one of them, that's what grunts are for.
------------------
alea iacta est
sooperduk@hotmail.com
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
-- George Orwell
-- George Orwell
Supposedly tanks have to make a quality check to fire their non-primary weapons. I think the same mechanism could be used to make crewed weapons fire less frequently or not at all. It could be the choice of the player then. Cause if you've got a 50mm AT gun with a squad of infantry at 3 hexes you'd probably rather take out the rifles at that point...
Tomo
Tomo
-
victorhauser
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: austin, texas
Having read all of the above for the first time tonight I can see several perspectives, all of which seem valid (from their perspective).
I don't want to see artillery dominate the game like it did in SP3.
I like the way MGs decimate soft targets.
I would like to see greater suppression from Direct-Fire HE.
I prefer leaving crew "secondary" weapons alone for now until higher-priority issues are resolved.
I am MOST concerned that the points cost of units that use Direct-Fire HE as their primary weapon be adjusted to reflect their "game effectiveness". That is, I believe that the price of such units is currently too high and should be lowered in proportion to how useful they are in the game (as opposed to how useful they were "historically"). To me, it all comes down to a question of game cost-effectiveness, and right now those units are not very cost effective in SPWAW. Thus, if the price of such units were lowered, we wouldn't be debating this issue as much. It all comes down to unit prices in the end.
As a glaring example, the Stg IIIb armed with only a 75/L24 costs 40 points, and the Pz IVD armed with a 75/L24 and 2 MGs costs 42 points. Regardless of the increased armor of the Stg IIIb, nobody will buy it because its offensive power is too limited. However, if the overall suppressive capability of HE was increased and the cost of the Stg IIIb was lowered, then more people might start using it in the game. As it stands now, I will buy the Pz IVD every time and ignore the Stg IIIb. In the end, it all comes down to making the unit prices useful from the perspective of game cost-effectiveness.
[This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited July 21, 2000).]
I don't want to see artillery dominate the game like it did in SP3.
I like the way MGs decimate soft targets.
I would like to see greater suppression from Direct-Fire HE.
I prefer leaving crew "secondary" weapons alone for now until higher-priority issues are resolved.
I am MOST concerned that the points cost of units that use Direct-Fire HE as their primary weapon be adjusted to reflect their "game effectiveness". That is, I believe that the price of such units is currently too high and should be lowered in proportion to how useful they are in the game (as opposed to how useful they were "historically"). To me, it all comes down to a question of game cost-effectiveness, and right now those units are not very cost effective in SPWAW. Thus, if the price of such units were lowered, we wouldn't be debating this issue as much. It all comes down to unit prices in the end.
As a glaring example, the Stg IIIb armed with only a 75/L24 costs 40 points, and the Pz IVD armed with a 75/L24 and 2 MGs costs 42 points. Regardless of the increased armor of the Stg IIIb, nobody will buy it because its offensive power is too limited. However, if the overall suppressive capability of HE was increased and the cost of the Stg IIIb was lowered, then more people might start using it in the game. As it stands now, I will buy the Pz IVD every time and ignore the Stg IIIb. In the end, it all comes down to making the unit prices useful from the perspective of game cost-effectiveness.
[This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited July 21, 2000).]
VAH