HE effectivness in direct fire - suggestions please !

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Fri Jul 21, 2000 12:44 pm

I think that the game is very well balanced now. I must say that I agree with victor all the way, except unit costs are something I haven't thought so much.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Fri Jul 21, 2000 4:10 pm

I still feel that HE fire needs to be more lethal in the direct mode, however as a first step i'd heartily support an increased suppression effect. Right now a CS type unit can plug away at a soft target and barely dent it in terms of suppression.

Being able to pin down a unit thats creeping up on you until other units can be brought in to deal with it would help in the realism dept vs the virtual null effect now experienced.

amatteucci · Post by **amatteucci** » Fri Jul 21, 2000 7:46 pm

A quick note about casualties caused by artillery crew individual weapon:
According to a lot of veteran's accounts (you may find some on the RMZ web library) it was clear that, at least for what concernes AT guns and, probably, infanrty support guns, only a couple of soldiers were directly behind the gun (gunner & loader), the rest of the crew was dispersed around, waiting in cover with rifles and hand grenades ready.
So it's not so unrealistic to have them fire their weapons in addition to the main gun (although this could be a problem with field howitzers and other indirect fire weapons).
Best regards,

Amedeo

P.S. I agree that indirect fire artillery should not be the god of the game, but I do think that HE effectiveness of DIRECT fire weapons is not currently well modelled. And I think that it's possible to increase its effect without overpowering indirect fire.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Fri Jul 21, 2000 8:09 pm

i can see one problem though as it relates to the game mechanics (as opposed to real life) Said gun crew with rifles would not waste shots on an AFV since it would only increase the chances that the position would be exposed.

Even with the current lackluster direct fire HE, once an AT gun position is found in SP, its life expectancy can usually be expressed in sub-turn increments.

a human player of course would be smart enough to turn off the secondary weapon to maximize the position's chances of remaining undetected after firing a couple rounds of AT, but the AI makes no such distinction.

hhsohn · Post by **hhsohn** » Fri Jul 21, 2000 9:29 pm

I don't know if someone's already suggested this already, but isn't the effect of HE supposed to be magnified in an enclosed environment like inside of a building? I don't know how it can be coded in SP, but in some Close Combat mods, this is modeled by increased stunning effects to infantry in the building. Can some one confirm this?

GLK · Post by **GLK** » Fri Jul 21, 2000 10:18 pm

I'd like to put my two cent in for increasing the effectiveness of ARTY and tank main guns firing HE, particularly against infantry, especially non-dugin infantry. As things are, tanks are at an unrealistic disadvantage against infantry. The realistic result who be more suppression vice high casualties.

As for comments that some have made about not wanting an ARTY dominated game, well, it is realistic that if ARTY is available, it will tend to dominate. I guess that's why they call it 'King of Battle.' That is also why artillery has caused the vast majority of casualties in every modern war (80% +).

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Fri Jul 21, 2000 10:40 pm

I don't know about others, but I've killed heinous numbers of infantrymen with tanks... However, it was primarily with their MG's..

Tomo

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Fri Jul 21, 2000 10:41 pm

good point on the Artillery question. thats why it was always so expensive using the orig SP. One could never get a decent amount when generating a battle, only the premade scenerios allowed one to get it.

SP-II onward changed that by allowing battle points to be adjusted. If one one does'nt want artillery to be over-domineering they should either restrict the # of batteries purchased or focus on meeting and/or advance-delay missions. The AI ususally does'nt buy too much arty for those missions.

TCP/IP will certainly improve the situation. Players can hash out and set artificial limits beforehand (i.e. no more than two batteries, no more than 1 platoon of Tigers per Panzer batalion purchsed etc)

johnfmonahan · Post by **johnfmonahan** » Sat Jul 22, 2000 3:52 am

HE is just not very effective, either in direct or indirect fire. I belive this is a game balence issue (Bill ?). I think that the solution is to make all HE much more effective and drastically limit the flexibility of non US arty.