Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire

[Arkady]

easy ??? 4 mission kills on 100 hits => 4% ? it seems not so easy
in reality indirect fire was much more effective
I belive that mission kills ration for hits in reality was much, much better

[Temple]

ORIGINAL: dgk196
If HE is that effective against tanks why have a 'solid' round at all? Why did the SU152 have a 'solid' round for use against German heavy tanks? You could direct-fire with HE rounds and cause, effectively, just as much 'mission kill' damage, right!?

Wrong. A horizontally fired HE round would hit some of the thickest armor and is just as likely to disintegrate the shell as explode on contact. The shrapnel cloud would expand in a vertical plane, not a horizontal one, greatly limiting it's effectiveness. Now HE *could* be used as an anti-tank round to attempt to cause a mission kill (and many times infantry support tanks has nothing else to throw at enemy armor) but that same space in the tank stowage could be used for solid shot which has a much greater likelihood of taking out an opponent's tank. It's a matter of the tank task priority.

HE is effective when fired in the hundreds of rounds. Obviously tanks couldn't carry hundred of HE rounds to be delivered in a short period of time. Nor deliver it at the proper angle of fire. You're really talking apples and oranges when comparing solid shot from an SU152 compared to medium artillery sending in a lot of HE shells.

Read Marine Tank Battles in the Pacificfor some interesting stories of the difficulties of fighting against HE and MG in a medium tank. The shrapnel and bullets couldn't penetrate, but often tanks were put out of service due to damage to auxiliary systems. It didn't happen often, but it did happen.

[Borst50]

ok...time out...I guess I am not making myself clear here...when a tank unit is disabled...yes...I know the unit takes a loss on map, and is supposed to return to working status for the NEXT engegement...much like battlefield repair. In the case I am stating, the units in question so not have their sp returned, and therefore I must use a replacement point to bring the unit back to full strength!

Hence my saying the unit is destroyed outright!

As for the same effectiveness applying to both human and AI...It's not true! My losses to indirect fire attest to that. Perhaps I am just plain unlucky...who knows, however I shall stick to the belief that indirect fire is out of proportionally effective against my heavy tanks, no matter what nationality I play.

[awc]

Borst50, I am with you on this indirect fire issue all the way! I was just playing the training scenario of all things and had a 81mm mortar drop two shells on my 3 platoon PZKW IIIL tanks and the next thing i know a tank was burning. That is crap! I am just going to set down the game for now until this ---- is fixed.

[scottintacoma]

If I recall that is how the original game worked as well, a causualty was removed until a replacement point came in. Artillery disables were treated no differently then a destroyed tank.

The only change that I can see is that Artillery is a little (3 to 4 percent) more effective.

Scott in Tacoma

[Borst50]

I am really having a tough time buying into the arguement that indirect artillery fire is accurately depicted in this game, I am now on the 3rd engagement of the DCG "Storm on the Reich", commanding a mixed heavy battalion of Pz VIE's and VIB's. In the first engegement, I was defending a static line....POW....4 tigers lost to indirect artillery fire....the second engagement, no losses, but I was on the offensive, and not forced to hang near my strategic points to defend them. And now for the the current engagement....i havent finished it yet, but I am on the defensive again....and sure enough....4 more tigers lost due to artillery fire. This is utterly ridiculous!

And it only freakin turn 5!!!!! [:-] down 4 tigers due to artillery fire by turn 5! 4% my butt! And when I catch the enemy tanks in my artillery fire....not a bloody thing happens. I dont even scratch their paint.

I would really like to see a no kill on tanks...disruption I can live with, but kills on my tanks due to artillery fire...no. I hope Matrix hears and changes the artillery rules. I have no complaint with artillery vs infantry or vehicles.....just against tanks!

[TAIL GUNNER]

I would really like to see a no kill on tanks...disruption I can live with, but kills on my tanks due to artillery fire...no.

Many artillery pieces could also lob AP shells, so you shouldn't expect zero kills....

But the number of tanks you're losing seems too extreme.


Balck and I are playing his Normandy scenario, with hundreds of artillery pieces throwing ordnance all over the map, but we only lose maybe 1-3 AFVs per round from disablement....it seems right on this scale.

I wonder if each gun fired is getting a check for disablement, instead of just one check for the entire battery...[&:]

What I mean is say a four-gun battery fires a salvo that lands on a AFV, are there four checks for disablement....or only one?

If there's four then obviously the chances for disablement are much higher...

[Huib]

Perhaps it has to do with the AI level settings. It was tested in Human vs Human games and the results were like Juggalo describes.

[dgk196]

If at first you don't succeed..........

'Call it 1.0'!

Dennis [;)]

'Edit'

Not to single you out "Juggalo", but I would be very interested in your 'data' source for this, "Many artillery pieces could also lob AP shells, so you shouldn't expect zero kills...." ! It would help in 'other' discussions! Thanks, Dennis.

[Borst50]

I have just finished the 3rd engagement, and here are the final results;

Tigers lost due to enemy tank vs tank....2
tigers lost due to enemy artillery....8 Yes you read that right....8 count em 8 dead tanks!!! [:@]
enemy tanks lost due to my artillery fire...0 yep.....zip, zilch, nada

If this isnt enough to convince you something is wrong with the indirect fire system in this game, then nothing will. These tanks are not disabled, but destroyed outright! the lost sp's do not return for the next battle, but are permenantly lost. Now I have to use replacement points to increase their sp's.

Boys and Girls, we have now just passed the merely riciculous....and have entered in to a whole new area of frustration. I am more firmly convinced than ever this issue needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. So Matrix...if you are listening, please please, please.....fix the indirect artillery fire!

[Arkady]

Well, maybe more explanation will be fine, did you keep static tank units visible to enemy ?
Sorry to say but it is not god strategy..use shoot and scoot instead if you are defending, or keep your tanks moving...

of course in previous version you could use 'gamey' tactic with superior german tanks drawing enemy fire and thus protect other units, now you need adopt to more realistic warfare [8D]

[scottintacoma]

I am in the 3rd scenerio of a Barborossa North DCG. I am running a German Armor Battalion, IIIF, IIIG, IVE. Here are the Atillery vs tanks stats.

Mortars, Russian Casuallties 0
German Casuallties 0

Artillery, Russian Causualties 3
German Causualties 2 IIIGs and 1 IVE

Seems very even to me.

Scott in tacoma

[Borst50]

I use the scoot and shoot...i do not stay stationary! it doesnt matter. For a test...i played an engagement of the west front. In "Road to Germany". I watched in horror as a US 60mm mortar, killed 2 tigers in a one shot salvo!!!!!!!!! It's freakin ridiculous!!!! opportunity fire no less!!!!!!!!!

I am afraid there is nothing that can change my opinion that indirect artillery fire is far to strong against tanks, and this needs to be addressed post haste! I am not a happy camper.

[XLVIIIPzKorp]

I feel your pain pal. I'm playing Earl's "Cauldron of Fire" and during my opponents last artillery shoot (first in 1.03) I lost more Elefants to artillery than I had lost to all direct fire in the preceding 14 turns. How's that for an eye-opener!

I posted this on Jason's 1.03 thread and apparently there is some "reconsidering" going on with these turns of events.

I suggest that we return to the old %'s for kill/disable while increasing the chance for AFV disruptions due to artillery. This would give artillery the increased capability to break up armor attacks (as it historically had) while not turning the guns into guided AT rounds. Think about it; increased disruptions would break up attacks since the AFV's would no longer be able to advance towards enemy positions. And really isn't that the effect we'd like to see?, commanders have to button up, drivers are hesitant to advance into all that smoke and HE, units lose their cohesion and the attack bogs down. Seems simple to me, just increase the incidence of vehicle disruption and I think both sides of the argument would be happy.

[Borst50]

I am all for disruptions....as I stated before I could live with that. So we are in agreement here! As it stands now...the kill ratio vs tanks is way over the top. And it something I cannot justify in my own mind. So I hope this gets changed very very soon.

[Arkady]

well, you must be really unlucky or something strange in oin the move...
I tried two scenarios when AI shelled me with 82mm and 120mm mortars, my infantry suffered in the open but no hit to my tanks (30+) results in tank destroyed/dasabled

Your AI is very gifted that it is able to target indirect fire to your moving unit...

[willy g]

I have had the same problems with Arty fire falling on moving tanks, and I try to vary it between turns, i.e. one turn I will move 1-2 hexes away, next turn I will shoot once and move 3-5 hexes, and sometimes I dont move to test their ridiculous aim, and here are my figures for my last DCG scenario, 14 turns, regiment size (5 tank formations on the front line approx. 3 platoons/formation)
 
number of times artillery hit tanks - 37
number of tanks lost to artillery - 12, 5 Pz IVD, 1 Pz IIID, 6 Pz IIA/IB mix

[Arkady]

all this issues with overkill are from DCG ? maybe there is a point ?

because I play only stand-alone scenarios and tank kill ratio by artillery seem fair to me ...

[Borst50]

ahhhh...perhaps therein lies your answer. I play only DCG's...and I am telling you, indirect artillery fire is too powerful. You get hit with a barrage....say goodbye to your tanks...its as simple as that.

[marcbarker]

Bravo Borst...60mm mortar better then a 75mm Pak40 ...they get the same results