Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire

[willy g]

I also only play DCGs, and I get hit pretty hard, even against polish mortars, and my above mentioned example, was with full advantage, 12 tanks lost to artillery, FULL ADVANTAGE, thats ridiculous, my infantry didnt get hit that bad.

[Borst50]

hmmmm..interesting...I will confess I never tried the full setting advantage...I think I am going to do another test with full advantage to my side and will report what I have discovered. Thanks for the idea.

[scottintacoma]

I only Play DCG's as well. So far in the 1st 5 battles of a Barbarossa North, as a German Armor Battalion, Normal setting, No advantage, I have lost 3 tanks to artillery. Rusian losses are 4 tanks and 1 armored car.

I dont see a problem with the Artillery fire.

Scott in tAcoma

[PaladinSix]

Not to jump on the bandwagon, but I think I have to agree with Borst50 on this issue. We can debate whether or not 2% or 5% or whatever is the correct odds for indirect artillery vs. armor, but that misses the more basic point.

A tank that is "killed" during a scenario by IF fire (or any other means) is not necessarily a burning wreck. It is simply out of commission for the duration of the scenario and possibly longer. In the context of a single mission, having a track blown off is essentially the same thing as a total kill. Either way, that tank is not useful anymore during the mission.

But....here's the problem. Many people (myself included) do not play the single-mission scenarios. We play campaign games. And in the course of a large campaign game (like the DCG Road to Germany), those "disabled" tanks are effectively the same as "killed" tanks, because there is no mechanism to repair or refit armor in between missions.

Yes, I know, there are replacement points, but those are designed and calculated to model the larger supply and reinforcement picture, rather than a unit's inherent ability to repair minor damage to its own equipment. I'm not arguing for a regimental motor pool unit, but perhaps some recognition of the concept that not all "kills" are total is in order.

Otherwise, we're stuck with a situation in which individual scenarios may be well-balanced and properly designed, but dont' fit together into a more comprehensive yet still accurate picture of an actual campaign.

Personally, this sort of thing makes the longer DCGs very difficult to enjoy, which for me removes a great deal of the utility of the entire game.

PaladinSix

[Jason Petho]

I could also adjust the amount of reinforcements in a DCG to compensate?

Jason Petho

[PaladinSix]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

I could also adjust the amount of reinforcements in a DCG to compensate?

Jason Petho

That would go a long way towards addressing the difficulties inherent in the game engine vs. campaign setup. Personally, a 3-5% loss rate from IF fire (on armor) doesn't seem all that extreme, if one assumes that a portion of those "losses" are only temporarily disabled and could return to action in a few days. Tanks throwing a track, or losing a road wheel, or simply a wounded and/or demoralized crew would be common results of indirect fire which shouldn't eliminate the tank itself permanently.

So, I'd rather see more robust reinforcements for DCGs, rather than simply a reduction in the effectiveness of indirect fire. That way the single-mission scenarios still require a suitable degree of skill to compensate for the risk, and the campaign games retain their playability.

Of course, there are two obvious problems with that approach (from your perspective):

1) I don't know what the limitations of the game engine are, so there might be programming difficulties associated with any fix, which I am not competent to discuss.
2) No matter what you do, the history of these forums demonstrates that not everyone will be happy about it. This, alas, is another area in which I can not be very helpful. I'm sure you're more than familiar with the firestorm effect of even minor changes to the code.

PaladinSix

[Arkady]

I made quick test for artillery (mortars) versus tank effectivness

6 x 82mm Mortar  (4SP each)
100%ammo - 12 salvos each turn

target - PzIIIN, open terrain with unpaved road (only 1 platoon on hex)

8 hex distance for artillery, LOS only by forward observer

fired 240 salvos
9 tanks disabled total

kill ratio 3.75%

[Borst50]

Yes, that would go along way to readjusting the balance, but there is also the rproblem or a morale decrease from the influx of new replacements on tank units, but we can give it a shot and see what happens.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Borst50

Yes, that would go along way to readjusting the balance, but there is also the rproblem or a morale decrease from the influx of new replacements on tank units, but we can give it a shot and see what happens.

I will incorporate this then for the 1.03 UPDATE patch when it is available.

Double the reinforcements, or?

Jason Petho

[Borst50]

I was under the impression that "disabled" tanks did come back for the next engagement....but in the cases i have observed from my own losses, they are permenantly destroyed. if all tanks were to be disabled, and actually did return to combat with the next battle, that would eliminate massive replacements points needed to cover the losses, and keep the morale reasonably intact.


Failing that...perhaps it is possible just to have tanks disrupted with no kills.....that way an artillery barrage can still effectively brake up a concerted armor attack, but the attacker doesnt suffer debilitating losses in return, or in the case of defending tanks, they cant pick off enemy tanks so well from range, allowing the attacker to come closer and actually creaTE loses via tank v tank combat...as opposed to the defender just taking artillery losses.

I would also suggest leaving the results of artillery fire against infantry and trucks, etc alone. I found they worked very well.

[Jason Petho]

As an interm solution, is increasing the reinforcements OK?

Jason Petho

[bigmilt]

Let me first say I am not playing the current game only played the Talonsoft original. But am having a good time reading this thread. A gentleman I work
with is an ex tank platoon commander (during vietnam) that was stationed at Fort Knox. I asked him about the indirect fire issues and point blank he said
it would be a one in a million shot for a 81mm shooting he to disable a wwii german tiger or panther. Howitzer fire of 105 or above he was very wary of
due to direct blast effect to drive and track damage/ or shell hole opening up in front of tank going at speed could have a really good change of throwing
a track. So it looks like you may have overdone it with the mortars but might be ok with the howitzers. I will be be buying this game in the next couple of weeks unfortunatly have to paint the house first.

[Borst50]

[:D][:D][:D] Sure! I'm easy....and cheap too. This will work for me...I am not so sure for anyone else, but I can live with it. I know there are other out there having similar problems. So we can try it and see what happens. I apprecaite the effort you are making.

you have my vote for Emperor! [&o][&o][&o]

[PaladinSix]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

As an interm solution, is increasing the reinforcements OK?

Jason Petho

That certainly works for me, although doubling the reinforcement points seems a bit excessive. Perhaps a 50% increase?

PaladinSix

[marcbarker]

All Hail the Holy J, We have found the Grail, Yes my brothers we have a solution! Great Yob Jason. Another Thought, Can you distinguish on 81mm firing indirect or direct fire 0% effect on Hvy Armor, Effects on Armored Inf Vehicles, Light Armor. Can you adjust the effectiveness of the rounds by class and not necessarily by type?

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: barker

All Hail the Holy J, We have found the Grail, Yes my brothers we have a solution! Great Yob Jason. Another Thought, Can you distinguish on 81mm firing indirect or direct fire 0% effect on Hvy Armor, Effects on Armored Inf Vehicles, Light Armor. Can you adjust the effectiveness of the rounds by class and not necessarily by type?

Logically, yes. Although I have no idea how much work that is in the code. Maybe that is a long term solution, but beyond my abilities.

The reinforcement thing I can adjust and include in the next 1.03 patch. The suggestion above might have to wait until the next major update.

Jason Petho

[marcbarker]

THANKS FOR THE QUICK RESPONSE