The magic of separate artillery

[sPzAbt653]

Directive 21 scenario ... the net effect is going to make German infantry dramatically more effective at forcing Soviet units to retreat.

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 [:)]

[golden delicious]

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.

I'm referring to the German divisional artillery in this case.

[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.

[golden delicious]

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.

Exactly. The same unit will have different capabilities depending on how the designer represents it and, as a result, depending on the scale.

Bob seems nonplussed because he was well aware of how significant this is but I think most designers aren't: for them, the significance of the artillery icon is that it lets you fire at targets two or more hexes away, as well as supporting friendly units on the defence. Actually, the artillery icon gives major advantages to the attacker even if the unit only has 1 hex range.

[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.

[golden delicious]

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.

I'd suggest that- ideally- rather than assuming that artillery in a non-artillery icon unit fires directly, it should be based on;
1) the equipment (infantry guns versus other artillery)
2) the unit's proficiency
3) the force communication level

Thus the game would be able to make an assumption that Soviet divisional artillery, with low proficiency and low communication level would have artillery firing directly. Naturally as soon as the unit icon is an artillery icon then these calculations become moot: the designer has shown his preference that the unit be able to fire indirectly. If the designer doesn't want that he can assign e.g. an infantry heavy weapons icon.

Having said that I wouldn't say this is a major problem in TOAW today- I consider this an enhancement rather than a "fix" per se.

[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.

[cathar1244]

the designer has shown his preference that the unit be able to fire indirectly.

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

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

If the trajectory is not ballistic then there is no earth-churning of entrenchments - therefore no disentrenchment effect.

[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?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

No one is talking about earth churning.

That's exactly what the "Shell Weight" effect is modeling.

The vast quantity of artillery is less than 150mm. So you off handedly dismiss the vast number of shells.

As does the disentrenchment effect, basically.

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.

And how would you account for mortars greater than 120mm?

If they are expected to disentrench, they should be put into a ranged unit.

[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.

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

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.

[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.

[Curtis Lemay]

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.

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.

[Lobster]

Seriously? Norm said so for the entire game. Yet it got changed in so many ways and is being changed at this very moment. [;)]

A weapon system should operate the same across the board. That's all I'm saying. Entirely up to you of course. [:)]

[golden delicious]

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

No, a unit with an artillery icon will never advance after combat.

[golden delicious]

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.

But the trouble is that above certain scales, putting the guns into an artillery icon unit is not practical. As a result your infantry division's guns fire indirectly at one scale and directly at another scale.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Seriously? Norm said so for the entire game.

Bob's point is that he didn't introduce this: it's always been this way. However, I think the advantage of range 1 artillery (compared to a non-artillery unit with the same guns) was less notable prior to TOAW III as I think there were some changes which made these units less vulnerable on the attack.

[Lobster]

To be honest Bob didn't introduce anything to the original releases. But has had no trouble introducing a continuous string of new functions. Artillery does reduce the effectiveness of entrenchments when not in a unit with a HQ or artillery symbol:

ARTCombat:997 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 9,6 by 19%.

But the unit retains it's entrenched status. Saying they can't 'churn the earth' because they are in the same command structure as some other equipment shouldn't negate what they are capable of. They lower the effectiveness of entrenchments. It's right in the TOAW log, 'suppress entrenchment'. That is lowering the effectiveness. It does NOT say anything about whether or not they are in a unit with a HQ or artillery icon. That is something Bob just came up with to justify not putting things right. It's all him, not Norm. I'd wager Norm did not intend the current state of affairs to exist. It's not the first mistake he made. And until you brought it up, 22+ years after the game is released, no one noticed.

19.2.2. Artillery vs.
Entrenchments
Artillery can lower the effectiveness of prepared
defensive positions during combat. The effect is
intended to model the earth-churning tendencies
of heavy Artillery and is tied to the weight of
individual shells. Heavier pieces are much more
effective than lighter pieces. MRL’s (Multiple
Rocket Launchers) generally do not receive this
advantage. While the Anti-Personnel strengths of
heavy Artillery may seem weak (due to very low
rates of fire), weapons of 150mm or larger can be
very effective against entrenched enemies.