The magic of separate artillery

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt


Hmmm... Having an HQ behind the front and adding its artillery as "direct fire" to the hex that is being attacked? Isnt that a bit weird? How does that even work? If the HQ was commited to the attack itself I might accept the direct fire thinghy.. but not when the unit is behind the front.

The HQ icon acts as an artillery icon and so is perfectly effective at range.

Ill admit that as a old infantryman I am not an expert on artillery. But I would bet that shooting an artillery Shell directly is not that effective and very dangerous for the artillery.

Maybe the term directly dosent really signify "directly" ... ?!? If that makes sense.

Direct vs. Indirect fire just reflects two different ways TOAW deals with artillery fire in combat. If it's direct fire then as far as I can tell it's treated no differently than so many rifles or machine guns. If it's indirect then special rules come in to play, damage is dealt differently and there's a % chance of each defending unit reverting to a "mobile" status.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Direct vs. Indirect fire just reflects two different ways TOAW deals with artillery fire in combat. If it's direct fire then as far as I can tell it's treated no differently than so many rifles or machine guns. If it's indirect then special rules come in to play, damage is dealt differently and there's a % chance of each defending unit reverting to a "mobile" status.

Why is it different? Direct fire merely means the gun has a los to the target. It could be 5km away.

[Lobster]

The manual says zero about what type of unit an artillery equipment needs to be in to reduce fortifications. It simply states the size of the shell.

I am constantly amazed how so much effort can be put forth to make this game more closely resemble the real world and how much effort is made to keep this game from resembling the real world.

[ericdauriac]

Hello,

Sorry for my bad English, but your discussion is exciting. And I want to make two remarks:

- direct artillery suffers losses, not indirect artillery (except counter-battery).
- indirect artillery is ineffective against tanks.

Is that correct?

This last point seems awkward to me.

Regards

[Lobster]

In the modern battlefield indirect artillery is very good at anti tank work. In WW2 it depended on size of shell and luck.
203mm howitzer in direct fire support:

[Lobster]

All of this reminds me of when Paul Vebber at Leadeaters vehemently insisted the German 88 could not be used as an AT weapon without first being modified and then it took time to take it off it's carriage before it could be fired. That one got hot.

BTW, notice the guy with binoculars closest to the camera correcting fire.

[FaneFlugt]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Direct vs. Indirect fire just reflects two different ways TOAW deals with artillery fire in combat. If it's direct fire then as far as I can tell it's treated no differently than so many rifles or machine guns. If it's indirect then special rules come in to play, damage is dealt differently and there's a % chance of each defending unit reverting to a "mobile" status.

Why is it different? Direct fire merely means the gun has a los to the target. It could be 5km away.

Ok ok... deep breath... But! an artillery piece in a HQ can ONLY and I Stress ONLY ever fire directly. No matter the circumstances?

If so, then I think I agree with Lobster now. The shell size should apply and not the unit icon. It makes it more consistent and logical. The reason why I dont want to agree with Lobster is that means a ton of scenarios need to be redesigned.

[Lobster]

Long story short...kind of.

Golden Delicious discovered that artillery was more deadly if it was in a HQ or an artillery unit where it could fire indirectly. It was less deadly if it was in any other unit type. Post #1

Bob said indirect fire had something to do with shell weight being used to compute the results when the artillery fired indirectly. Direct fire probably not. Post #13

I had an issue with shells suddenly having no weight when fired directly vs indirectly. Like somehow the physical properties of the shell changed. Whether direct fire or indirect fire it's still the same weapon, the same shell, the same shell weight. It should not, as Golden Delicious said, "magically change" anything.

[ericdauriac]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

In the modern battlefield indirect artillery is very good at anti tank work. In WW2 it depended on size of shell and luck.
203mm howitzer in direct fire support:

Ok But I speak for the artillery effect in TOAW. I found that artillery firing indirectly on tanks had no effect?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Direct vs. Indirect fire just reflects two different ways TOAW deals with artillery fire in combat. If it's direct fire then as far as I can tell it's treated no differently than so many rifles or machine guns. If it's indirect then special rules come in to play, damage is dealt differently and there's a % chance of each defending unit reverting to a "mobile" status.

Why is it different? Direct fire merely means the gun has a los to the target. It could be 5km away.

To know why you'd have to ask Norm- he wrote the code. I'm just telling you that it's so.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt


Ok ok... deep breath... But! an artillery piece in a HQ can ONLY and I Stress ONLY ever fire directly. No matter the circumstances?

No. An HQ unit is treated as an artillery unit by the engine.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ericdauriac


Ok But I speak for the artillery effect in TOAW. I found that artillery firing indirectly on tanks had no effect?

Correct- sort of. If you attack a pure armour unit with just artillery it won't knock out any tanks. However I find that artillery support against pure armoured units makes the attack much more effective. This may just be due to the "disentrenching" effect of artillery, which works irrespective of the type of equipment in the unit.

[FaneFlugt]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt


Ok ok... deep breath... But! an artillery piece in a HQ can ONLY and I Stress ONLY ever fire directly. No matter the circumstances?

No. An HQ unit is treated as an artillery unit by the engine.

I can confirm that, Just came back from testing and what you say is correct I could succesfully unentrench a unit with a HQ with guns above 150mm.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Direct vs. Indirect fire just reflects two different ways TOAW deals with artillery fire in combat. If it's direct fire then as far as I can tell it's treated no differently than so many rifles or machine guns. If it's indirect then special rules come in to play, damage is dealt differently and there's a % chance of each defending unit reverting to a "mobile" status.

Why is it different? Direct fire merely means the gun has a los to the target. It could be 5km away.

To know why you'd have to ask Norm- he wrote the code. I'm just telling you that it's so.

Rhetorical question. It shouldn't be different. And like I've said before, could well be something overlooked by Norm and missed in testing. Not the first time TOAW had a glitch that was never realized. None of us can know either way since we are not mind readers. Logic says it should not be different. Bob says it should just because and then comes up with the lame plunging trajectory excuse which, if anyone knows a smidgen about cannons, they don't have and totally ignoring evidence that even at close range artillery destroys trenches, bunkers, pill boxes and all other manner of fortifications.

Anyway, gone over it too many times already so it stays as is and we make up ahistorical trash as we go along. [:D]

I don't recall, can we trace supply by sea yet?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Bob says it should just because and then comes up with the lame plunging trajectory excuse which, if anyone knows a smidgen about cannons, they don't have and totally ignoring evidence that even at close range artillery destroys trenches, bunkers, pill boxes and all other manner of fortifications.

No plunging trajectory? That'll be a surprise to Issac Newton.

Artillery firing directly is not firing ballistically - the gun is not being elevated. Otherwise, it wouldn't need a line of sight. Without ballistics it can't disentrench. Bunkers and pill boxes are what Fortified Terrain consist of, not entrenchments. You don't "dig in" with a shovel and come up with those types of defenses.

But, keep throwing your fit. It's entertaining.

[FaneFlugt]

Just a comment, and I might have changed my opinion and reverted to keep it as it is.... If HQs icons can "undig" enemy units as they can (tested) and as can artillery icons, then there isnt a problem in my opinion.

Artillery in an inf. unit gives direct support. And sadly cant "undig" units. Because the code says so. Artillery in HQs and art units gives indirect fire, and can undig.

Just a question if you attack a dug in unit, in the same impulse as your HQ fires on a hex. When does the roll for undigging occur?

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Bob says it should just because and then comes up with the lame plunging trajectory excuse which, if anyone knows a smidgen about cannons, they don't have and totally ignoring evidence that even at close range artillery destroys trenches, bunkers, pill boxes and all other manner of fortifications.

No plunging trajectory? That'll be a surprise to Issac Newton.

Artillery firing directly is not firing ballistically - the gun is not being elevated. Otherwise, it wouldn't need a line of sight. Without ballistics it can't disentrench. Bunkers and pill boxes are what Fortified Terrain consist of, not entrenchments. You don't "dig in" with a shovel and come up with those types of defenses.

But, keep throwing your fit. It's entertaining.

Well if quoting history is throwing a fit I'm guilty. If making crap up to make your argument valid? That has Bob all over it. Artillery does not have to fire ballistically to take down fortifications. Let me see your proof of only something fired ballistically being effective vs fortifications. I've given ample proof to the contrary. Let's see yours.

And why do I have to have artillery in a pure artillery unit to make it function as designed? Too many meaningless design constraints. Do it the Bob way or not at all.

Know what Bob. Never mind. You'll forever make up stuff that's nonsensical to make yourself right. Go on with The Operational Art of Bob. I really don't care anymore. I have better things to do. [8D]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Artillery does not have to fire ballistically to take down fortifications. Let me see your proof of only something fired ballistically being effective vs fortifications. I've given ample proof to the contrary. Let's see yours.

As I just said in the last post: Pill Boxes and other above ground concrete structures are Fortified Terrain and are never achieved with "digging in". Entrenchments are defenses created by excavating earth, making them below ground. They obviously are far more vulnerable to plunging shells than horizontal ones.

And why do I have to have artillery in a pure artillery unit to make it function as designed? Too many meaningless design constraints. Do it the Bob way or not at all.

Here we go! This is the lie:

1. I caused this.
2. My refusal to fix it is out of sheer spite.
3. It's impact on designers is horrific.

Here is the truth:

1. TOAW has worked this way from the get-go. This is how Norm made it. I used it to great benefit in my Soviet Union 1941 scenario 15 years ago.
2. If I code continously for the next 10 years I still won't have finished the tasks that are already on the planning board. Anything added to that list has to be truely justified.
3. Designers have a TRIVIAL workaround: If they want artillery to function ballistically, put it in a ranged unit. If they don't, put it in a non-ranged unit.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Artillery does not have to fire ballistically to take down fortifications. Let me see your proof of only something fired ballistically being effective vs fortifications. I've given ample proof to the contrary. Let's see yours.

As I just said in the last post: Pill Boxes and other above ground concrete structures are Fortified Terrain and are never achieved with "digging in". Entrenchments are defenses created by excavating earth, making them below ground. They obviously are far more vulnerable to plunging shells than horizontal ones.

And why do I have to have artillery in a pure artillery unit to make it function as designed? Too many meaningless design constraints. Do it the Bob way or not at all.

Here we go! This is the lie:

1. I caused this.
2. My refusal to fix it is out of sheer spite.
3. It's impact on designers is horrific.

Here is the truth:

1. TOAW has worked this way from the get-go. This is how Norm made it. I used it to great benefit in my Soviet Union 1941 scenario 15 years ago.
2. If I code continously for the next 10 years I still won't have finished the tasks that are already on the planning board. Anything added to that list has to be truely justified.
3. Designers have a TRIVIAL workaround: If they want artillery to function ballistically, put it in a ranged unit. If they don't, put it in a non-ranged unit.

As usual you refuse to change something because of the impact it will have on YOUR scenarios. You do change things to improve YOUR scenarios. The naval changes? To improve your Pacific scenarios. The Leader changes before anything else? To improve your Civil War scenarios. So now you admit this. It's about time. Others have speculated about this. Now you admit it.

Was it your idea to change to just one counter sheet without bothering to ask the community how they felt about it?

Given how erratic Ralph is nothing is trivial concerning anything getting done with this game. Not even a simple patch.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

As usual you refuse to change something because of the impact it will have on YOUR scenarios. You do change things to improve YOUR scenarios. The naval changes? To improve your Pacific scenarios. The Leader changes before anything else? To improve your Civil War scenarios. So now you admit this. It's about time. Others have speculated about this. Now you admit it.

More lies. Both the naval and commander improvements were to improve the game in general - which is what they achieved/will achieve. Most of my naval scenarios were designed to demonstrate those new features. Commanders have universal application.

Was it your idea to change to just one counter sheet without bothering to ask the community how they felt about it?

Nope. Ralph did that all on his lonesome. By the way, my "how to" article on that was posted on the development board 1 1/2 years before launch. No one complained till after launch.

Given how erratic Ralph is nothing is trivial concerning anything getting done with this game. Not even a simple patch.

Setting whether artillery will be ballistic or direct fire is trivial.