The magic of separate artillery

[Lobster]

So your Okinawa scenario just jumped into my TOAWIII game all on it's own. Very interesting. Must have been aliens.

Well, I've had about enough fun here. Artillery in a non artillery unit somehow got manned by idiots who forgot how to use it for anything but direct fire regardless of hex scale so could only use it for direct fire. Then it became how it wasn't a trivial thing to make artillery work the same across the board, you know, like it does in the real world. Then on about ballistics regardless of how large the hex scale was.

Nothing about how it affects this:

19.2. Notes On Combat
Resolution
Combat resolution in TOAW Volume I was based
on cumulative mass fire. This is still true of Artillery
fire in Century of Warfare, and later versions,
but Anti-Tank and Anti-Personnel fire are now
handled at the level of individual weapons firing
at individual targets.

So, given 19.2 I guess we may now have a better understanding of why artillery in units with artillery or HQ symbols is more effective. Artillery fires separtely in mass and it fires first, then the other units take part in combat. To get it to function properly every thing from 76mm mortars up would have to be removed from every unit an put into their own unit with an artillery symbol.

Of course we'll never know how much of a difference this makes because artillery will remain as it is even though it's a non trivial effect on the game. I suppose we could make suppositions based on what makes you right.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

So your Okinawa scenario just jumped into my TOAWIII game all on it's own. Very interesting. Must have been aliens.

I said most, not all. With 20 scenarios there were bound to be a few with naval aspects.

We have designers making Pacific War scenarios, Sealowe scenarios, ETO scenarios, Med scenarios, etc. Naval improvements are for the benefit of everyone.

And, just for the record, it was Ralph who coded the naval improvements.

Artillery in a non artillery unit somehow got manned by idiots who forgot how to use it for anything but direct fire ...

Exactly. What the crew can do is just as important as what the gun itself can do. Indirect fire requires much more skill than direct fire - at least in order to hit anything. We have to be able to model shortages of such skilled personnel, since they historically occurred at critical times.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Exactly. What the crew can do is just as important as what the gun itself can do. Indirect fire requires much more skill than direct fire - at least in order to hit anything. We have to be able to model shortages of such skilled personnel, since they historically occurred at critical times.

You are making immense assumptions. You are saying every nation for all of time had shortages of skilled personnel at all times forever. You are also assuming that at every scale every artillery piece made for all time is right there at the front taking direct fire attacks regardless of size. But hey, go ahead and spin it any way you want. Like I've said, it won't matter you just do what you want anyway. You're the big guy right?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Exactly. What the crew can do is just as important as what the gun itself can do. Indirect fire requires much more skill than direct fire - at least in order to hit anything. We have to be able to model shortages of such skilled personnel, since they historically occurred at critical times.

You are making immense assumptions. You are saying every nation for all of time had shortages of skilled personnel at all times forever. You are also assuming that at every scale every artillery piece made for all time is right there at the front taking direct fire attacks regardless of size. But hey, go ahead and spin it any way you want. Like I've said, it won't matter you just do what you want anyway. You're the big guy right?

No. I've not made any such assumption. Just that some forces do have such shortages some times (and Barbarossa is a pretty big case, for wargamers). When they do, we're lucky that Norm provided a way to model it, and a trivial way for designers to make their choice about it.

And somebody has to be an adult when our precious coding capitol is involved. Clearly, you're not one. Keep throwing your fit.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Exactly. What the crew can do is just as important as what the gun itself can do. Indirect fire requires much more skill than direct fire - at least in order to hit anything. We have to be able to model shortages of such skilled personnel, since they historically occurred at critical times.

You are making immense assumptions. You are saying every nation for all of time had shortages of skilled personnel at all times forever. You are also assuming that at every scale every artillery piece made for all time is right there at the front taking direct fire attacks regardless of size. But hey, go ahead and spin it any way you want. Like I've said, it won't matter you just do what you want anyway. You're the big guy right?

No. I've not made any such assumption. Just that some forces do have such shortages some times (and Barbarossa is a pretty big case, for wargamers). When they do, we're lucky that Norm provided a way to model it, and a trivial way for designers to make their choice about it.

And somebody has to be an adult when our precious coding capitol is involved. Clearly, you're not one. Keep throwing your fit.

Usually, passively-defending equipment
is significantly shielded from losses in combat.
The theory is that units like Artillery are deployed
in rear areas and generally are out of harm’s way.

Also artillery in a non artillery unit bombards. As for coding time, instead of introducing new bugs how about fixing the old ones?

Furthermore, I'm not the only one who would like to see the game represent real battlefield conditions. Someone named Bob does too. So does that mean you are throwing a fit? [:D]

Difference between me and you is you are the diktator. I don't have the code so I have no control over what gets done, it's all controlled by the diktator.[8|]

Kinda pointless to go one. Go ahead Bob, last word as always. [:D]

[DD696]

Last word. Maybe I will, but I sincerely doubt it.

Lobster - you consistently pick fights.

Curtis - Well, I'm 74 and still whistling past the graveyard.

Give us a break. Tuck your balls deep into your shorts. Such pettiness is to be expected when a 4th grader is a bully. You fight back anyway you can, but the bully will always be a bully. Lobster, you were a true pain in the ass when you could not recognize that I was not the one you were wetting your pants over a year or so ago. Bob, you always have a holier than you attitude.

Most people want to play wargames that somewhat accurately portray conditions that existed. Others what to explore what could have been on the battlefield if different decisions had been made. Others, get their enjoyment out of pissing and moaning.

All this crap in no way contributes to the enjoyment of the simulation of warfare - unless you live your life thru the eyes of a 4th grade bully.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Difference between me and you is you are the diktator. I don't have the code so I have no control over what gets done, it's all controlled by the diktator.[8|]

I am being dictated to by the number of seconds in a minute, the number of minutes in an hour, the number of hours in a day, the number of days in a year, and the number of years I have left.

That is why I have to make those adult decisions about what goes into the coding capitol budget. Separate the diamonds from the garbage. This issue is garbage: It's been like this from the get-go and never even noticed. There is a trivial - and rational - workaround for designers.

You are being a child. Players (including myself) wait years for their wishes to perculate to the top of the coding list - regardless of how desireable those wishes may be. You think you can get your way if you throw a fit. But the number of seconds, etc., stays the same.

[jmlima]

... Artillery in a non artillery unit somehow got manned by idiots who forgot how to use it for anything but direct fire regardless of hex scale so could only use it for direct fire. ...

It's caused by the non-ballistic angle, derived from the tumbleweed cosine and multiplied by the air quality factor. All things that TOAW is in no way simulating of course.

[ericdauriac]

I want to create a division wide scenario. The Corps artillery will be well in the form of an "artillery" unit and treated as a unit with indirect fire. IF I understood your discussion correctly, the artillery integrated into the divisional unit will be treated as artillery with direct fire. I thought of increasing the strength of the divisional artillery to take into account its loss of effectiveness compared to artillery treated as indirect fire. This bonus would be related to the range of the divisional artillery. What do you think about this?

Regards

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: ericdauriac

I want to create a division wide scenario. The Corps artillery will be well in the form of an "artillery" unit and treated as a unit with indirect fire. IF I understood your discussion correctly, the artillery integrated into the divisional unit will be treated as artillery with direct fire. I thought of increasing the strength of the divisional artillery to take into account its loss of effectiveness compared to artillery treated as indirect fire. This bonus would be related to the range of the divisional artillery. What do you think about this?

It's an interesting concept. One could run some tests to work out a rough ratio of effectiveness between direct and indirect fire artillery, however you'd still have two problems:
1) in TOAW, only indirect fire will ever have a chance to remove a defending unit's entrenchment status
2) the effectiveness of direct fire equipment depends on whether the attacking unit has a flanking bonus. Indirect firing equipment will have the same effectiveness under all circumstances

I think the best approach would be not to make any special adjustments for this consideration and test the scenario as it stands. If it feels right, then there's no need to make any modifications: there are many scenarios out there (including my own) which work perfectly well without adjusting for this consideration. On the other hand if it feels too difficult to cause defenders to retreat or particularly to break entrenched positions, you'll want to look at moving the artillery into a dedicated unit.

One possibility:
- Split all divisions as per Directive 21, with a combat unit and an artillery unit
- Modify the co-operation settings and unit colours so that the player cannot just arbitrarily send divisional artillery off to to some other sector leaving their parent unit behind. For example, if you have corps-level formations, the divisional artillery unit would have a different icon colour from the combat unit so that it only has "full" co-operation with other units in the formation

This solution would work well for a relatively short scenario where corps assignments are likely to remain fixed, but if the player needs to be able to send divisions individually off to another sector then this would cause problems: two divisions need to be able to make a concerted attack without being penalised for "sharing" their divisional artillery.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: ericdauriac

I want to create a division wide scenario. The Corps artillery will be well in the form of an "artillery" unit and treated as a unit with indirect fire. IF I understood your discussion correctly, the artillery integrated into the divisional unit will be treated as artillery with direct fire. I thought of increasing the strength of the divisional artillery to take into account its loss of effectiveness compared to artillery treated as indirect fire. This bonus would be related to the range of the divisional artillery. What do you think about this?

Regards

No, artillery does not have direct fire capability in the game. If you look at the manual you'll see that artillery is not an active defender. As such it is behind the lines, out of harms way. The manual fairly states it that way.

§§ Active Defender Equipment: The equipment
actively contributes to a location’s defense and
is directly exposed to enemy action during
any combat.

13.13. Flanks and Rear
Areas
Most units are assigned a mix of actively defending
equipment (such as Infantry or Tanks)
and passively-defending equipment (such as
Artillery). Usually, passively-defending equipment
is significantly shielded from losses in combat.
The theory is that units like Artillery are deployed
in rear areas and generally are out of harm’s way.
Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.

A unit can be exposed to flanking fire.

In units attacked from any two, or more,
non-adjacent hexes in the same Turn, passivelydefending
equipment (such as Artillery) will
be forced to participate directly in combat. The
attacks need not be combined. One unit can “pin”
from one direction, while another executes the
“Flanking” Attack. If a unit that attacked earlier
in the Turn is itself later attacked, the original
Attack is considered a “defense” for this purpose.
This means that if a unit attacks to the south, but
is itself later attacked from the north, it will suffer
the Flank Attack penalty. Likewise, a unit that
attacks into two, or more, non-adjacent hexes will
suffer a Flank Attack from the defensive fire of
the defending units. Units that split into sub-units
and attack into two or more non-adjacent hexes
will cause the parent unit (and any subsequently
re-split sub-units) to be subject to Flank Attacks
if the sub-units recombine afterwards on the same
Turn that the sub-unit Attacks are made. Once a
unit has its flank “turned,” all further attacks in that
Turn against it, or by it (in the case of Defensive
Fire against Attacking units), will be a Flank
Attack until it retreats (defenders) or advances
(attackers). Units are not subject to the Flank
Attack penalty immediately after any movement
out of the hex from which they were attacked, or
attacked out of.
The facing of the 3D unit icon graphics on the
map is not significant for this purpose.
Note that, if optioned, “New Flanking Rules”
revises this somewhat. See 3.3.1.

Only artillery units have a non zero artillery strength.

§§ Artillery – This is the unit’s Bombardment
Strength. It includes that portion of the
Anti-Personnel Strength that the unit can
use in Bombardment Missions or in Combat
Support. Typically, only Headquarters, Naval,
Air, and Artillery units will have a non-zero
Artillery Strength, regardless of equipment
assigned.

But...if you look at the TOAW.log with uberdude on you will see that regardless of what type of unit the artillery is in ALL of the artillery is added together giving a mass shell weight for all of the artillery involved. In this instance artillery is any unit with a long range flag. This massed artillery suppresses any entrenchment by a percentage as well as causing casualties if there is enough shell weight.

During the artillery bombardment phase the game program separates out those artillery pieces that are in units with artillery symbols and that are over a certain size. These separated out artillery pieces are then used to calculate whether or not a unit is unentrenched and to what degree. So the program does indeed already have a method to determine weapon size, shell size and what type of unit it is in.

So practically speaking, artillery does not direct fire.
Hopefully this helps you decide what to do with your artillery.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
No, artillery does not have direct fire capability in the game. If you look at the manual you'll see that artillery is not an active defender. As such it is behind the lines, out of harms way. The manual fairly states it that way.

AT Guns are also passive defenders and get the same benefits. They are also definitely direct fire equipment.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster
No, artillery does not have direct fire capability in the game. If you look at the manual you'll see that artillery is not an active defender. As such it is behind the lines, out of harms way. The manual fairly states it that way.

AT Guns are also passive defenders and get the same benefits. They are also definitely direct fire equipment.

Quit spinning I'm going to puke. This guy needed help with ARTILLERY. No one said a thing about AT which is taken care of at a different point, after bombardment.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster
No, artillery does not have direct fire capability in the game. If you look at the manual you'll see that artillery is not an active defender. As such it is behind the lines, out of harms way. The manual fairly states it that way.

AT Guns are also passive defenders and get the same benefits. They are also definitely direct fire equipment.

Quit spinning I'm going to puke. This guy needed help with ARTILLERY. No one said a thing about AT which is taken care of at a different point, after bombardment.

If AT can be passive equipment and direct fire, then Artillery can be passive equipment and direct fire.

[Lobster]

OMG [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Maybe artillery bombardment comes before the AT stuff or after the AT stuff. Don't recall for certain.

13.13. Flanks and Rear
Areas
Most units are assigned a mix of actively defending
equipment (such as Infantry or Tanks)
and passively-defending equipment (such as
Artillery). Usually, passively-defending equipment
is significantly shielded from losses in combat.
The theory is that units like Artillery are deployed
in rear areas and generally are out of harm’s way.
Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.

Oops I forgot. Go ahead Bob, last word. Maybe this time something that actually helps the guy instead of harassing people.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

OMG [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

13.13. Flanks and Rear
Areas
Most units are assigned a mix of actively defending
equipment (such as Infantry or Tanks)
and passively-defending equipment (such as
Artillery). Usually, passively-defending equipment
is significantly shielded from losses in combat.
The theory is that units like Artillery are deployed
in rear areas and generally are out of harm’s way.
Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.

Oops I forgot. Go ahead Bob, last word. Maybe this time something that actually helps the guy instead of harassing people.

Which includes all AT guns. Check the file in the manuels folder. Active equipment is the type of equipment that would go "over the top". No towed equipment falls in that category. Being "shielded from losses" doesn't mean miles in the rear. It just means it's not going to be launching or receiving a bayonet charge or similar.

I repeat: If AT guns can be direct fire (and they are) then artillery can as well.

[Lobster]

Talking artillery not AT.

13.13. Flanks and Rear
Areas
Most units are assigned a mix of actively defending
equipment (such as Infantry or Tanks)
and passively-defending equipment (such as
Artillery). Usually, passively-defending equipment
is significantly shielded from losses in combat.
The theory is that units like Artillery are deployed
in rear areas and generally are out of harm’s way.
Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.

Oops I forgot. Go ahead Bob, last word. Maybe this time something that actually helps the guy instead of harassing people.

Crap sorry, last word was supposed to be yours. Go ahead again. I promise I won't reply to you again. Just imagine me posting 13.13 over and over again. [:D]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Crap sorry, last word was supposed to be yours. Go ahead again. I promise I won't reply to you again. Just imagine me posting 13.13 over and over again. [:D]

You can post 13.13 as many times as you want. It won't change the fact that AT guns are passive equipment - covered by 13.13 - and are direct fire weapons. Which means artillery can be direct fire weapons, too (good thing, since they often were in real life). Whatever Norm meant by 13.13, he clearly meant for all towed equipment to be passive.

[ericdauriac]

I don't know if it's right or bad, but according to the tests I've been able to do, I confirm that the artillery in a division is treated by the software as using direct fire (for example: it suffers losses despite the "passive defender" function, it causes losses to tanks).

So my proposal seems to me valid. I make it based on Askey's studies, and I retain the range as a discriminating parameter.

Regards

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

You can post 13.13 as many times as you want. It won't change the fact that AT guns are passive equipment - covered by 13.13 - and are direct fire weapons. Which means artillery can be direct fire weapons, too (good thing, since they often were in real life). Whatever Norm meant by 13.13, he clearly meant for all towed equipment to be passive.

I suggest ignoring him.