8.0 Corrections/Suggestions

[hogg]

Major Destruction - Yes, I agree with your basic point - whatever we do, players will find a way round it to have constant bombardments on tap - e.g. turning off a couple of tubes. Allowable? Ethical?


My big beef with artillery as it is set up at the mo is the (with forward observers) sub-one turn reaction time. It lets you snipe at moving tanks. Accurate?

I recently played a diy scenario against Double Deuce - 1939, Russians -v- Japanese, Manchurian border dispute.

I was the Japanese, and their artillery of the period was a real pain. Two turn reaction time!

What it did do was make me plan my fire missions two turns in advance - "In two turns, my attacking forces should be about here, so I want the barrage there to avoid them".

That (whilst a major pain) felt more realistic, as I was planning my fire missions on the current state of the game, not directing them to fleeting targets of opportunity.

[Goblin]

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction

To those who would like to have a large supply or longer bombardment period, why not simply buy more batteries?

But to those who would like to keep this in the tactical realm of company/battalion sized battles, how many batteries of 4.5's would Tommy Atkins be able to call on to cover the front of his company?

I know that some would argue that at times, the Allies could count on artillery from every available tube within range. So be it. But then why is it that in most PBEM battles players tend to opt for a limit to the batteries purchased?

To reduce the ammo loadouts, or increase the costs or increase the ROF or some combination of all these factors would eliminate the need to limit purchase quantities of artillery. Players would then opt to buy more batteries which in turn could be used to produce a greater saturation bombardment of a targeted area.

Would this be of any value to thosee who play PBEM? or to those who play vs AI in Campaigns?

Why have to buy more batteries? That IS unrealistic. Having a single battery support a battalion is realistic, but running out of ammunition almost immediately is NOT.


Goblin

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

The ROF adjustment for off-board arty is still in the testing phase--this was primarily to improve the 75s, which too often were out of contact and had plenty of ammo left at the completion of a campaign scenario. Now, my preliminary tests indicate that for the 105s and 155s, holding a battery or two in reserve for late-game situations becomes more important.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it's always a good idea to turn off one gun for each off-board battery anyway. This actually is a de rigeur tactic, as a malfunction does not disable an entire battery. Ammo conservation should play a part on the scale of these battles anyway. You gotta remember that your battalion is borrowing regimental and divisional assets--to assume a never-ending ammo supply (unless you turn reduced ammo "off" in your preferences) is just unrealistic.
I see no need to increase ammo loads, as this defeats the purpose of the ROF adjustments. I believe that the current ammo loads are more than adequate. On the "Historical Arty Delay" thread, I gave the proposed adjusted ROF chart. You guys can do your own tests, and let us know what you think. We need to discuss this more. IMHO, I think it's a good idea.

Why not simply rate artillery according to a median historical RoF instead of this WAG?

[harlekwin]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

The ROF adjustment for off-board arty is still in the testing phase--this was primarily to improve the 75s, which too often were out of contact and had plenty of ammo left at the completion of a campaign scenario. Now, my preliminary tests indicate that for the 105s and 155s, holding a battery or two in reserve for late-game situations becomes more important.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it's always a good idea to turn off one gun for each off-board battery anyway. This actually is a de rigeur tactic, as a malfunction does not disable an entire battery. Ammo conservation should play a part on the scale of these battles anyway. You gotta remember that your battalion is borrowing regimental and divisional assets--to assume a never-ending ammo supply (unless you turn reduced ammo "off" in your preferences) is just unrealistic.
I see no need to increase ammo loads, as this defeats the purpose of the ROF adjustments. I believe that the current ammo loads are more than adequate. On the "Historical Arty Delay" thread, I gave the proposed adjusted ROF chart. You guys can do your own tests, and let us know what you think. We need to discuss this more. IMHO, I think it's a good idea.

Why not simply rate artillery according to a median historical RoF instead of this WAG?

Because then certain OOBs won't have their effectiveness artificially increased....


Ah well....

time to move on to Cl as the OOBs/gameplay will get even more disneyland as time goes on it seems.........

[KG Erwin]

Harlekwin, how did you get the pic for the new weapon we're putting in the Norway OOB?
This is a transport for the Elite Para Girl Scouts, another new unit. They will be equipped with Explosive "Bomb-bomb" cookies, which can be planted near enemy positions. They look like regular GS cookies, which will naturally tempt the hungry but unsuspecting bad guys--one bite and [:'(]

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

The ROF adjustment for off-board arty is still in the testing phase--this was primarily to improve the 75s, which too often were out of contact and had plenty of ammo left at the completion of a campaign scenario. Now, my preliminary tests indicate that for the 105s and 155s, holding a battery or two in reserve for late-game situations becomes more important.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it's always a good idea to turn off one gun for each off-board battery anyway. This actually is a de rigeur tactic, as a malfunction does not disable an entire battery. Ammo conservation should play a part on the scale of these battles anyway. You gotta remember that your battalion is borrowing regimental and divisional assets--to assume a never-ending ammo supply (unless you turn reduced ammo "off" in your preferences) is just unrealistic.
I see no need to increase ammo loads, as this defeats the purpose of the ROF adjustments. I believe that the current ammo loads are more than adequate. On the "Historical Arty Delay" thread, I gave the proposed adjusted ROF chart. You guys can do your own tests, and let us know what you think. We need to discuss this more. IMHO, I think it's a good idea.

Why not simply rate artillery according to a median historical RoF instead of this WAG?

Because then certain OOBs won't have their effectiveness artificially increased....


Ah well....

time to move on to Cl as the OOBs/gameplay will get even more disneyland as time goes on it seems.........

[harlekwin]

If you say so.....

I get the sneaking suspicion that had I done my work on the Tiger Team US OoB saying "I just want it to feel right" you'd get my point.

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Harlekwin, how did you get the pic for the new weapon we're putting in the Norway OOB?
This is a transport for the Elite Para Girl Scouts, another new unit. They will be equipped with Explosive "Bomb-bomb" cookies, which can be planted near enemy positions. They look like regular GS cookies, which will naturally tempt the hungry but unsuspecting bad guys--one bite and [:'(]

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen



Why not simply rate artillery according to a median historical RoF instead of this WAG?

Because then certain OOBs won't have their effectiveness artificially increased....


Ah well....

time to move on to Cl as the OOBs/gameplay will get even more disneyland as time goes on it seems.........

[Alby]

Artillery Availability

Now this, to me, is the real argument!

Tommy Atkins, advancing on the battlefield, sees target of opportunity. Works out co-ordinates, finds a radio that works, passes fire mission request up the line to the artillery co-ordinator, message passed to battery, battery works out which direction and distance to fire in, guns laid, ammo loaded, lanyards pulled, shells leave barrel, fly some distance, and land in rough area of intended target.

All of this takes time.

And, depending on the nationality and era, the time will vary considerably from one army to the next.

But, what do we in spwaw do? Artillery flung about the map at a moments notice, hitting moving targets with ease.

And the introduction of forward observers has made it worse! Now, with there access time reduced to less than a turn, hide a forward observer somewhere safe, and you can drop (admittedly unobserved) artillery roughly where you want it, supressing the enemy, at the end of your curren turn!


To me, the answer to all this is simple - allow off board artillery virtually unlimited ammo, but considerably extend the amount of time it takes to call it in - again dependant on nationality.

Get the call in time up to two turns, and you start to have to think about where you want it, and plan ahead. No more sniping at fleeting targets with 150mm howitzers!


Sorry to ramble on! [>:]


Cheers,

Hogg.

To me this is one thing I hate, It seems most of my pbem games are spent running from artillery every turn. I move my units, then get hit with arty , move them again, get hit with arty and so on and so forth
These .00 .01 and .02 delays reall bugger me sometimes[:@]

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Alby
To me this is one thing I hate, It seems most of my pbem games are spent running from artillery every turn. I move my units, then get hit with arty , move them again, get hit with arty and so on and so forth
These .00 .01 and .02 delays reall bugger me sometimes[:@]

Obviously something should be done to the ultra-fast-response artillery. I haven't actually played SPWW2, but I've heard that it has more decent delays for arty. Is it true?

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: Alby
To me this is one thing I hate, It seems most of my pbem games are spent running from artillery every turn. I move my units, then get hit with arty , move them again, get hit with arty and so on and so forth
These .00 .01 and .02 delays reall bugger me sometimes[:@]

Obviously something should be done to the ultra-fast-response artillery. I haven't actually played SPWW2, but I've heard that it has more decent delays for arty. Is it true?

Yep. MBT too.

[FlashfyreSP]

Both SP:WW2 and SP:MBT have more realistic ROF and delay settings, but they have one major fault, IMHO: YOURartillery barrages only happen at the end of yourOPPONENT'Sturn. If a barrage is longer than one turn's worth, the carry-over portion (which in SPWAW falls at the end of the next turn, regardless of which side) waits until your opponent has taken his next turn.[:'(]

What this means is that you are not able to plan a mission for the end of YOUR turn, in order to have it impact your opponent and suppress HIS troops, which hinders HIS movement and actions for HIS turn.[:D]

In both these versions, you have to plan your fire missions 'in the future'....where will my opponent be IN 2 TURNS, not where will he be NEXT turn. Otherwise, his troops will be long gone from the impact area.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
In both these versions, you have to plan your fire missions 'in the future'....where will my opponent be IN 2 TURNS, not where will he be NEXT turn. Otherwise, his troops will be long gone from the impact area.

Sounds pretty realistic to me.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
In both these versions, you have to plan your fire missions 'in the future'....where will my opponent be IN 2 TURNS, not where will he be NEXT turn. Otherwise, his troops will be long gone from the impact area.

Sounds pretty realistic to me.

And to me.

[harlekwin]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
In both these versions, you have to plan your fire missions 'in the future'....where will my opponent be IN 2 TURNS, not where will he be NEXT turn. Otherwise, his troops will be long gone from the impact area.

Sounds pretty realistic to me.

And to me.

yup

[Voriax]

Realistic? Nope, if the only possible impact time is at the end of opponents turn.

Voriax

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Voriax
Realistic? Nope, if the only possible impact time is at the end of opponents turn.

Why so? Remember that it is a igo-ugo system, where opposite turns combined presents an abstraction of 3-5 mins of action. Why should it be spoiled with ultra-responsive artillery firing before both sides have moved their units?

[Voriax]

ORIGINAL: Keke


Why so? Remember that it is a igo-ugo system, where opposite turns combined presents an abstraction of 3-5 mins of action. Why should it be spoiled with ultra-responsive artillery firing before both sides have moved their units?

Did I say it has to be instant? By all means let the opponent finish a turn or even two, but if I'm defending I'd be quite happy if I'd be allowed to decide if my arty strikes land before opponent moves his units hindering his movement or after he has moved all his units.

Voriax

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Voriax


Did I say it has to be instant? By all means let the opponent finish a turn or even two, but if I'm defending I'd be quite happy if I'd be allowed to decide if my arty strikes land before opponent moves his units hindering his movement or after he has moved all his units.

Now how realistic is that? Keep in mind the concept of igo-ugo system...

[Voriax]

In my opinion quite realistic. I'm sure that in rl situation a smart FO would relay coordinates and then wait for the best possible time to actually call the fire.
How realistic is arty delay that has an increment of one turn? anyways, MBT doesn't really interest me so they can have whatever arty delays they want.


Voriax

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Voriax

In my opinion quite realistic. I'm sure that in rl situation a smart FO would relay coordinates and then wait for the best possible time to actually call the fire.
How realistic is arty delay that has an increment of one turn? anyways, MBT doesn't really interest me so they can have whatever arty delays they want.

So in reality, opposite troops move in turns?...and a smart FO can order shells to land before the opposite side has had even the possibility to actually do anything during the same space of time?...

[Voriax]

The obvious problem is that I do not vision mine and opponents turns happening simultaneously or combined. Now, if the game is 'plot everything and then watch action take place' thats another matter, but turn based is your turn, my turn, your turn etc. You may think in a way of combined turns,that's your right. And as such combining in 'my version' does not take place hence there is no problem with smaller increment arty delays.
Too bad this isn't a tabletop game where an arty barrage can be effective for severals turns. But then, I think CL will have something like that.

Voriax