You might have a very good point Tombstone, if only falling shells were silent weapons. You assert that only the people within a 25 yard radius of where the shell actually hits are going to hear it coming. Now perhaps I'm wrong, but from what I've read and heard shells are LOUD, especially if we're talking about the large-bore shells that cause splash damage. You would have to be pretty durned deaf not to be very, very aware of it if you were just 50 yards away from the hit zone. If we want to get really realistic we could say that probably anyone within 100 yards will hit the deck.
So we must assume that all people within the endangered hexes will react nearly the same the imminent shell hit. And I would think that we can correlate shrapnel density/effectiveness to distance from ground zero just like we would blast radius, thereby yielding the same precipitous and exponential decline as you travel out. Therefore my point still stands.
So I don't know-- perhaps a large-bore shell hit should wipe out nearly everything in the target hex.. perhaps it should do less damage in adjacent hexes.. but the current model is wacked.
Adjacent hex damage
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Hello...
When we modeled the high explosives system, we assumed that the round does not always land in the exact center of the hex or even in the portion of the hex which contains the target. In the case of smaller caliber ordinance, when this occurs, no casualties are produced. In the case of larger caliber ordinance, casualties in the target hex and adjacent hexes can still be produced, because of the size of the explosion. Within our system it is quite possible to kill no one in the target hex at all, and yet destroy a squad in the adjacent hex. In this case, the round landed near the edge of the hex and micro-terrain protected the unit in the target hex.
Hope this helps to understand our logic...
Michael Wood
When we modeled the high explosives system, we assumed that the round does not always land in the exact center of the hex or even in the portion of the hex which contains the target. In the case of smaller caliber ordinance, when this occurs, no casualties are produced. In the case of larger caliber ordinance, casualties in the target hex and adjacent hexes can still be produced, because of the size of the explosion. Within our system it is quite possible to kill no one in the target hex at all, and yet destroy a squad in the adjacent hex. In this case, the round landed near the edge of the hex and micro-terrain protected the unit in the target hex.
Hope this helps to understand our logic...
Michael Wood
I agree that everyone is going to hear it and anyone who knows they're supposed to is gonna hit the dirt. I disagree that we get an exponential difference from target to adjacent at that point. Blast fills space as it expands, shrapnel does not. Although the actual density of shrapnel decreases I don't think that you would get an exponential reduction in shrapnel casualties as you get further from ground zero except at extremely close ranges... and at that range guys are probable casualties anyways. My whole point is that the lower number of kills that currently occur is suffw.mant and reasonable.
Tomo
Tomo
Hello All.
For the effects of artillery in WWII, see this websight. http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/
Also, IIRC, pretty much all artillery shells in WWII (inc mortars) were fired at supersonic velocities, so a soldier would only hear the shells that had passed over him. (because the incoming shells are travelling faster than the sound they make.)
For the effects of artillery in WWII, see this websight. http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/
Also, IIRC, pretty much all artillery shells in WWII (inc mortars) were fired at supersonic velocities, so a soldier would only hear the shells that had passed over him. (because the incoming shells are travelling faster than the sound they make.)
"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
Most of this discussion is based on shrapnel damage. There is a second part to a large shell exploding, that is the concussion effect. Since the casaulties do not repesent only kill soldiers but also soldiers that are unable to continue to fight due to other reasons. I don't find the large shell damage to be to far out of line. Consussion effects include, busted ear drums, and disorentation. I just love those direct fire 150+mm guns. So much for my two cents. 
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Have to agree with Kahn to some extent.
I find myself picking ARTY knowing full well its because it has that effect on adjacent hexes. But is it realistic when measured against other weapons?
No expert on mortars here, but the comment of them supposedly being more effective sounds familiar though. I only use mortars for smoke because they never seem to kill anything. Somehow that doesnt savvy with what might have been the case.
My current game is enjoying a wealth of British 8 inch artillery, and I sure like the fact I dont have to aim it to well (kills anything near the impact hex just fine).
But I only use it cause I know it does what it does with little aiming needed. But still, something about it doing more damage outside of where it goes kaboom sounds wrong eh.
I just wish mortars were more than just a mild nuisance. I dont even care when my guys get mortared. Nothing ever happens from it. If the computer cant hurt me with them, I sure dont expect mine to do much either.
I tend to relegate them to nothing more than smoke duty at best.
Oh and just my 2 cents on the "civility on here" Hmmmm seen a great deal worse thats for sure elsewhere than at Matrix. I dont think the comment warranted an attack on it myself Lars.
Heaven knows I have seen quite a lot of brief flippant remarks here on the forum. I sometimes think some of the posts are nothing better than "ohhh YEAH! says you" grade retorts at best (but heck its not like they are offensive).
I dont think Khan was wrong or going to far for putting down the comment for it not saying anything.
I find myself picking ARTY knowing full well its because it has that effect on adjacent hexes. But is it realistic when measured against other weapons?
No expert on mortars here, but the comment of them supposedly being more effective sounds familiar though. I only use mortars for smoke because they never seem to kill anything. Somehow that doesnt savvy with what might have been the case.
My current game is enjoying a wealth of British 8 inch artillery, and I sure like the fact I dont have to aim it to well (kills anything near the impact hex just fine).
But I only use it cause I know it does what it does with little aiming needed. But still, something about it doing more damage outside of where it goes kaboom sounds wrong eh.
I just wish mortars were more than just a mild nuisance. I dont even care when my guys get mortared. Nothing ever happens from it. If the computer cant hurt me with them, I sure dont expect mine to do much either.
I tend to relegate them to nothing more than smoke duty at best.
Oh and just my 2 cents on the "civility on here" Hmmmm seen a great deal worse thats for sure elsewhere than at Matrix. I dont think the comment warranted an attack on it myself Lars.
Heaven knows I have seen quite a lot of brief flippant remarks here on the forum. I sometimes think some of the posts are nothing better than "ohhh YEAH! says you" grade retorts at best (but heck its not like they are offensive).
I dont think Khan was wrong or going to far for putting down the comment for it not saying anything.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
Lars Remmen
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Hello,Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1:
[Snip]
Oh and just my 2 cents on the "civility on here" Hmmmm seen a great deal worse thats for sure elsewhere than at Matrix. I dont think the comment warranted an attack on it myself Lars.
Heaven knows I have seen quite a lot of brief flippant remarks here on the forum. I sometimes think some of the posts are nothing better than "ohhh YEAH! says you" grade retorts at best (but heck its not like they are offensive).
I dont think Khan was wrong or going to far for putting down the comment for it not saying anything.
I don't really think pointing out, in a polite manner I think, that this is a friendly board to someone new here constitutes an attack. Actually I think it would be unfair to the newcomers not to point it out. Also remember that a lot of different nationalities come to this board, and something quite normal in one country can be very offending in another.
But back to artillery. I find myself being hammered by mortars quite often and I take a fair number of casualties. I think the big mistake is in the pricing. Mortars are VERY expensive for their kiling power whereas heavy artillery is almost ridicoulous cheap.
Regards,
Lars
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin
-
Paul Goodman
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Portsmouth, VA, USA
11Bravo: That was an interesting test. I would like to see it repeated with direct fire to see if there is a difference.
I think that the biggest diffence is that we are alway shooting at a single target. I would like to see a test run with one more unit in the impact hex and two or three adjacent units.
The most recent example from an actual game. I advanced a cavalry unit one hex and a FJ squad was revealed in a fortified hex adjacent to the cavalry unit and two more FJ in a fortified hex immediately behind the single unit. The immediate FJ was routed (from 12mm artillery); I did not note the condition of the other two, but none of them fired on the cavalry unit. I had an ISU-152 in the same hex that the cavalry unit was originally in. All of these units were now direct fire targets for the ISU-152. Having recently wised up, I cleverly moved the cavalry unit back before opening fire with the 152. I fired at the closest FJ unit. This unit took no casualties, but the two units behind each took one casualty and bugged out sideways from the fortified hex (i.e., they were still adjacent to my target hex). I fired again into the target hex. All hell broke loose. I got one casualty on the target unit which bugged out. The other two units each took two casualties and dispersed. The target unit was finished by the cavalry unit.
It seems reasonable that, because with direct fire you are actually targeting a unit, it may act different from area fire.
Paul
I think that the biggest diffence is that we are alway shooting at a single target. I would like to see a test run with one more unit in the impact hex and two or three adjacent units.
The most recent example from an actual game. I advanced a cavalry unit one hex and a FJ squad was revealed in a fortified hex adjacent to the cavalry unit and two more FJ in a fortified hex immediately behind the single unit. The immediate FJ was routed (from 12mm artillery); I did not note the condition of the other two, but none of them fired on the cavalry unit. I had an ISU-152 in the same hex that the cavalry unit was originally in. All of these units were now direct fire targets for the ISU-152. Having recently wised up, I cleverly moved the cavalry unit back before opening fire with the 152. I fired at the closest FJ unit. This unit took no casualties, but the two units behind each took one casualty and bugged out sideways from the fortified hex (i.e., they were still adjacent to my target hex). I fired again into the target hex. All hell broke loose. I got one casualty on the target unit which bugged out. The other two units each took two casualties and dispersed. The target unit was finished by the cavalry unit.
It seems reasonable that, because with direct fire you are actually targeting a unit, it may act different from area fire.
Paul
More or less true for ground bursts, if the shell came down near verticle, like a mortar round. If it is an airburst, very little shrapnel goes straight down, most is tossed at an angle creating something like a cone.Originally posted by Khan7:
Think about it this way: if there is enough shrapnel and hell coming out of an explosive charge to rip people apart 50 -75 yards away, just think what it would to to the poor bastard who's sitting on ground zero. Anyone who knows anything about blast radii knows that damage decreases exponentially as you travel out from ground zero. Goodman makes a very good point.
thanks, John.
FYI . . .Originally posted by Voriax:
And as it takes some time after the impact to the fuse to work the round will dig in to some degree...afaik rather deeply in case of slow fuses.
Voriax
Point detonating fuses come with two settings - super quick (instant detonation), and delay (.05 seconds). Neither one actually digs in very far before detonation.
Cracker
"Artillery is the God of Battle"
"Artillery is the God of Battle"
More FYI . . .Originally posted by Lynx:
LOL,No worries posters,
An 81mm is equiv to a 105How and a 120mm is equiv to a 150How in shell power, but the 120's don't do 150 equiv damage, and the 81's just force coffee breaks. I remember reading mortars caused most of the inf cassualties in the post DDay west.
Lynx
Mortars are not equivalent to artillery shells. 81mm weighs about 10lbs, 105mm about 30. I don't know the weight of 120, but 150 weighs 75-100lbs.
Mortars have a greater splinter effect than artillery shells, since they require far less tube pressure to fire and can therefore be made with lighter casings. They can also be fired at much higher rates. This makes them deadlier against exposed soft targets. Artillery shells, containing much more 'filler' and having heavier casings, have a more significant effect on dug-in and hard targets.
Mortars, regardless of calibre, make a very piddly poof when they go off, nothing at all like the large boom in SPWAW. Artillery shells impact like a thunder clap that makes the ground shake for miles.
That doesn't, however, mean infantry would rather be mortared than shelled.
Cracker
"Artillery is the God of Battle"
"Artillery is the God of Battle"
Quote from Mike Wood:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hello...
When we modeled the high explosives system, we assumed that the round does not always land in the exact center of the hex or even in the portion of the hex which contains the target. In the case of smaller caliber ordinance, when this occurs, no casualties are produced. In the case of larger caliber ordinance, casualties in the target hex and adjacent hexes can still be produced, because of the size of the explosion. Within our system it is quite possible to kill no one in the target hex at all, and yet destroy a squad in the adjacent hex. In this case, the round landed near the edge of the hex and micro-terrain protected the unit in the target hex.
Hope this helps to understand our logic...
Michael Wood
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RRRRrrrgg.. Okay, here is a semi-complex mathematical analysis of all this.
We assume in the following that the total significant blast radius is 25m (so that it would fill a 50m hex if it struck in the center).
The following was found with a bunch of math that I won't bother to write out here, but if feel like doubting it I'll show all my work.
25% chance of the shell landing within 12.5m of the center. We will assume that a shell landing in this range would significantly affect the target hex ONLY.
31.2% chance of the shell landing between 12.5 and 18.75m from the center. This would on average spread the blast about 2/3 in the target hex and 1/3 in ONE other hex.
43.7% chance of the shell landing between 18.75 and 25m from the center. We will assume that this affects the target and ONE other hex about equally, with a tendency to affect the target hex slightly more.
In situation one, a unit in the target hex would invariably be exposed to the blast and would not be able to escape it.
In situation two, a unit in the target hex would have a 1/3 chance of being completely out of the range of the blast, and a unit in the one other hex affected would have a 2/3 chance of being completely out of danger. The difference between target hex and other hex damage would be increased even more by the fact that the whole of the most intense part of the blast would be contained within the target hex.
In situation 3 a unit in the target hex and a unit in another affected hex would have about equal chances of being out of danger, and the blast would be approximately equally distributed between the two hexes. The target hex would of course have a tendency to take a slightly greater beating.
The anylysis above assumes that the shell will only ever affect one other hex, but this works for our purposes, as it could only ever realistically affect 2 other hexes, and if it did the affects would be divided between the two.
We must also remember that the unit in the adjacent hex can too take advantage of microterrain, a fact which Mike Wood seems bent on ignoring.
Conclusions:
-Damage can only be done to one or perhaps two adjacent hexes.
- .25 x 1 + .312 x .66 + .437 x .5 = .67742 = 67.742%
- Therefore the target hex will overall take somewhat more than 2/3 of the damage (remember also that they will take the more intense parts of the blast radius), meaning that the ratio between target and adjacent hex damage should be at least 2 to 1.
-The fact that the current system deals damage to ALL adjacent hexes at the ratio of 3.4 to 2.2, only about 1.5 to 1, is a very serious and damaging game flaw that cannot be overlooked.
I hope this finally puts all questions to rest on the matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hello...
When we modeled the high explosives system, we assumed that the round does not always land in the exact center of the hex or even in the portion of the hex which contains the target. In the case of smaller caliber ordinance, when this occurs, no casualties are produced. In the case of larger caliber ordinance, casualties in the target hex and adjacent hexes can still be produced, because of the size of the explosion. Within our system it is quite possible to kill no one in the target hex at all, and yet destroy a squad in the adjacent hex. In this case, the round landed near the edge of the hex and micro-terrain protected the unit in the target hex.
Hope this helps to understand our logic...
Michael Wood
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RRRRrrrgg.. Okay, here is a semi-complex mathematical analysis of all this.
We assume in the following that the total significant blast radius is 25m (so that it would fill a 50m hex if it struck in the center).
The following was found with a bunch of math that I won't bother to write out here, but if feel like doubting it I'll show all my work.
25% chance of the shell landing within 12.5m of the center. We will assume that a shell landing in this range would significantly affect the target hex ONLY.
31.2% chance of the shell landing between 12.5 and 18.75m from the center. This would on average spread the blast about 2/3 in the target hex and 1/3 in ONE other hex.
43.7% chance of the shell landing between 18.75 and 25m from the center. We will assume that this affects the target and ONE other hex about equally, with a tendency to affect the target hex slightly more.
In situation one, a unit in the target hex would invariably be exposed to the blast and would not be able to escape it.
In situation two, a unit in the target hex would have a 1/3 chance of being completely out of the range of the blast, and a unit in the one other hex affected would have a 2/3 chance of being completely out of danger. The difference between target hex and other hex damage would be increased even more by the fact that the whole of the most intense part of the blast would be contained within the target hex.
In situation 3 a unit in the target hex and a unit in another affected hex would have about equal chances of being out of danger, and the blast would be approximately equally distributed between the two hexes. The target hex would of course have a tendency to take a slightly greater beating.
The anylysis above assumes that the shell will only ever affect one other hex, but this works for our purposes, as it could only ever realistically affect 2 other hexes, and if it did the affects would be divided between the two.
We must also remember that the unit in the adjacent hex can too take advantage of microterrain, a fact which Mike Wood seems bent on ignoring.
Conclusions:
-Damage can only be done to one or perhaps two adjacent hexes.
- .25 x 1 + .312 x .66 + .437 x .5 = .67742 = 67.742%
- Therefore the target hex will overall take somewhat more than 2/3 of the damage (remember also that they will take the more intense parts of the blast radius), meaning that the ratio between target and adjacent hex damage should be at least 2 to 1.
-The fact that the current system deals damage to ALL adjacent hexes at the ratio of 3.4 to 2.2, only about 1.5 to 1, is a very serious and damaging game flaw that cannot be overlooked.
I hope this finally puts all questions to rest on the matter.
Khan7