Victor, I don't know what you mean by "power gamer". That term means nothing to me. I am a "historical gamer", but I choose a force that will, with time, become a juggernaut. This is at it should be. As my battalion gets better, my opponent will only gather more forces against me.
By definition, then, I will eventually be fighting an unknown number of D-Days in the Pacific. I'll be getting all of the Bougainvilles and Tarawas and Saipans. I look forward to getting out of the jungle. I WANT to assault those islands. That's what I'm building towards.
Gunny,
I don't think that vahauser labelled you as a 'power gamer' at any stage in any of his posts. If you look back at them again, you'll notice that Flash was the one who used the term earlier, and it still wasn't in relation to you.
Sabrejack,
They aren't my statistics. They are the conclusions of the British artillery experts who conducted the research. Even the US Army used that research in their own artillery models.
So, while the conclusions that the British artillery experts made might not seem to be acceptable, they are indeed the conclusions of dedicated artillery professionals and experts. People who know a LOT more about artillery and real-life killing with artillery than I do.
I trust their conclusions. That is why I believe that Enhanced artillery is most historical when left at 100%.
Let me tell you if you have one shell go off with in a hundred feet of you. You feel it and your mind goes numb for a few seconds. Even closer and your nose begins to bleed and your teeth hurt like the blazes. Your eyes are sightless for a few seconds and your ears ring with a loud screech and you lose balance for a few. In other words you are incapacitated this may last for a few seconds and again it may last for several minutes. You do not want to fight at this time least of all raise your rifle and fire it. The concussion alone is enough to knock you flat on your ass. And if your unlucky to be too close you are ripped to pieces by screaming schrapnal. The dirt and dust alone is enough to choke you to death. All you really want to do is scream at the top of your lungs and dig as deep down into the earth as you can. It is as close to hell as you can get. You will piss your self and at times even shit your self. You have no control over your body and shake uncontrollably and will cry like a baby as well. And this is when it lands close not right on top of you. It comes out of nowhere with no warning to you thats the really bad part.
Robots wear armor for skin.Grunts wear skin for armor.
Note that artillery casualty percentages are mainly drawn from “Big-Six” nations. I have no idea what SPWAW “minor nation” artillery effectiveness was, in terms of percentage casualties caused.
Roger that, I'll start research regarding my home nation (Finland).
Note: In 1944 Finnish Defense Force had best artillery fire control system. In less than 5 minutes all cannons and mortars within range could be fired inside 500 square meters so that of first volley all shells arrive at the same time.
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.
I am stationed in saskatoon saskatchewan, which is 18 miles away from CFB Dundurn ordinance range, I have personally been down range in a 7 foot thick concrete bunker with 75mm howy,100mm leopard tank HE rounds,,105mm SP guns!!... and various grenades,tow missles and shoulder fired AT systems mines and even some british M7 self propelled 155's ALL targeted 400m parallel to the observation bunker... I have also personally been under somalian 90mm mortar,RPG7 & 9 ,,and russian equipped 40mm grenade fire,,,,1993. and when graduated the demolitions TEC training in 95 went to croatia for 8 months to clear UXO's and everybody loves to throw ARRTY around overthere,, my point being,,, I don't recall ever being asked while under a barrage whether or not I thought the incoming fire was powerful enough!!! [:@] U can change the calibres u have outgoing,, usually to everincressing damage point,,,{get division to bomb} or u can regulate detination time on all the modern fuses,, making your arrty either airburst which is really good for clearing trees and bush,, or u can surface detonate,,, which strips mines nicely,,, or u can delay burst which penetrates the ground or light exterior walls in say buildings/log entrenchments/dirt fortifications,,, but u can't predict static casualties to any degree because no one stays stationary {in bombardment zone for very long once the barrage starts,,} and everyone is not ALWAYS supressed to the same levels whether its because they found good immediate cover or momentarily fled the target zone.
"Time on target" barrages make a huge difference in SPWAW because supression is cumulative and a single turns "fire for effect" isn't represented very well,especially in the "no line of sight" type barrages. Use your Arrty as the SUPPORT finger in the whole fist rather than the overly relyable casualty getter with their supression and destruction being a paramount factor on what u can do with the rest of your army!
The point about 'cheats' wasn't meant to imply that you, or anyone else, cheats at the game. But the term is also used for those programming glitches that allow a player, if he knows how to exploit them, to 'get around' either in-game restrictions (like ammo quantities or weapon types) or to use certain things in ways the programmers didn't intend (like finding a 'hidden' spot in the world that allows your character to be invisible to everyone else, yet still fight).
I used to play Everquest, years back; my buddies and I would join up online and adventure. But we would occasionally come across 'power gamers' who had studied the game so much that they knew exactly where every 'spawn spot' was, what creature would appear, and how often. They would 'camp out' certain spots, waiting for the 'big monsters' to appear, then swarm them, kill them, and divvy up the loot. And they would continue this, preventing other player groups from gaining the 'special' loot (maybe a magic sword or piece of armour) by combating the beast, but they'd offer to sell them one. The 'exploit' here was that they knew exactly how the programmers had built that piece of code, and took advantage of it. They could have done what others did and wait for the 'radom' encounter with the beast as it wandered that particular area, but they didn't.
It's one of the reasons I gave up the MMRPG genre...
Back to the atillery issue. You claim that artillery in all versions of the game since 6.0 have had flawed artillery representations of damage: is that because the coding for the damage assessment routine is flawed, or because the HE Kill and Warhead values in the OOBs are incorrect? Or could it be both? Do you have the answer to that, factual and from the programming group?
See, I have been in contact with Mike Woods...during the Enhanced work-up, the team was told by him that the artillery damage routines were adjusted downwards in 8.4 (Mike's fixes to the 8.3 code errors) in response to general complaints that artillery was too deadly in 'splash' damage; i.e. units in adjacent hexes, even those 2 hexes away, were taking disproportianate casualties and suppression compared to the unit in the target hex. many is the time that I personally watched a round land in a Mixed Terrain hex with a moving infantry unit, and it suffered no casualties and only minimal suppression, while a hex or two away, in Woods or Rough, another infantry unit took 2-3 casualties or suffered massive suppression. So it wasn't the effectiveness that was the problem, it was the assignment of that damage that was flawed. Units within the blast hex should suffer more than those next to it, or farther away. Concussive damage lessens with distance; shrapnel damage is limited in area-of-effect, usually less than that of the concussion wave. But the men within 50 meters of the explosion should have a much higher chance of being affected than those 100-200 meters away. One of the factors that is 'missing' in this is the 'micro-terrain' effects that need to be considered when assessing the damage potential of an artillery blast: terrain features in real-life that aren't represented by specific game map terrain still have mitigating effects on blast damage. Mixed Terrain in the game is a composite terrain, including many little everyday things we wouldn't consider to be very important to gaming, but nevertheless have an effect in reality. Things like small folds and depressions in the ground, small shrubs and bushes, trashcans, flowerpots, fire hydrants, etc. Placed between a human and a piece of flying shrapnel, they might be enough protection to prevent a casualty. The greater the distance from the point of impact, the more of these 'micro-terrain' items are likely to be in evidence.
And while the British scientists couldn't give you a CERTAINTY of X damage from Y rounds, they DIDN'T say that Y rounds will likely produce LESS damage at the impact point than at 100 meters. You're looking for a set number of casualties from each round detonated; you'll never get that. And the real argument here has nothing to do with whether the artillery weapons in the game are "lethal enough"; it's whether the damage assessment to units within the blast hex should suffer more or less casualties than those units adjacent to, or further away from, the blast hex. THAT is why the Artillery settings in the Preference screen are RECOMMENDED to be set at 120%, which returns the damage assessment routine back to a more accurate level than it currently is. At 100%, no unit takes significant damage (including suppression); at 120%, units within the blast hex will take casualties moreso than units outside the blast hex.
A group of people make a decision based on a shared vision. Nothing inherently wrong with that. But a possible problem is that if the shared vision is based on flawed initial assumptions, then the resultant vision could (not necessarily would) be flawed as well.
My personal belief is that the current working model of SPWAW artillery effectiveness is based on the theoretical lethality of artillery. I also believe (and I think the British scientists would back me up) that the real-life lethality of artillery is most always less than the theoretical lethality.
A large part of me wants to agree with you when you point out that it makes intuitive sense that lethality in the impact hex “should” be greater than in surrounding hexes. That sounds so reasonable that even now I find my head nodding up and down, saying to myself yes that makes sense.
And yet, much of what the British scientists discovered was that the real-life effects of artillery did NOT make intuitive sense. But, I’m not saying that in this case the results are counterintuitive. I want to believe that it is in fact true that lethality in the impact hex is greater than in surrounding hexes. The good news is that it turns out that it doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t really matter because we can make the game do whatever we want it to do (well, most of the time we can). If it makes sense to have greater lethality in the impact hex, then by golly we can program the game to do that. So I don’t really have an issue with following our collective intuitive common sense here, regarding lethality in the impact hex vs. lethality in surrounding hexes. It makes sense to me, too. But that’s not the larger problem.
The larger problem is, how lethal should artillery be IN the impact hex? The British scientists were clear on only two points that I could determine. One, that the variations in lethal probabilities had a wider variance than the theoretical models predicted. And two, that real-life lethalities tended to be lower than the theoretical models predicted.
Now, setting artillery to 120% raises the big question, 120% of “what”? And THIS is where I see the situation as problematic. If the “what” is based on theoretical artillery effectiveness models, then raising that “what” by 20% directly contradicts the conclusions of the British scientists. Further, if the “what” is based on theoretical artillery effectiveness models, then raising that “what” will also trend to minimize variations in artillery results in the impact hex. And this also directly contradicts the conclusions of the British scientists that stated that real-life variations in artillery effectiveness have a LARGER, not smaller, statistical variance than the theoretical models predicted.
So, here is the way I see it. If SPWAW artillery effectiveness is based on theoretical models and we set it to 120%, then I think three things happen, one favorable, and two unfavorable: Favorable = increased effectiveness in the impact hex compared to surrounding hexes; Unfavorable = decreased variability of results in the impact hex (which contradicts the British scientists); Unfavorable = increased lethality in the impact hex over and above the theoretical model baseline (which contradicts the British scientists).
And I believe that leaving the artillery effectiveness at 100% changes those three outcomes: Unfavorable = effectiveness in the impact hex compared to surrounding hexes is not significantly increased; Favorable = increased variability of results in the impact hex (which agrees with the conclusions of the British scientists); Neutral = no increased lethality in the impact hex over and above the theoretical model baseline (which still contradicts the British scientists, but not so much).
My personal experience after playing several games of Enhanced at 100% is that artillery is very unpredictable. Sometimes it blows stuff away, and other times not a scratch. The wider variation in results is very definite and significant. I can no longer count on artillery to do my job for me. At 100% I roll the dice and take my chances, and I am regularly (and very unpleasantly) surprised by enemy units that I thought “should” have been neutralized were in fact hardly affected at all. Somehow, this makes historical sense to me. Seems that many historical commanders had that exact same unpleasant experience—what those commanders thought “should” have been an effective bombardment turned out not to be the case at all.
I appreciate your discussion, FlashFyre. You have inspired me to think long and hard about this issue. I clearly understand now the rationale behind your argument for 120%. And while I still believe that leaving the setting at 100% is a more historical choice that yields better historical results, I’m willing to concede that what you advocate is not a terrible choice. I don’t see either argument as being overwhelmingly strong. I see leaving the artillery at 100% as about a 6.5 (on a 10 point scale), and I see setting artillery to 120% as about a 5.5. I’m willing to let the issue rest here.
Let me try one time to clear up what seems to be a misconception on the part of many folks:
The use of the 120% setting is not to make the artillery more effective or lethal; it is to bring current 8.4 artillery barrage effects back to approximately the 8.3 standards. We're not talking about making it more lethal or causing more casualties; what we are talking about is correcting a mistake. That mistake was the reduction of artillery effectiveness from the 8.3 models; if one assumes those models to be accurate, then the 8.4 models are grossly off. But all this is dependent on whether one accepts the 8.3 model as accurate; if one does not, then any change or adjustment in Enhanced will be seen as wrong. That it isn't is moot; in the eyes of the beholder and all that.
General consensus, amongst the community over the years, is that the 8.3 models were the best representation for artillery effects to date. But Mike accidently reduced the entire model it seems, not just the 'splash' effect as was intended. So tests were done and the 120% setting has been accepted by most players that I know of as a temporary fix, until Mike can find time to readjust those models again.
So you see, you are interpreting the 120% setting in a different light, one that assumes that the 8.3 models were flawed (they are all flawed, but the 8.3 set seems to be the least affected). If one does NOT assume that 8.3 is wrong, then one must accept that 8.4 IS wrong, and a solution must be found to correct that wrong. Conversely, if one takes the 8.3 models as flawed, and sees them as too powerful, then of course any adjustment of the settings above 100% is going to be seen as compounding the problem.
Vahauser thank you for the informative desertation you have convinced me. I am going to 120 % because i just dont like the way its working at 100. Actually you have almost convinced me to go back to 8.4 due to the fact i like the splash effect over there. If thats historical or not historical I dont really give a shit thats the way I like to play.
Robots wear armor for skin.Grunts wear skin for armor.
Must I say this again........When we were working on Enhanced, Splash damage to units in adjacent hexes was brought up by the team to Mike Wood.
We wanted more damage done to the units in the actual target hex as opposed to adjacent hexes.
Now we, the group of us that originally started the project, all had tons of emails going back and forth at this time, along with Mr Wood.
Now somehow in all the emails, I believe Mike Wood thought we had stated IN hex damage was too great as well as adjacent hex damage, thats best I can figure out what happened. (do any of you guys still have any of those emails??)
Now....Not too long ago, he sent out an email saying he had adjusted the artillery back UP by 20% but he was working on some other bugs, that then in turn created some other bugs, then his diskette drive, which he uses to do code work on SPWAW went belly up, and he had sent it out for repair, and that is basically the last we had heard about SPWAW from Mr Wood.
He has a couple businesses and does work on other games.
The last few updates he did in his spare time.
So if he was adjusting it up by 20%....I am sure he too saw something wasnt quite right about the default setting as is now.
[:'(]
Copy of email received by members of Enhanced Team:
Hello...
Just to let you know, I tried to do a little work on SPWAW, yesterday.
The computer with the SPWAW code is an old one with an old operating system and compiler. Oddly, I cannot install the compiler on a newer computer. It will not run. As you may know, I moved a couple months ago and lost the keyboard for the old computer. I finally got a new one last week. So, I wrote some code and when I went to copy the executable onto the other machine, found the diskette drive on the other machine was out. So, I took the executable down to the local convenience store and emailed it to myself. Went home and it was waiting on the other machine. Loaded up the executable and found the changes had introduced bugs. Ran out of time at this point and aborted the build. Hope to get new diskette drive at some point in future.
No file attached.
Changes:
1) Increased artillery effectiveness by 20%.
2) Removed ability of units to fire smoke ammunition, when out of shots.
3) Made required check to lay smoke, when retreating, more difficult to pass.
4) Reduced the number of weapon slots that a unit can fire to number of men in units - number of casualties in unit. This would prevent a squad reduced to one man could not fire rifle, light machine gun, satchel charge and flame thrower (this bit of code did not work correctly).
Copy of email received by members of Enhanced Team:
Hello...
Just to let you know, I tried to do a little work on SPWAW, yesterday.
The computer with the SPWAW code is an old one with an old operating system and compiler. Oddly, I cannot install the compiler on a newer computer. It will not run. As you may know, I moved a couple months ago and lost the keyboard for the old computer. I finally got a new one last week. So, I wrote some code and when I went to copy the executable onto the other machine, found the diskette drive on the other machine was out. So, I took the executable down to the local convenience store and emailed it to myself. Went home and it was waiting on the other machine. Loaded up the executable and found the changes had introduced bugs. Ran out of time at this point and aborted the build. Hope to get new diskette drive at some point in future.
No file attached.
Changes:
1) Increased artillery effectiveness by 20%.
2) Removed ability of units to fire smoke ammunition, when out of shots.
3) Made required check to lay smoke, when retreating, more difficult to pass.
4) Reduced the number of weapon slots that a unit can fire to number of men in units - number of casualties in unit. This would prevent a squad reduced to one man could not fire rifle, light machine gun, satchel charge and flame thrower (this bit of code did not work correctly).
Bye...
Michael Wood
Too bad he never got those fixes implemented
especially 1-3
I had forgot about #4, was he trying to say 1 man would be able to fire all 4 weapons????
I hope I am reading that wrong.
[X(]
Vahauser thank you for the informative desertation you have convinced me. I am going to 120 % because i just dont like the way its working at 100. Actually you have almost convinced me to go back to 8.4 due to the fact i like the splash effect over there. If thats historical or not historical I dont really give a shit thats the way I like to play.
Heh. robot, be careful or people will start to think that you are not an "historical" gamer.
Vahauser thank you for the informative desertation you have convinced me. I am going to 120 % because i just dont like the way its working at 100. Actually you have almost convinced me to go back to 8.4 due to the fact i like the splash effect over there. If thats historical or not historical I dont really give a shit thats the way I like to play.
Heh. robot, be careful or people will start to think that you are not an "historical" gamer.
8.4 had a worse thing than the artillery
the spotting was ridiculous..
[:)]
I'm kinda dreading going at 120%, as it accents the one advantage the AI has -- it tends to use arty as a sledgehammer, and it makes my attempts at counterbattery fire even more important. This is really where I miss having air support in my early Marine battles.
If nothing else, it may give the onboard 70 & 75mm gun-howitzers a bit of worth for indirect fire. I had stopped buying the USMC 75 pack howitzers, as they seemed nothing more than pea-shooters. In real life though, these were the mainstay of Marine arty battalions during 1942-43. I tended to buy more 105s than were historically available (shame on me).
SPWAWWiki: 
