Matrix Games Forums

I don't think there is an issue per se.

I just compared some values in the TOAW III and TOAW IV database for Mortars and they are the same so far.

The smaller mortars (45, 50 and 60 mm) have a shell weight of 0.

The larger mortars and Siege mortars have a shell weights.

For example the 70 mm has a sw of 7 and the 80mm has 9 and the Heavy Siege Mortar has a value of 160.

So I don't think there is any reason whatsoever to modify the shell weights of mortars.

You have to look at things as a whole.

Re-reading the thread, the OP is correct in that the SP Mortars all have a shell weight of 0.

Perhaps this is an oversight.

If so then I would adjust the SP mortars to reflect the values of shell weights that the regular mortars have.

Re-reading the thread, the OP is correct in that the SP Mortars all have a shell weight of 0.

Perhaps this is an oversight.

If so then I would adjust the SP mortars to reflect the values of shell weights that the regular mortars have.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

So while a 75mm gun might have a fair AP value due to it's high rate of fire.....

Colour me stupid but why would AP value depend on rate of fire ??

You are all missing the point. AP is the effect of the weapon on personnel. Shell weight is the effect of the weapon on earthworks. If a weapon is going to have little to no effect on earthworks why bother with shell weight? It has no effect on the AP strength other than the reduction of earthworks and the benefit provided by them to the troops in that location.

If you want to go to the trouble of putting in shell weights for every weapon then do it. The game will look at it and ignore it if the weapon does not fit the profile for one having an effect as spelled out in the manual. It's easy enough to find shell weights for every weapon in the game.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

If you want to go to the trouble of putting in shell weights for every weapon then do it. The game will look at it and ignore it if the weapon does not fit the profile for one having an effect as spelled out in the manual.

Huh? The game will "look at it" but as far as I'm aware what it will "look at" is the shell weight. Thus if you've added shell weight which was previously zero, then that will increase the effectiveness of that equipment at flipping defenders to a "mobile" status.

Or are you suggesting that this effect is somehow hardcoded to the equipment, and can't be edited?

ORIGINAL: KwanzaO

Colour me stupid but why would AP value depend on rate of fire ??

Why not? Anti-personnel strength is a function of rate of fire and weight of shell: clearly if you are firing three rounds a minute you are going to kill more people than if you fire three rounds an hour.

The shell weight is added to mortars. But 45, 50 and 60mm mortars have a shell weight of 0, all other mortars have a shell weight of >7.

Except for the SP mortars which all have a shell weight of 0.

So why would a 81 mm mortar with a shell weight of 9 based on the ground or having a crew firing it, once its in the SP vehicle have a shell weight of 0.

That is one of the oddities or questions.

On a side note, ROF for AT is very important against hard targets. If you have ever played Steel Panthers you'll soon find out that 20mm AA guns having a high ROF can mess up your armor.

ORIGINAL: Zovs

On a side note, ROF for AT is very important against hard targets. If you have ever played Steel Panthers you'll soon find out that 20mm AA guns having a high ROF can mess up your armor.

Steel Panthers- that takes me back. Yeah this is one of a number of challenges with the way TOAW handles armour today. Of course there's a limit to what one can achieve with a high rate of fire, but as you note it makes a hell of a difference. One wouldn't just want to put the standard figure for rate of fire on the firing range, but make an estimate for how quickly the weapon will be able to fire in practice, which would need to take account of things like set up time (if your gun is still being assembled it won't fire at all) and rate of traverse. Unlike your field artillery, you need to be able to fire rapidly even when the target is moving. There's already a mechanic in combat resolution which determines how many AT shots are fired based on the terrain, so one could build on that.

The other one is reliability. It would be great if there was some way of reflecting different levels of mechanical reliability so that units suffer an appropriate level of attrition when travelling long distances by road. Even if this was at a Force level it would be a good start.

Ben,

Good points. In SP and ASL, both systems have built in ROF and for all AT and AFV they have fast, slow, and normal traverse for guns and turrets.

I do like your idea of reliablity.

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Good points. In SP and ASL, both systems have built in ROF and for all AT and AFV they have fast, slow, and normal traverse for guns and turrets.

I'd suggest that this level of detail would be overkill for the Operational scale, so could just be bundled into a single factor.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Lobster

If you want to go to the trouble of putting in shell weights for every weapon then do it. The game will look at it and ignore it if the weapon does not fit the profile for one having an effect as spelled out in the manual.

Huh? The game will "look at it" but as far as I'm aware what it will "look at" is the shell weight. Thus if you've added shell weight which was previously zero, then that will increase the effectiveness of that equipment at flipping defenders to a "mobile" status.

Or are you suggesting that this effect is somehow hardcoded to the equipment, and can't be edited?

"look at" as in made aware of...an 81mm mortar should not be able to cause a unit to go from entrenched to mobile or any other state. They just don't have the ability to destroy earthworks. They are simply not that powerful. They can suppress entrenched forces and cause some casualties but that's about it. And they certainly are not precision weapons. It doesn't take much to move them a few yards off because of their high arch, low velocity and low shell weight. They do actually stop moving at the top of the arch if it's steep enough. They did not fire todays precision ordinance.

A counter point to that Jack is that all armies since 1914 have used mortars in some fashion or another over the last century. Mortars are cheap and easy to train a crew on and get HE and smoke out to the company that is fighting. I agree that they don't remove entrenchments, but for sure they cause lots of suppression.

ORIGINAL: Zovs

A counter point to that Jack is that all armies since 1914 have used mortars in some fashion or another over the last century. Mortars are cheap and easy to train a crew on and get HE and smoke out to the company that is fighting. I agree that they don't remove entrenchments, but for sure they cause lots of suppression.

Yup. A units mortars were the fastest on call close support artillery there was. With smart munitions they are better than ever.

So back to the OP's concerns. Mortars carried by an apc are made to be used dismounted too. They are no different than any other mortar of the same size.

So back to the OP's concerns. Mortars carried by an apc are made to be used dismounted too. They are no different than any other mortar of the same size.

I have contracted myself to add shell weight to all the SP mortars in my update of the Lebanon 82 scenario. Which incidentally had several broken events that have been fixed and was in need of custom IDF equipment and a downgrade of Syrian AT rounds in the 125mm. But I digress.