Matrix Games Forums

Uncanny, isn't it
I'm *extremely* happy with the current implementation of air assets, and especially don't want air reccon capabilities

I too want air recon![:)]

No, he said he doesn't want it. Now this is never going to work unless none of us want it. Got it? [;)]
Ray

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe

Uncanny, isn't it
I'm *extremely* happy with the current implementation of air assets, and especially don't want air reccon capabilities

I too DON'Twant air recon![:)]

No, he said he doesn't want it. Now this is never going to work unless none of us want it. Got it? [;)]
Ray

Doh, got it now[:D]

I took the necessary steps so you may edit your post now before arjuna comes in here though

Too late. I see through your unabashed and futile attempt to play on my idiosyncracies. For that you'll definitely get air recon. .....later![;)]

I wounder if thats where the phrases, "Put the Kybosch to it" came from?

I'm confused. Should I come up with good reasons for air recon or should I just pull something ridiculous out of my ass? What will work in reverse?

Cheers

Paul

Well that's a very leading question and one that only someone with medical training could possibly answer.[;)]

ORIGINAL: cabron66
I'm confused. Should I come up with good reasons for air recon or should I just pull something ridiculous out of my ass? What will work in reverse?

We're a bit joking around here - IRL decisions to change the engine shouldn't be taken on a whim - time and money involved, so Arjuna tends to listen very carefull to everyone before acting (or not), so if you've got some good arguments for air reccon this is the place to post them in.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Yes as Eddy so correctly points out, if you have any suggestions then by all means please raise them on this forum.

How does experience and moral affect staying or retreating when subject to arty barrage ?

ORIGINAL: save

How does experience and moral affect staying or retreating when subject to arty barrage ?

Low quality troops should withdraw more easily and suffer more casualties because of it. If only possible to code in, the first minutes of an barrage should be the most effective before the troops find any kind of cover (unit halts if moving, retreats in place or whatever). Involuntary retreat should be quite costly. High quality troops could continue with any ordered movement, but slowed down seriously (moving in bounds etc.).

Experience and morale both affect the probability of retreat. The higher these values the less likely a unit is to fail its morale check. So long as they pass their morale check they will continue to do whatever they were doing - eg moving or defending. Morale checks are done every minute. Being under bombardment adversely affects a unit's temporary morale - ie once the bombardment stops the morale reverts back. There is a whole swag of other factors including deployment, training, commander leadership, casualties, nearby enemies/friendlies etc that all come into play here.

We were taught in the late 80's during my US Army ROTC Infantry training to react to arty by calling out a distance and direction to run to avoid arty. I dont know if this is really practical but we were using the current doctrine at the time from our instructors and field manuals. We were on a training exercise for a single infantry squad and I remember hitting the ground when I heard the noise making grenade go off (sounded like a arty shell). We were told by our instructor, an Army Major, that the squad leader was to call out a direction and distance to run. Similar to 11 oclock and 100m. That was supposed to get us out from underneath of the barage. What did the training in WW2 tell the soldiers to do?

ORIGINAL: Keke


Low quality troops should withdraw more easily and suffer more casualties because of it. If only possible to code in, the first minutes of an barrage should be the most effective before the troops find any kind of cover (unit halts if moving, retreats in place or whatever). Involuntary retreat should be quite costly. High quality troops could continue with any ordered movement, but slowed down seriously (moving in bounds etc.).

I would prefer to just see some type of "pinned" status that of course gives temporary cover (depending on the terrain the unit is in.)

Any "moving" unit would be more susceptible to artillery as they are out of cover. I don't know if that goes too far into the tactical side of things, however.

ORIGINAL: elcidce

We were taught in the late 80's during my US Army ROTC Infantry training to react to arty by calling out a distance and direction to run to avoid arty. I dont know if this is really practical but we were using the current doctrine at the time from our instructors and field manuals. We were on a training exercise for a single infantry squad and I remember hitting the ground when I heard the noise making grenade go off (sounded like a arty shell). We were told by our instructor, an Army Major, that the squad leader was to call out a direction and distance to run. Similar to 11 oclock and 100m. That was supposed to get us out from underneath of the barage. What did the training in WW2 tell the soldiers to do?

Very interesting info. If it does hold true for WW2 doctrine, I wonder how it works at a company level?

It depends on what kind of barrage we are talking about. If it is more like harrasment fire, it makes sense to run for cover after the first shells have landed, but if it is a heavy barrage with shells landing continuously it makes any movement risky (unless well protected of course).

A company under a barrage looses (some of) its cohesion (perhaps individual squads running for different directions [;)]). Not a place for an orderly withdrawal there.

ORIGINAL: Keke

It depends on what kind of barrage we are talking about. If it is more like harrasment fire, it makes sense to run for cover after the first shells have landed, but if it is a heavy barrage with shells landing continuously it makes any movement risky (unless well protected of course).

A company under a barrage looses (some of) its cohesion (perhaps individual squads running for different directions [;)]). Not a place for an orderly withdrawal there.

Good points. Plus, once the shells are raining down good luck getting orders to your men. How do you conduct an orderly change of direction for a company when no one can hear anything or raise their heads to look around?

Also, you might react to spotting rounds, but once the barrage has started, you would need to have pretty good visibility to even know which way to safely go. Blindly running around the battlefield is a good way to get a lot of people killed or MIA.

IMO, Keke hit the nail right on the head in his previous post. That's pretty much what it boils down to in a nutshell. Just to be safe though, I think I'll ask in some other places and see what people have to say. There's a couple of guys over at the BFC forum that I am sure could put this one to rest.

Cheers

Paul

p.s. I'm also going to ask around about air recon, but I don't know how much of a role it would have played at the level I saw in HttR.

p.s. I'm also going to ask around about air recon, but I don't know how much of a role it would have played at the level I saw in HttR.

I always kind of have mixed feelings about having used-controlled air recon to this level of game. I have asked around about where/what level air recon assets are controlled but have yet to see an answer. I seem to recall that US armored divisions had some organic air recon assets but I don't have my sources with me to check.

By 1944 US Armd Divs had a few light planes that they used for recon at Div level.

Not only that, but how long does it take for the intelligence to get to ground commanders? If the aircraft is in direct contact with someone on the ground I can see it playing a role, but I wonder how often this happened. Probably more and more often as the war went on, but I am not sure yet.

What I do know is that short range and long range recon (as well as incidental intelligence gleaned from air strikes and such) would vary widely as to the kinds of things they reported and how long it would take for those reports to get into the hands of a decision maker. At the HttR/CotA level, my guess is that long range recon would be completely out of the scope of the game.

Short range aircraft loitering above the battlefield could conceivably play a role, but there are a lot of factors that would need to be narrowed down.

Cheers

Paul

I've been doing some research on the artillery question. What I get from the guys that do this stuff for a living is that the main factors involved are training and experience. The goal is to get out of the way (unless you are already dug-in). Green troops may not know this or may not remember their training and simply freeze for a time. Veterans will know enough to get out of the danger zone as soon as they possibly can.

The trick is to get out of the way and still be in good order. SOP, according to British and Australian training, is to turn and run back the way you came (a hundred meters or until safe). Of course, a commander may make a judgement call and order his guys forwards or to the side, but this risks increased disorganization and danger. If all goes well, you can reorganize and start moving forward again fairly quickly. Of course, if all goes badly, you can end up with men all over the battlefield.

So, it seems that artillery does not need to kill you in order to ruin your day. All it really has to do is break up the attack and get you moving the wrong way. Disorganization and chaos will take care of the rest.

Of course, you need to have sufficient firepower to surpress enough of the target unit. A single battery of guns, depending on the calibre, will probably only be enough to surpress a platoon. The rest of the company will most likely continue the attack despite losing a third of its strength.

And, of course, artillery fire can be adjusted. Persistant, well-aimed fire can really ruin your day.

Cheers

Paul