Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You totally missed option 3. Selective reading?

Proposed treats artillery the same regardless of unit it is in.

Didn't miss that.

Regardless, so we are to expend a huge amount of our precious coding capitol to...get the exact same abilities we now have. Designers already have the ability to direct how artillery are to be used via unit icons.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Calibre has everything to do with disentrenchment.

You're off on your own here.

The tests were all about Retreat From Combat. In the very first post, I note that all the units were in a mobile status. You're talking about "disentrenchment" but that's not the question at issue here.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You totally missed option 3. Selective reading?

Proposed treats artillery the same regardless of unit it is in.

Didn't miss that.

Regardless, so we are to expend a huge amount of our precious coding capitol to...get the exact same abilities we now have. Designers already have the ability to direct how artillery are to be used via unit icons.

You're right. Instead waste it on something subjective like how good or bad a leader is. [:D]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Calibre has everything to do with disentrenchment.

You're off on your own here.

The tests were all about Retreat From Combat. In the very first post, I note that all the units were in a mobile status. You're talking about "disentrenchment" but that's not the question at issue here.

Oh! Heaven forbid that anyone stray from your original issue!

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You totally missed option 3. Selective reading?

Proposed treats artillery the same regardless of unit it is in.

Didn't miss that.

Regardless, so we are to expend a huge amount of our precious coding capitol to...get the exact same abilities we now have. Designers already have the ability to direct how artillery are to be used via unit icons.

You're right. Instead waste it on something subjective like how good or bad a leader is. [:D]

Leaders are a brand new feature that currently can only be dreamed about. Not so how artillery is used.

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Not much more than I can say. You'll just insist how you are right and everyone else is wrong. That's your legacy.

This above is a bit harsh and I apologize.

Matters not that leaders are new. Many things are new. It's the old things that are uncovered and persist that are the issue. In any event, no need to discuss it further. You have no interest in changing the way artillery works in non artillery/HQ units. End of story.

BTW, since we all know you are the only person working on this due to Ralphs problems shouldn't you seek out some help? As you implied, coding time is not unlimited.

Ehhhh... Interesting read.

So, if a gun above 150 mm is in a unit with an art symbol it is possible to "un"- entrench an enemy unit that is dug in.

If the 150 mm + gun is in an HQ or say inf. Unit it cannot. Am I reading your conclusions correct?

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt

Ehhhh... Interesting read.

So, if a gun above 150 mm is in a unit with an art symbol it is possible to "un"- entrench an enemy unit that is dug in.

If the 150 mm + gun is in an HQ or say inf. Unit it cannot. Am I reading your conclusions correct?

That's right. The 150mm sIG33 regimental infantry gun, which was particularly good at demolishing trenches, fortifications and bunkers have to be separated out from the regiment to be able to be used in the way the were designed. So with each German regiment you either have to separate out the 2 150mm guns or take all of the divisions guns and lump them in with all the other divisional guns. Lose flexibility, forget history and TOE and do it the Bob way just so the guns work the way they were intended.

If I understand the discussion [and I'm not at all sure that I do], the behavior is elegantly explained in the Manual:

Bombardments may knock a defender out of Defend, Entrenched or Fortified status.

Are we looking to expand on this? How do we word this revelation brought to us by the wise apple? Perhaps:

Artillery in Non-Ranged units is limited to Direct Fire only. Bombardment and Indirect fire is limited to Artillery contained in Ranged Icon units.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

If I understand the discussion [and I'm not at all sure that I do], the behavior is elegantly explained in the Manual:

Bombardments may knock a defender out of Defend, Entrenched or Fortified status.

That's not the point that I was making in the first place; again, look at the original test results: the units were in mobile status, and I'm using low-calibre guns anyway. Even without any status to change, the artillery icon gives a greatly improved chance of causing a Retreat From Combat.

Double post.

Yes, but then the discussion got sidetracked. Both your point and the embedded/seperated artillery discussion are important.

I see both Lobsters and Curtis lemays points as equally valid. Both are right. But the problem they try to solve is maybe not that important if people are aware of the Mechanic.

I think some people missed that effect an icon can have. I did. And have wasted alot of shells for nothing. (Grrr)

Concerning the point Golden delicious is making. Does it imply that HQs with artillery are actually good front line units that should participate in assaults?

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt

Concerning the point Golden delicious is making. Does it imply that HQs with artillery are actually good front line units that should participate in assaults?

The fact they're adjacent to the defender is sort of immaterial; in the testbed scenario the guns only have a 1 hex range and that's why the unit is where it is. Definitely you should use HQs with artillery for assaults but they should only be as close to the action as dictated by their range.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

If I understand the discussion [and I'm not at all sure that I do], the behavior is elegantly explained in the Manual:

Bombardments may knock a defender out of Defend, Entrenched or Fortified status.

That's not the point that I was making in the first place; again, look at the original test results: the units were in mobile status, and I'm using low-calibre guns anyway. Even without any status to change, the artillery icon gives a greatly improved chance of causing a Retreat From Combat.

That's not the point, that was sarcasm. My point is how do we explain what you have discovered. As Post #72 points out, there is a Game Mechanic involved. As it isn't explained anywhere in 23 years, it is safe to assume that we are making our own definition for a fluke. So again, what is that definition? Is it:

Artillery in Non-Ranged units is limited to Direct Fire only. Bombardment and Indirect fire is limited to Artillery contained in Ranged Icon units.

Definitely you should use HQs with artillery for assaults but they should only be as close to the action as dictated by their range.

However, Ranged Units will either Bombard or Attack depending on the Percentage of Unit Attack Strength attributed to Artillery. What do you make of that?

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

However, Ranged Units will either Bombard or Attack depending on the Percentage of Unit Attack Strength attributed to Artillery. What do you make of that?

Only if they're adjacent to the defender...

Anyway, this is really a design problem. One sees a lot of scenarios where all the corps troops are lumped into the HQ, so it's got some artillery, some engineers, some AA guns- maybe an AT detachment and even armoured vehicles in some cases. This makes the unit into sort of an elite assault unit, which isn't really the desired outcome at all. One would want to treat all these elements separately, as the engineers ought to be off repairing a bridge or digging trenches whilst the artillery is elsewhere providing fire support, and the AT may well be distributed among the subordinate units on the line.

Ideally, an artillery unit will contain little except the guns and perhaps AA. You might want to put some light rifle squads in it to reflect the ability of the personnel to defend themselves if the line is broken and they come under direct attack.

You can indeed put every artillery piece in a separate unit. It would be a nightmare. All of a unit's organic artillery would be taken out. You would have to determine how much transport to remove, how many light machine guns, how many rifle squads, what they use for FO which in German units would mean armored cars. Personally I'd like to see artillery work the same regardless of what type of unit it's in. That's how the real world works. "Sorry General Patton we can't destroy that bunker because the 155mm Bunker Buster gun is assigned to an engineer unit." He would probably slap someone again.

I guess you could say screw it, throw out the TOE and make up your own. That would solve everything. Which is what Bob fairly wants. Screw history, make up our own. The Operational Art of Hearts of Iron. [:D]

So, it will remain as is. End of story. [;)]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt

Concerning the point Golden delicious is making. Does it imply that HQs with artillery are actually good front line units that should participate in assaults?

The fact they're adjacent to the defender is sort of immaterial; in the testbed scenario the guns only have a 1 hex range and that's why the unit is where it is. Definitely you should use HQs with artillery for assaults but they should only be as close to the action as dictated by their range.

Hmmm... Having an HQ behind the front and adding its artillery as "direct fire" to the hex that is being attacked? Isnt that a bit weird? How does that even work? If the HQ was commited to the attack itself I might accept the direct fire thinghy.. but not when the unit is behind the front.

Ill admit that as a old infantryman I am not an expert on artillery. But I would bet that shooting an artillery Shell directly is not that effective and very dangerous for the artillery.

Maybe the term directly dosent really signify "directly" ... ?!? If that makes sense.

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt

Ill admit that as a old infantryman I am not an expert on artillery. But I would bet that shooting an artillery Shell directly is not that effective and very dangerous for the artillery.

Maybe the term directly dosent really signify "directly" ... ?!? If that makes sense.

Infantry guns are meant for close support like that. In the thick of things. Thus the huge shield, same as an AT gun. It would have infantry support too. So yeah, a 150mm gun a thousand meters or less away shooting at your bunker reducing it to a pile of rubble. The Germans even made a projectile designed specifically to do that very thing, Stielgranate 42.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stielgranate_42

Here, I found a picture. Something like this.

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt

Ill admit that as a old infantryman I am not an expert on artillery. But I would bet that shooting an artillery Shell directly is not that effective and very dangerous for the artillery.

Maybe the term directly dosent really signify "directly" ... ?!? If that makes sense.

Infantry guns are meant for close support like that. In the thick of things. Thus the huge shield, same as an AT gun. It would have infantry support too. So yeah, a 150mm gun a thousand meters or less away shooting at your bunker reducing it to a pile of rubble. The Germans even made a projectile designed specifically to do that very thing, Stielgranate 42.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stielgranate_42

Here, I found a picture. Something like this.

Yes ok, but that is one good example of a gun that is designer for direct support. what about regular artillery? I dont see how they could practically be firing away in and among the infantery.

If a scenario was Napoleonic I would accept direct fire from artillery, but in moderne scenarios I get a bit sceptical.