Post your thoughts on the USA .01 response times and others, who generally get .04 for On board arty and 1.1 generally for off board.
Likes or Dislikes
just post your thoughts.
[:)]
Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
They're there, and that's it. I usually don't play as the US anymore; so it doesn't affect me in giving me too fast arty response. I do think 0.4 should be minimum, and that for light mortars, maybe medium mortars. Heavier artillery takes a little more time, radioing in coordinates for the target, adjusting the tube to the correct elevation and facing, , then loading and firing. I'd say it takes a couple minuits at least, especially on older manually adjusted guns. The US, using hydraulically or however it was equipment and better/more radios and such, should have slightly faster response times, but not by that much.
"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
As for the US/USMC, I have no problem with .01/.02 turns for lt/med mortars. Heck, that superiority is a cornerstone of my tactical methods. The offboard arty generally takes from 1.1/1.5 turns, and I fully believe that is appropriate and historically accurate.
Most players would probably agree that the US artillery, in terms of communications and fire control, was the finest in the world.
For me, personally, it spoils me, as I quickly lose my patience playing as anyone else when it comes to delivering barrages in a timely manner.
Perhaps before making such a blanket assertion on US superiority, the historical sources should be consulted.
On the proficiency of US Arty in WWII, let me quote this article:
"All in all, the U.S. artillery was equipped with armament that was at least as well designed as, if not better than, any other in the world. The U.S. artillery further benefited from communications equipment and a fire control system that was equaled only by that of the Royal Artillery. Individual forward observers operated close to the front lines and had access, via powerful radios and extensive telephone landlines, to a formidable array of weapons. The highly redundant signals system meant that, even when all other contact with front-line units and their headquarters was lost, the artillery communications net usually remained open.
Perhaps more important, and making the U.S. artillery the best in the world, was a fire-direction system that had been developed at the U.S. Field Artillery School at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, between the wars. This was a highly refined development of the crude system Summerall had pioneered in World War I. This system permitted rapid engagements of targets, and allowed the coordination of fires of many units from many widely separated firing positions. One of the most deadly tactics employed was the time-on-target (TOT) concentration. A TOT massed fires from several battalions onto a selected target and calculated the times of flight for the shells from each battery so that they all arrived on target at nearly the same instant (a similar tactic, called a "Stonk", had been developed independently by the Royal Artillery in North Africa)."
(quote from http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ww ... llery.aspx)
I know what you're getting at, Alby -- you want to petition Mike Wood to make some adjustments, right?
IF that's your agenda, let's make sure we have historical examples to state the case, rather than basically taking a player poll.
At this point, it seems that our British allies should be rated as well as the US. Doesn't bode well for Axis players, does it? [:D]
Most players would probably agree that the US artillery, in terms of communications and fire control, was the finest in the world.
For me, personally, it spoils me, as I quickly lose my patience playing as anyone else when it comes to delivering barrages in a timely manner.
Perhaps before making such a blanket assertion on US superiority, the historical sources should be consulted.
On the proficiency of US Arty in WWII, let me quote this article:
"All in all, the U.S. artillery was equipped with armament that was at least as well designed as, if not better than, any other in the world. The U.S. artillery further benefited from communications equipment and a fire control system that was equaled only by that of the Royal Artillery. Individual forward observers operated close to the front lines and had access, via powerful radios and extensive telephone landlines, to a formidable array of weapons. The highly redundant signals system meant that, even when all other contact with front-line units and their headquarters was lost, the artillery communications net usually remained open.
Perhaps more important, and making the U.S. artillery the best in the world, was a fire-direction system that had been developed at the U.S. Field Artillery School at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, between the wars. This was a highly refined development of the crude system Summerall had pioneered in World War I. This system permitted rapid engagements of targets, and allowed the coordination of fires of many units from many widely separated firing positions. One of the most deadly tactics employed was the time-on-target (TOT) concentration. A TOT massed fires from several battalions onto a selected target and calculated the times of flight for the shells from each battery so that they all arrived on target at nearly the same instant (a similar tactic, called a "Stonk", had been developed independently by the Royal Artillery in North Africa)."
(quote from http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ww ... llery.aspx)
I know what you're getting at, Alby -- you want to petition Mike Wood to make some adjustments, right?
IF that's your agenda, let's make sure we have historical examples to state the case, rather than basically taking a player poll.
At this point, it seems that our British allies should be rated as well as the US. Doesn't bode well for Axis players, does it? [:D]
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
USA off board generally gets .04 from my experience if your FO has good ratings
hell even some of their planes get 02 delay...
I am not trying to get Mike Wood to do anything....that would require a new mech update, which we may not be able to incorporate into Enhanced, because the National ratings would change again for one.
Just getting people talking and posting again.
[:)]
hell even some of their planes get 02 delay...
I am not trying to get Mike Wood to do anything....that would require a new mech update, which we may not be able to incorporate into Enhanced, because the National ratings would change again for one.
Just getting people talking and posting again.
[:)]
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
Ok, there's the rub, then -- I direct offboard arty from my battalion HQ. I eschew use of FOs at all. Now, this may help the poor Axis players, so maybe a blanket house rule for PBEMs should be that US/USMC/British players are not allowed to buy FOs. We don't NEED them.
I'll take this a step further -- to prevent their use, let's remove them from the USA/USMC OOBs altogether. You gotta remenber -- requests for fire support were channeled up the chain of command, but the Americans had communications that allowed these fire mission requests to be transmitted very fast.
As a matter of fact, for the USMC, it was common for divisional arty to be directly assigned to regiment and thence down to the battalions in the field.
What I'm saying is, a battalion CO could dial up fire support in a heartbeat.
I'll take this a step further -- to prevent their use, let's remove them from the USA/USMC OOBs altogether. You gotta remenber -- requests for fire support were channeled up the chain of command, but the Americans had communications that allowed these fire mission requests to be transmitted very fast.
As a matter of fact, for the USMC, it was common for divisional arty to be directly assigned to regiment and thence down to the battalions in the field.
What I'm saying is, a battalion CO could dial up fire support in a heartbeat.
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
Oh my, that would create a fussORIGINAL: KG Erwin
Ok, there's the rub, then -- I direct offboard arty from my battalion HQ. I eschew use of FOs at all. Now, this may help the poor Axis players, so maybe a blanket house rule for PBEMs should be that US/USMC/British players are not allowed to buy FOs. We don't NEED them.
I'll take this a step further -- to prevent their use, let's remove them from the USA/USMC OOBs altogether.
[X(]
removing "elite Recon" status may help
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
ORIGINAL: Alby
Oh my, that would create a fuss
[X(]
removing "elite Recon" status may help
A fuss? From whom? They'd just have to get over it. If a little guy like me has no problems in calling in the big guns from my own HQ tent, why would anyone else get bent out of shape about it? They can do it just as easily if they know what they're doing. [:'(]
Alright, let me specify. Telephone lines get cut sometimes, and it takes a bit to repair the lines. The HQ sends runners, and that takes time. You can't be guaranteed the necessary support each and every turn. That's just the way it is. You deal with it.
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
Isn't that what 'Out of contact' helps represent?
Goblin
Goblin
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
ORIGINAL: Goblin
Isn't that what 'Out of contact' helps represent?
Goblin
Yes, exactly. The main bone of contention seems to be having FOs that can drastically cut off-board arty response times. I agree, having an 0.4 response for some off-board 105s is more like Vietnam, not WWII.
I use my Bn HQ, which results in off-board responses from 1.1 to 1.5 turns.
Therefore, just take the on-map FOs out for the US/USMC-- they will still exist, but you don't see them. They are simply implied. These invisible units call the Bn HQ, which in turn calls in the offboard arty assets. This allows for the longer delays.
Does that work for you guys? This method takes into account the game's abstractions, and that's the way I play it.
We're taking shortcuts in this manner, but overall adding to the historical results.
-
FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
Whoa, whoa, hold up, guys!
Why the push to eliminate FOs, when they were definitely in existence? The trouble isn't with the FOs or wth how they work; the trouble is the use of one 'Delay time' for all types of artillery Indirect Fire. In the 1940s, with certain exceptions, useage of radios for artillery comms was rare. Most nations, especially those whose armies were developed more for static defense than mobile advances, used telephone lines to link the batteries and HQs together. But for the company and platoon mortars, comms were made by the use of runners or signal flags. And these artillery units were closer to the front, and closer to the people requesting the barrages.
The question should be, "Why aren't there two Time Delays for artillery, one for Offmap Artillery units and a shorter one for Onmap Artillery units?"
Why the push to eliminate FOs, when they were definitely in existence? The trouble isn't with the FOs or wth how they work; the trouble is the use of one 'Delay time' for all types of artillery Indirect Fire. In the 1940s, with certain exceptions, useage of radios for artillery comms was rare. Most nations, especially those whose armies were developed more for static defense than mobile advances, used telephone lines to link the batteries and HQs together. But for the company and platoon mortars, comms were made by the use of runners or signal flags. And these artillery units were closer to the front, and closer to the people requesting the barrages.
The question should be, "Why aren't there two Time Delays for artillery, one for Offmap Artillery units and a shorter one for Onmap Artillery units?"
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
Flashfyre, what I'm saying is, IF you use my method , the end result is historical, even if the way to achieve that goal is abstracted.
This game is an obvious abstraction, and an impressionistic view of WWII combat. The thing that just drives me to distraction are the attempts to turn SPWaW into a simulation --it ISN'T a simulation. At this level, it should be played in real time -- no way we can do this.
This game is an obvious abstraction, and an impressionistic view of WWII combat. The thing that just drives me to distraction are the attempts to turn SPWaW into a simulation --it ISN'T a simulation. At this level, it should be played in real time -- no way we can do this.
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
Nope that did not effect the delay times at all.ORIGINAL: Alby
removing "elite Recon" status may help
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
Whoa, whoa, hold up, guys!
Why the push to eliminate FOs, when they were definitely in existence?
There is'nt any push in this guys plans.. I just wanted to see how everyone felt about the times
[:)]
The question should be, "Why aren't there two Time Delays for artillery, one for Offmap Artillery units and a shorter one for Onmap Artillery units?"
there is a difference between the two.
US on board is almost always .01, for off board it is 'usually' .04
For other nations it could be .04 for on board up to 1.1 for off board
Bye.....
-
FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
No, Alby, there aren't two delay times; there are modifiers for Onmap units, such as 'Fast Response', but there is no difference between the base Delay Time for On- and Offmap units. The National Delay Time is a set value, and is used for all artillery.
What I'm asking is, why weren't 2 times developed for the game? An onmap one and an offmap one that is at least 1.0 turn greater than the onmap one.
What I'm asking is, why weren't 2 times developed for the game? An onmap one and an offmap one that is at least 1.0 turn greater than the onmap one.
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
Sorry, guys, we seem to be rehashing old issues, which leads us nowhere. Nothing more to add.
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
No, Alby, there aren't two delay times; there are modifiers for Onmap units, such as 'Fast Response', but there is no difference between the base Delay Time for On- and Offmap units. The National Delay Time is a set value, and is used for all artillery.
What I'm asking is, why weren't 2 times developed for the game? An onmap one and an offmap one that is at least 1.0 turn greater than the onmap one.
I thought Mike Wood changed the code so almost all on board arty was now "fast response" (rockets are exception I think??) without it even having that special flag/code...so even taking away that special flag has no effect anymore.
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
hey its better than looking at same old threads with nothing new posted...[;)]ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
Sorry, guys, we seem to be rehashing old issues, which leads us nowhere. Nothing more to add.
Of course I could list my USMC core force...[:)]
Gotcha!!!!!
[:D][:D][:D]
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
Just to throw a twist into this discussion, I'm currently playing a PBEM game, with a mixed force of Germans and Italians and have a response time of .2 on 14 out of 16 guns. The other two are a lowly .4. Average experience is 75.
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
"I know what you're getting at, Alby -- you want to petition Mike Wood to make some adjustments, right?
IF that's your agenda, let's make sure "
There's that smell again.............................[:-]
IF that's your agenda, let's make sure "
There's that smell again.............................[:-]
RE: Arty response times, who likes them, who doesnt?
huh????ORIGINAL: m10bob
"I know what you're getting at, Alby -- you want to petition Mike Wood to make some adjustments, right?
IF that's your agenda, let's make sure "
There's that smell again.............................[:-]
[&:]