Artillery
Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 10:44 pm
More than a few people have commented that artillery seems omnipresent and decides an entire scenario without much skill required.
I'd already reduced the ammunition effect radius, increased indirect protection from fire in the terrain table, and (roughly) doubled the ammunition weights (a bit more than double for small and medium calibre HV weapons, about double for medium calibre howitzers and larger HV weapons, and about +50% for mortars and larger calibre howitzers).
Still not all felt right - 'my weapons' needed some nurturing to have them available for indirect shoots, yet usefully positioned to hold ground and work as anti-tank screens... while the opposition seemed to always have his units ready to bombard, even while simultaneously being overrun by their target.
Looking at the bombard values for the weapons, It seems that there is a problem with consistency between the different guns - it looks like there is some logic to what has been done, but it distorts the artillery battle hugely.
Low velocity weapons look to have very short minimum ranges (mortars universally 50m) - the medium mortars should be at least 100-150m minimum range (for all fire types) with the light mortars closing the "gap" to the supported unit(s) - (modern) heavy infantry mortars seem to have suggested minimum ranges of 300m or thereabouts.
There are then two classes of weapons - those which seem to have been given the ability to "bombard over open sights" with minimum ranges of 500m or so (for howitzers like the M2A1 and M3) and 'the rest' which have one of 1500m, 2000m, 2500m, 3000m depending on their muzzle velocity (or range which closely correlates for medium calibre weapons).
Nothing too bad so far, except that the 'direct fire' weapons are flat-fire for the most part, and should have poor short range bombardment capabilities and flexibility - although firing over open sights should be more 'urgent' and effective than it typically is right now IMO, it shouldn't be represented by unlimited indirect capabilities.
I found an agreement between published 'minimum range with charge xx' values and ranges at which the angle of fall was 15 degrees for the M119 light howitzer (similar to the M101/M2A1, but modern). Finding either charge weights or zoned (minimum) V0 figures for the weapons isn't easy, but I have some reliable data for some, and despite a few oddities, the correlation is very good between propellant weight fraction and velocity - this means that where either maximum range in lowest zone, velocity spread or propellant weights are known it is possible to get a 'workable' estimate for the minimum range that a shell can be dropped (at steeper than 15 degrees) - usually this will be 15 degrees, but a few weapons have sufficient elevation in the high register (or insufficient minimum in the low register that the minimum range is for nearly vertical fires (interestingly, the range for several howitzers is the same in high and low angle fires using these criteria).
Substituting the new 'minimum' ranges for bombardment isn't going to be trivial - for many guns the minimum distance at which the fall is significant is well over 5000m, the M1897 that initially bothered me @ 500m is increased to 6000m (possibly less with a reduced charge in a secondary shell type, but still 4500m+), and high velocity fixed charge weapons can exceed 9000m.. actually doing this is no problem, and the relative importance of short-ranged high angle weapons over the long ranged flat-fire weapons is emphasised...
The only draw-back is a 'gap' between the 'effective' direct fire range (limited by sights), and the 'effective' indirect fire range (artificially? limited by assumed requirement for general use), which (at least for some weapons which were used for flat-fire work at moderate ranges) shouldn't be there - the weapon could bombard where it could see (and over very minor obstacles) but not search into dead ground. I'm contemplating extending the direct fire (HE/Apers) range to close the gap, but ideally (IMO) it should still be considered bombardment, but only targets with a clear LOS could be fired on (darkness and weather not an issue, but hills/woods/buildings are). This is partly because direct fires are insipid compared to a bombardment within the game at present.
This doesn't actually reduce the Howitzers much (except for the M2A1 and M3, that increase from 500m to 1800m, most of the rest remain between 1000m and 3500m, as do some of the multi-charge guns - what it impacts are the long range guns (including ersatz artillery like the FlaK 36/41 and Pak40/Fk40, and many field-guns). It also doesn't affect some mountain guns or infantry guns - the leIG 18 has multicharge capability and high register fire - roughly equal to the heavy mortar in minimum range. Other mountain guns are fixed charge weapons, only capable of direct fires in low register, being merely light or dismantled into pack-portable pieces.
I'd already reduced the ammunition effect radius, increased indirect protection from fire in the terrain table, and (roughly) doubled the ammunition weights (a bit more than double for small and medium calibre HV weapons, about double for medium calibre howitzers and larger HV weapons, and about +50% for mortars and larger calibre howitzers).
Still not all felt right - 'my weapons' needed some nurturing to have them available for indirect shoots, yet usefully positioned to hold ground and work as anti-tank screens... while the opposition seemed to always have his units ready to bombard, even while simultaneously being overrun by their target.
Looking at the bombard values for the weapons, It seems that there is a problem with consistency between the different guns - it looks like there is some logic to what has been done, but it distorts the artillery battle hugely.
Low velocity weapons look to have very short minimum ranges (mortars universally 50m) - the medium mortars should be at least 100-150m minimum range (for all fire types) with the light mortars closing the "gap" to the supported unit(s) - (modern) heavy infantry mortars seem to have suggested minimum ranges of 300m or thereabouts.
There are then two classes of weapons - those which seem to have been given the ability to "bombard over open sights" with minimum ranges of 500m or so (for howitzers like the M2A1 and M3) and 'the rest' which have one of 1500m, 2000m, 2500m, 3000m depending on their muzzle velocity (or range which closely correlates for medium calibre weapons).
Nothing too bad so far, except that the 'direct fire' weapons are flat-fire for the most part, and should have poor short range bombardment capabilities and flexibility - although firing over open sights should be more 'urgent' and effective than it typically is right now IMO, it shouldn't be represented by unlimited indirect capabilities.
I found an agreement between published 'minimum range with charge xx' values and ranges at which the angle of fall was 15 degrees for the M119 light howitzer (similar to the M101/M2A1, but modern). Finding either charge weights or zoned (minimum) V0 figures for the weapons isn't easy, but I have some reliable data for some, and despite a few oddities, the correlation is very good between propellant weight fraction and velocity - this means that where either maximum range in lowest zone, velocity spread or propellant weights are known it is possible to get a 'workable' estimate for the minimum range that a shell can be dropped (at steeper than 15 degrees) - usually this will be 15 degrees, but a few weapons have sufficient elevation in the high register (or insufficient minimum in the low register that the minimum range is for nearly vertical fires (interestingly, the range for several howitzers is the same in high and low angle fires using these criteria).
Substituting the new 'minimum' ranges for bombardment isn't going to be trivial - for many guns the minimum distance at which the fall is significant is well over 5000m, the M1897 that initially bothered me @ 500m is increased to 6000m (possibly less with a reduced charge in a secondary shell type, but still 4500m+), and high velocity fixed charge weapons can exceed 9000m.. actually doing this is no problem, and the relative importance of short-ranged high angle weapons over the long ranged flat-fire weapons is emphasised...
The only draw-back is a 'gap' between the 'effective' direct fire range (limited by sights), and the 'effective' indirect fire range (artificially? limited by assumed requirement for general use), which (at least for some weapons which were used for flat-fire work at moderate ranges) shouldn't be there - the weapon could bombard where it could see (and over very minor obstacles) but not search into dead ground. I'm contemplating extending the direct fire (HE/Apers) range to close the gap, but ideally (IMO) it should still be considered bombardment, but only targets with a clear LOS could be fired on (darkness and weather not an issue, but hills/woods/buildings are). This is partly because direct fires are insipid compared to a bombardment within the game at present.
This doesn't actually reduce the Howitzers much (except for the M2A1 and M3, that increase from 500m to 1800m, most of the rest remain between 1000m and 3500m, as do some of the multi-charge guns - what it impacts are the long range guns (including ersatz artillery like the FlaK 36/41 and Pak40/Fk40, and many field-guns). It also doesn't affect some mountain guns or infantry guns - the leIG 18 has multicharge capability and high register fire - roughly equal to the heavy mortar in minimum range. Other mountain guns are fixed charge weapons, only capable of direct fires in low register, being merely light or dismantled into pack-portable pieces.
