Matrix Games Forums

Sov F-22 M-1936 sat out in the open (well, in some light mud).

Eight German 150mm off-map arty rounds impact close by. Several are within 10m and a couple look like they're direct hits.

No effect.

Doesn't seem right to me?

Cheers,

Andy

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Sov F-22 M-1936 sat out in the open (well, in some light mud).

Eight German 150mm off-map arty rounds impact close by. Several are within 10m and a couple look like they're direct hits.

No effect.

Doesn't seem right to me?

Cheers,

Andy

Andy, the explosion animation location is not connected to the probability of being hit. That is handled by a mathematical model.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Sov F-22 M-1936 sat out in the open (well, in some light mud).

Eight German 150mm off-map arty rounds impact close by. Several are within 10m and a couple look like they're direct hits.

No effect.

Doesn't seem right to me?

Cheers,

Andy

Andy, the explosion animation location is not connected to the probability of being hit. That is handled by a mathematical model.

The patch included some tweaking to show the animations 'closer' to where the actual area being impacted. The animations should now reflect the correct sheaf in which the shells are landing, but not, as Mobius said the exact location. Off-map artillery has the potential to impact ANY unit within it's impact sheaf.

Thanks
rick

ORIGINAL: Rick

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Andy, the explosion animation location is not connected to the probability of being hit. That is handled by a mathematical model.

The patch included some tweaking to show the animations 'closer' to where the actual area being impacted. The animations should now reflect the correct sheaf in which the shells are landing, but not, as Mobius said the exact location. Off-map artillery has the potential to impact ANY unit within it's impact sheaf.

Fellas,

This was the first time in two weeks of playing this game that I had a "wtf" moment. "The explosion animation is not connected to the probability of being hit"?? Am I the only one who thinks that sounds absurd?

The whole point of 3D graphics is to increase immersion. When the 3D graphics don't reflect what's actually going on, what is the point of putting all that time and effort into creating them?

Had the 3D animation shown my virtual 150mm shells landing all over the gridsquare, I wouldn't have a problem (Well, I might have bitched about the unrealistic modelling of early war German Forward Observers but that's not the point [:)]). When the game suggests my fire is pin-point accurate, but it isn't, that's when I start having doubts. Surely we can do better than this?

Cheers,

Andy

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown
When the game suggests my fire is pin-point accurate, but it isn't, that's when I start having doubts. Surely we can do better than this?

I don't know. Is it any more ridiculous that a infantry platoon HQ unit 7 miles away knows how many rounds of HE and smoke the 150mm battery has in it‘s supply wagons?

Mobius,

Yes it is. The information regarding artillery ammo states comes via the notional FOO whose job depends on knowing such things.

What I'm arguing is that the immense effort that goes into 3D graphics (to increase player immersion in the game) is wasted if those graphics don't represent what is actually being simulated. It's worse if they actually misrepresent it, as I feel the case is here, visually indicating an accurate bombardment when the game mechanics have decided otherwise.

Andy

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Mobius,

Yes it is. The information regarding artillery ammo states comes via the notional FOO whose job depends on knowing such things.

What I'm arguing is that the immense effort that goes into 3D graphics (to increase player immersion in the game) is wasted if those graphics don't represent what is actually being simulated. It's worse if they actually misrepresent it, as I feel the case is here, visually indicating an accurate bombardment when the game mechanics have decided otherwise.

Andy

Andy,

For Off map indirect artillery fire, each gun tube has a sheaf area based on the size of the gun. When you set the target you are setting the center of that sheaf. But the fire will probably not be on target, especially the first salvo (and rocket artillery has even more drift). It should migrate closer to that target point with each salvo. But every unit in that sheaf area has a chance of recieving damage. The animations you see on the map should be reflecting the actual shaef area that is being impacted, as for each subsequent salve, the center of that shaef should get closer to the target area. But, it is still an area of effect (for 150mm I think is 100mx150m area).

After the game was released, there was a fair amount of discussion about the effectiveness of Artillery, primarily against Armour Units so, with some imput from some players here, we made some adjustment of the smaller caliber effectives vs ArmouredUnits. We also found that the animations were not always tracking the actual sheaf location very well and we made corrections to that so that the animations now are appearing in the sheaf. We've also had a few discusions about how we might want to address the effectiveness issue in future games in the series. Perhaps we can address your concerns more fully when we make those changes.

Thanks
rick

Rick,

Thanks again for taking the time to explain things. I understand most of what you're saying. My issue is that half a dozen 150mm rounds appeared to burst within 20m of a Sov field artillery piece (some even appeared to burst right next to it) without any noticeable effect.

Several turns earlier, I had used an off-map 105mm battery to take out a Sov ATG in much the same way. In that case, the rounds did not appear to land on top of the target but the ATG was well within the beaten zone of several 105mm impacts and the effects were in line with what I'd expect. With the 150mm bombardment, the effects were so at variance with the apparent accuracy of the strike that I felt it was worth mentioning.

It may be that the system was working as intended but it sure didn't look that way!

Thanks,

Andy

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Rick,

Thanks again for taking the time to explain things. I understand most of what you're saying. My issue is that half a dozen 150mm rounds appeared to burst within 20m of a Sov field artillery piece (some even appeared to burst right next to it) without any noticeable effect.

Several turns earlier, I had used an off-map 105mm battery to take out a Sov ATG in much the same way. In that case, the rounds did not appear to land on top of the target but the ATG was well within the beaten zone of several 105mm impacts and the effects were in line with what I'd expect. With the 150mm bombardment, the effects were so at variance with the apparent accuracy of the strike that I felt it was worth mentioning.

It may be that the system was working as intended but it sure didn't look that way!

Thanks,

Andy

We're glad you took the time to post. We want what you see in the game to reflect what is happening as much as possible. I think there may be some things we can do to improve the way indirect off-map artillery fire works in a future game in the series.

Thanks!
Rick

Sorry to keep on about this but the attached screenshot should demonstrate my point. Those are 150mm shells that appear to be bracketing a Sov field gun at, what?, say a distance of 10m. 20 at the absolute max.

You'll forgive me for being surprised they seemed to be unaffected by those particular explosions.

However, engaging the same guns with 105mm guns or 81mm mortars produced the expected results, which is what prompted my initial question about whether or not there might be something wrong with the 150mm data?

Cheers,

Andy

Andy,

Thanks for posting that pic. I'll double check the data for the 150mm German Artillery.

Thanks
rick

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Sorry to keep on about this but the attached screenshot should demonstrate my point. Those are 150mm shells that appear to be bracketing a Sov field gun at, what?, say a distance of 10m. 20 at the absolute max.

Sometimes it's good to "keep on" about something.

My first look at the 150mm Art does seem to show a problem. Let me do some more checking and if it needs fixing, I should be able to get a quick fix available.

Thanks!
Rick

ORIGINAL: Rick

ORIGINAL: Andy Brown

Sorry to keep on about this but the attached screenshot should demonstrate my point. Those are 150mm shells that appear to be bracketing a Sov field gun at, what?, say a distance of 10m. 20 at the absolute max.

Sometimes it's good to "keep on" about something.

My first look at the 150mm Art does seem to show a problem. Let me do some more checking and if it needs fixing, I should be able to get a quick fix available.

Thanks!
Rick

I rechecked and the data file looks ok to me. Maybe Mobius will check it as well to make sure I didn't miss somthing.

Thanks
rick

Sometimes "things happen" as well. In games and in real life.

Just as in real life there is a small chance that you can hit very close to the target and not take it out. Any book that tells the story of a unit at the grass roots level usually has examples of such events. Having said that, if there is a problem with this happening consistently then, yes, that's a problem that needs corrected.

I would also tell you to not worry about pursuing an issue. If you have an issue, others may as well, and the goal is to keep improving the game as much as possible. We rely on you guys for bringing things up to us when you find them and we appreciate your pointing them out.

Good Hunting.

MR

In a test the first turn of fire nothing got hit. The second turn the guns were blown up.

One thing about PCO artillery; it is self adjusting. The more times it fires at a target the better it's chances of getting a direct hit. In other words, the battery is correcting fire for you.

Good Hunting.

MR

Ok, I've manged to knock out a BA-10 armoured car and a T-26 light tank using 150mm off-map arty. Assuming the standard explanation that "knocked out" does not necessarily mean "totally destroyed" but rather "made combat ineffective for the duration of the scenario", that's in-line with my expectations. I'm prepared to accept that the failure to damage the F22 was statistical in nature.

I do think there may be cause for revisiting the graphical representation of shellbursts though. I still reckon that the visual feed back in the screenshot I posted above more than justifies an expectation of some sort of damage to the target.

Cheers,

Andy

My experience is that your screenshot is what my arty does to the enemy and mobius screenshot is what the enemy does to me.

Yeah, Mobius' artillery does that to me too! [:@]

Good Hunting.

MR

If the artillery execution is really handled this generically, then maybe the video presentation can at least produce strikes near affected units so it seems realistic?

Personally, I would want a system that models artillery more realistically.