Matrix Games Forums

Why do these numbers not add up? Why does the total shell weight in 3 & 4 exceed the total shell weights of 1 & 2? I can't even hazard a guess and can't read Norm's mind so...is it a bug?

For reference
75mm guns have a shell weight of 7kg
150mm howitzers have a shell weight of 40kg
170mm guns have a shell weight of 60kg

1) Non artillery unit attacking by itself. (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)

ARTCombat:257 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 5%.

2) Artillery unit attacking by itself. (20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:1086 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 10%.

3) Non artillery and artillery units attacking together. (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)+(20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:2230 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 14%.

4) Non artillery attacking with artillery acting as a cooperative support artillery unit (1/2 strength applied). (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)+(20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:1237 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 11%.

Not sure, but I thought there was some play in the weight used in attacks, as in it is almost never the total fire weight.

#3 looks odd.

Do these numbers come up every time, or are these results of a single iteration for each case?

Cheers

Did a few tests and of course the numbers changed up or down a bit. Norm puts randomness in everything it seems to give things a little variability. But overall the math never adds up. It's such a huge difference I have no idea what is happening to come up with such large variations. individually 257+1086=1343. But put the two units into the same combat and 257+1086=2230? Almost a 900kg difference. That's like another 15 170mm guns. Almost twice as many as what's there. [;)]

Yeah, #3 looks off. Have you tried similar combinations (like that in #3) to see if the big jump in shell weight occurs every time?

Cheers

It's consistent regardless of scenario and in TOAWIII and TOAWIV. If this is a bug then it throws the whole game off. Easy enough to check it out yourself.

No one knows what's going on? [:D]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Did a few tests and of course the numbers changed up or down a bit. Norm puts randomness in everything it seems to give things a little variability. But overall the math never adds up. It's such a huge difference I have no idea what is happening to come up with such large variations. individually 257+1086=1343. But put the two units into the same combat and 257+1086=2230? Almost a 900kg difference. That's like another 15 170mm guns. Almost twice as many as what's there. [;)]

I think that artillery bombarding without an attacking unit must have its effectiveness halved (in the same way as passively supporting artillery). Thus the numbers make sense:

Non-artillery unit's shell weight ~250kg = x
Artillery unit's shell weight ~2000kg = y

1) x = 250
2) 1/2 y = 1000
3) x + y = 2250
4) 1/2 y + x = 1250

Each of these is quite close to the results you show above

Does that answer your question regarding the magic of artillery? Being more powerful when bombarding along with a non artillery unit? Not sure if it does but...

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Does that answer your question regarding the magic of artillery? Being more powerful when bombarding along with a non artillery unit? Not sure if it does but...

Not really;

1) I wasn't testing artillery alone vs artillery with a non-artillery unit. I was testing artillery as part of the non-artillery unit versus artillery in support of that unit.
2) The original test was with a "mobile" defender, so shell weight is irrelevant. Shell weight only affects entrenchment level, which was zero

I always thought in WW2 shell weight was tied to how much explosive content a shell contained resulting in a blast radius and distribution of shell fragments when fired in an anti personnel format (HE). More ordinance on target results in more casualties. Don't really know what formula Norm used so you may well be correct. He didn't bother with shell weight. *shrug*

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I always thought in WW2 shell weight was tied to how much explosive content a shell contained resulting in a blast radius and distribution of shell fragments when fired in an anti personnel format (HE). More ordinance on target results in more casualties. Don't really know what formula Norm used so you may well be correct. He didn't bother with shell weight. *shrug*

The shell weight metric was introduced (by Norm, I think, in TOAW) to distinguish between a rapid firing 75mm gun and a slow firing 210mm gun. The latter will be more effective in destroying fixed fortifications, even though the overall amount of HE hitting the target is similar.

You are ignoring the impact of rate of fire, accuracy, and duration of fire.

Each gun isn't firing one shell per combat with that one shell always hitting the target.

The equipment's AP value indirectly contains rate of fire and accuracy info, and the AD indirectly contains duration info. No doubt those factors were included in Norm's calculations for this value.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

You are ignoring the impact of rate of fire, accuracy, and duration of fire.

Each gun isn't firing one shell per combat with that one shell always hitting the target.

The equipment's AP value indirectly contains rate of fire and accuracy info, and the AD indirectly contains duration info. No doubt those factors were included in Norm's calculations for this value.

Right- but shell weight specifically is predicated on the weight of the actual shell. A reinforced bunker could take 100 75mm rounds but would collapse when hit by one 210mm shell

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

You are ignoring the impact of rate of fire, accuracy, and duration of fire.

Each gun isn't firing one shell per combat with that one shell always hitting the target.

The equipment's AP value indirectly contains rate of fire and accuracy info, and the AD indirectly contains duration info. No doubt those factors were included in Norm's calculations for this value.

Right- but shell weight specifically is predicated on the weight of the actual shell. A reinforced bunker could take 100 75mm rounds but would collapse when hit by one 210mm shell

Regardless, the amount of disentrenchment depends upon how many of those 210mm shells hit the target.