Historical Arty Delay

[K62_]

This is an offshoot of the accuracy vs playability poll. Since the duration of a turn is supposed to be 5 minutes, the US should get a minimum arty delay of 1.0, the Brits 1.5 and everybody else 4.0 and 5.0. Do you guys think that would be an improvement in the game?

[Voriax]

Opens a can of worms...and the delays aren't that big. For example, finnish arty during Winter war had delays around 5-8 minutes, 2-4 minutes if the battery was already firing and the new target was relatively close to the previous target. Those longer times apply if the whole gun ( incl. carriage) had to be swung into new direction.

And...you'd need several turn long arty barrages. *if* you'd have certain areas under bombardment one or more turns then I'd go with longer delays, but for now think the current system is fine. Especially as you can wish all you want but you won't get those longer delays Wait for CL

Voriax

[AmmoSgt]

My Understanding is that a SPWAW game turn is about 2 minutes give or take some random time .
There were basically two artillery call/ response models in WW2 , with National variances based primarily on Communications ability and Doctrinal priorities.
The US Artillery System developed by General Charles Somerall in the 1930's known usually as TOT or Time on Target and the British STONK system. Both were similar and much faster than what the rest of the world was using giving a rounds on target time of about 2 minutes or less , The US system allowed more batteries to fire and have shells arrive at the same time and was slighty more accurate, The British systemm was just as fast but could not handle as many batteries and usually required some adjustment after intial impact to be as accurate as the US System .. The US had a generious supply of small portable dry cell battery radios and a redundant radio/ landline network that was very relaible and usually working even when other radio nets were down. The Brits had to rely on larger radio sets vehicle mounted using wet cells, and it did not have the redundancy built in. So basically a 1 turn response time.
All other nations basically used the same system that was used in WW1 with the addition of radios to the WW1 land line communications networks .. the actual method of ploting artillery fires was little changed and resulted in about a 10-12 minute response time and National Doctines resulted in a reluctance to call in out of command Artillery , so 4 or 5 turns sounds about right.
Radio net relability differed depending on the use of AM or FM sets on the Artillery net and intial accuracy was greatly dependant on the training and abilities of the Forward observers.
The US trained Platoon leaders as FO's ( as well as Company Commaders and Independant FO's from the Arty Batteries ) and equiped them with portable radios and the US system was easier to implement. The Brits had both Company level commanders and independant FO's and a fairly usable system and had vehicle mounted Radios to support them. Germany had a capability similar to Britian as far as Company level and Independant FO's but had less radio capability insofar as usually vehicle mounted artillery net radios were scarce in non motorized Units. This means that Arty batteries would have to send one or more of their very scarce FO's up to support a unit , and then that battery could not support any other units that did not have an FO from that Battery. The Russian reportedly had a real hard time training enough FO's at the company level , especially early in the war , and had a changing doctrine as the war progressed as to exactly what level of command commanded what Arty , Mostly worked out by 1944 with a very centralized system.
IMHO and given the above info a delay of 1 for the US British and 4 or 5 turns for all others would help with realism . Another improvement that would help would be that Platoon "O" units other then US not be allowed to call Arty other than British and German Motorized Recon, unless it is a platoon weapon. Truth be told Brixa's, Japanese Knee mortars, German and Russian 50mm were basically line of sight high angle direct fire grenade launchers more than they were Mortars ( you can argue the point about the Russian 50mm , but they simply did not have the observer support for true indirect fire on a regular basis). US 60mm Mortars had the sights, the range, the grid maps, the training and the Inf Platoons had the communication and training to actually use them as true indirect fire weapons.

[Capt. Pixel]

I voted No Change. We are talking a game here. The variation in artillery capabilities between the Axis and Allies (and particularly the US) is already a source of contention for the 'gamers'. That, among others makes for a long list of "Artillery Gripes":

"artillery is too deadly"
"artillery isn't deadly enough"
"Us artillery responds too fast" (even though they had a demonstrably better/faster barrage call system)
"Everybody else's artillery responds too slowly" (even though nothing much had changed since WWI)
"Incoming rockets spread too much"
"artillery barrage patterns are too predictable" (?)

and the list goes on and on...

and on.

From what I've read about CL, there should be some real changes in how artillery is modeled in the game. Having continuous barrage interdiction during the other player's move sounds great.

[Bernie]

I think it depends on what the actual turn time is. AmmoSGT says 2 minutes, but I seem to recall previous threads involving Paul V. and Marc S. where it was stated that turns were "typically" 3 to 5 minutes of actual battle. If we use the 2 minute figure as our basis for change, yes, it makes sense to change it, despite what it may do to how the game "plays" (more on that later)

If we use the 3-5 minute figure, then we need to boost up the US response time from .4 to say about .2, and keep the rest the same.

Now, assuming the 2 minute figure as the basis, how will that affect game play? IMHO it will result in most non-US players forgoing buying arty (except for mortars which have faster response times, and maybe a battery or two of OB for counter-battery fire) since it will be almost impossible to hit anything with it but a static target. Mention also should be made that in a typical 20-25 turn game, a 4-5 turn delay factor means the US would be able (theoretically) to fire every tube on every turn, while any other country would only be able to fire each tube 4 or 5 times in a game, giving the US player an automatic 500% (5 to 1) "artillery advantage".

To counter this, I see those playing against the US going for the biggest guns they can get (when they buy them) and using them as much as possible in a suppression effort (hey, 155mm+ usually only has 25 rounds, so should run "dry" about the same time the game ends anyway) since they'd be very lucky to get a "hit" on any unit moving faster than an arthritic, one-legged turtle crossing a frozen pond against a 40mph headwind.

Assuming Axis players do go for the biggest guns, we run into another problem, that of where those guns are located. Not on the map, in the OOB's. The German OOB is so full that many units are stashed away in other countries OOB's, such as the German rail guns (in the Norway OOB IIRC) Do we allow a person we're playing against to buy from that OOB, and with what, if any, limits? If we discuss it beforehand, what does that do for the "suprise factor" in a battle? ("Oh, mind if I buy a couple of things in other oob's?" "Aha! He's buying big arty, so let me get a few extra batteries for CB, and not use them for anything else so they're always ready to take out those monster guns when they fire!")

All in all, this is a complex issue, one which deserves discussion, but also one that I fear we will never get a clear majority to agree upon.

[Aga]

Personally I am for everything weakening the power of artillery.
So I prefer long delay, bad accuracy and large dispersion.

[dox44]

yeah...but you would get a better response if you were trying to
add another mm. of armor to the tiger then all of a sudden..."hell
yeah we need more realism...WAW is too gamey!"

[Fallschirmjager]

4 turns?

Wow...you couldnt hit anything in that time scale
4 turns is an eternity


I also remember several of the top people (Paul, Marc, Gmenfan) saying a turn was 3-5 min long

So the US should get 0.5 to 1.0 using FO's and platoon and company FO's while if AmmoSGT is correct the rest should get around 1.6-2.0
Perhaps a little less with a radio equiped trained FO



I find anything past 2.0 turns and it gets really hard to hit anything since so much movement occurs in that time frame

[Kevin E. Duguay]

I voted for the "Historical". But from my own research I know that American and 42 ish British and also Finnish artillery could fire quickly in almost any situation. German and Russian artillery(in the later years of the war) on the offence could be well plotted and devistating. The Germans though did have a problem with defensive artillery plotting. They just could not react fast enough. Their plotting methods were slow compared to the American, and later British methods. (the British adopted the American method which was almost the same as the Finnish method of plotting). So because of useing a map grid a US comander could get in an artillery strike in 2 to 4 minutes, a German comander could sometimes wait for up to 12 to 20 minutes unless the area to be hit was pre registered.

Need more beer! Coffee! or both! have to go!!

KED

[AmmoSgt]

I checked the Manual v 5.0 it says " a few minutes" geeze ain't that helpful.
but even at 5 miuntes the Germans et al would still be at 2.5 plus..
The Times I cited are fastest possible so say US/Brit?Finn at .5 with radio and dedicated FO and more, .8-1.0 without.. eveybody else 2.5 under best possible 4.0 under less than best conditions.
Just to really throw some wrenches into the mix though , there are many other things that would have to change in the Arty model to bring it up to snuff, historically speaking.. we would have to have minimum ranges for indirect fire and areas behind terrain obsticals ( say elevations 2 or higher) that could not be fired on except by offboard arty. On Board Arty would have to be seperated by Gun, Howitzer, and Mortar with Guns ( those Cannon that cannot fire in the upper register ie greater than 45 degree elevation) being restricted to direct fire only pretty much , Howitzers having some seriously large minimum ranges on board ( about 25% of max range of lowest charge possible )as well as any multiple rockets , heck multiple rockets with only one size powder charge option would almost as bad as guns ( say about a 50% of max range minimum range) . mortars would have to have a minimum range.. about 10% of maximum range..
Forces relying on land lines would or should face the possibility of cut lines , and finding and repairing or re-laying lines should be time consuming.. as well as losing land line commo if the FO had to move.
Arty HE Kill values would have to be reworked into a less generic mode to reflect some real large differences between similar sized Arty/Mortars of different make and nationality. And some provision for VT fusing post Sept 44 for US/Brit arty would have to be factored in.
All of a sudden the smaller Arty like 75mm pack hows would rapidly become much more useful if on map , and a lot of the bigger stuff would have to maneuver for direct fire shots or be way back on the map so they could still support the front line ( concider is you will a US 105mm using Mimimum charge still has a max range of about 3800 yards or 76 hexes, 25% of which is still 19 hexes minimum for indirect fire) Forcing the larger calibers on map to fire direct would mean having to really research the AP and Heat ammo for larger guns like the US 155 AP M112B1 round with 6.5 inches of pen at 1000 yards against Homogenius Armor Plate and 5.6 inches of Pen against Face hardened plate hehehe that sorta puts a whole new spin on the use of M12 SP 155mm Hows now doesn't it.
Just some thoughts

[Bernie]

I checked the Manual v 5.0 it says " a few minutes" geeze ain't that helpful.
but even at 5 miuntes the Germans et al would still be at 2.5 plus..
The Times I cited are fastest possible so say US/Brit?Finn at .5 with radio and dedicated FO and more, .8-1.0 without.. eveybody else 2.5 under best possible 4.0 under less than best conditions.

Yeah, that "approximate" time makes it difficult to adjust many aspects of the game, not only artillery. And until we have it "locked down" I think we're dealing with too wide a possible spread. If it's 2 minutes, and "typical" (I prefer to deal with average times, rather than "best case" times because it represents a "mid-point" that's easier to adjust from) US response time is 2-4 minutes then .5 to 1.0 for US and 5.0 to 10.0 (!!) would make sense for German. But if the time is actually as high as 5 minutes we're seriously hampering both sides for nothing. Let's "assume" a game turn of 4 minutes then. Under that scale the current US response time of .4 is pretty close to "best case" and should be increased just a tad (.5?) with some kind of randomness added that could drop it as low as .4 or raise it as high as 1.0, while German times would then be about 3.0 for "average" going as low as 1.5 for "best case" or as high as 4.0 for worst case. That sound about right to you?

Forces relying on land lines would or should face the possibility of cut lines , and finding and repairing or re-laying lines should be time consuming.. as well as losing land line commo if the FO had to move.
Arty HE Kill values would have to be reworked into a less generic mode to reflect some real large differences between similar sized Arty/Mortars of different make and nationality. And some provision for VT fusing post Sept 44 for US/Brit arty would have to be factored in.

Wouldn't the current "out of contact" function represent such cut lines already?

I also think FO's should lose their "B" ability on any turn they move on, since it takes a little time to readjust and replot their position, even assuming they don't lose radio contact while moving (discounting landlines for the moment...actually, any FO in a vehicle should be considered "radio only" anyway)

I won't go into the whole issue of direct fire vs indirect, and howitzers vs "guns" because I think those should be separate issues from this discussion. Let's break this whole "arty problem" down to smaller chunks and try to fix it a piece at a time, instead of making progress in one area while getting bogged down in another and nothing getting fixed.

I also agree with you that VT fuses need to be added, as well as different "splash" factors for different terrain ("tree bursts" having been especially deadly during the war). However, if VT fusing is somehow implemented, it needs to have a somewhat high "failure rate" (ie: premature detonation or only impact detonation) since these wre real problems with the VT fuses on many calibers all the way up to the 1980's. I've had more than a few detonate halfway "down range", including one that detonated about 3' from the end of the muzzle...a "non-frag" thankfully, or I'd probably not be here to tell you about it! This was in 1975, and I have pictures to prove it. You can clearly see the yellow burst marker hanging in the air just beyond the muzzle, and the yellow powder covering the gun and crew in later photos. (I was the sight setter and gunner's mate for the mount (3"/50 twin mount) at the time, and regularly kept a camera in my shirt pocket) But, as I said, this is one of those issues that should be dealt with on its own. Let's see if we can do anything about the response times, get that into the game, then tackle the other issues.

[AmmoSgt]

Bernie yeah on many of your points but on the high VT failure rate naw I disagree .. but in a funny way .. I don't disagree that there was an apprecable failure rate.. there was/is .. however compared to mechanical and black powder variable time / air burst fuzing .. Radar VT was an immense improvement.
The comparitive rate of Radar VT in getting an optimal air burst over a ground target was about 10 times higher than with mechanical delay/ black powder train fuzing and about 4 times higher if you count all the mechanical / blackpowder train fuzes that went off somewhat close to where intended , either a bit to high and a bit to low to be optimally effective. Nature of the beast on mechanical/ blackpowder fuze trains. So the Overall Net Increase of 3x to 4x on soft targets in the open would be what would need to be reflected.
You want incremental .. I'll take what I can get if and when I can get it ..
But I warn ya ..I get realistic times , I am gonna start wanting to differintiate between Arty that had only base and extended charges and those with 8 zones with reduced firing rates for using supercharged. I'm gonna want WW2 arty that wasn't modified for Motor Tow only towed by draft animals and Arty that didn't have a proper draft animal hook ups only towed by vehicles, and if they don't have penumatic tires and suspension springs I want tow speed limits. I also want some representation of all the various ammo types . I want tanks and what not to get credit for having azmuth and elevation sights or not.
As far as "out of contact" addressing cut lines , I don't think it does , I think " out of contact addresses the vargarities of radio reception in WW2 in the way it is there one minute and not there the next.. losing landline is a much longer outage and in advance/ defend overrunning the FO's OP's means a serious communication loss to landline communication. and getting landline setup in the advance should take some time. I'm gonna be wanting some attention paid to max elevations in SP's that weren't as high as in field carrages for the same guns and reduced rates of fire because some SP's ( especially those of a certain Germanic nation that will remain nameless, that carried much smaller crews that the same gun in a towed form ) . The differences in the same tube on different mounts/ carriages and equiped with different sights and towed by different prime movers can be a different as the Armor on the Various PZIII or Sherman variants , sometimes even greater.
Regardless of the Myths and Magic of Tanks .. Arty did the vast majority on damage on the battlefield , but each type of tube and mount combination had advantages and drawbacks that are totally glossed over. travel speed , minimum ranges , rates of fire , types of ammo , number of charge zones , maximun ranges , set up times , fuze options , direct fire capability all could and did differ based just on what carriage was used. Split trail guns could set up faster than solid trail and base plate carriages and could usually elevate higher , but solid trail and base plate guns could change "facing " faster, that should matter in the game. Guns like the US 155mm Long Tom with a base charge and single increment powder bags and rate of fire of 1 per minute and much longer range than a US 155mm how with 8 zones and a 4 round per minute rate of fire and the ability to drop rounds behind high obsticals at short range should not be "about the same" in the game , Guns with extremely small CEP's should not shoot the same spread out pattern the guns with large CEP's shoot . You should be able to ID dead zones on the battlefield that it is unlikely arty can fire into and be able to harbor your High value maneuver units there. Players should be forced to choose between Arty that can engage dead zones and Arty that can long range counterbattery. Fast firing arty using fixed ammo should also suffer by having really large dead zones in the lower register or extremely large CEP's in the upper register.
I mean why not do it right to the maximum extent the game engine allows , SPWAW has adjustable max ranges , I think mimimum ranges can be done , accuracy can be adjusted for the main weapon , rates of fire can be specified , Tows can be specified to a certain extent , HE Kill values can be tailored to a large degree. Alot of stuff can be better represented . arty can be put into the game at a non- dumbed down level of effectiveness and then adjusted by the players who don't want realism in preferences.

[Fallschirmjager]

Ammo

Post all this is the Combar Leader forum
Paul likes getting feedback and will answer any questions you have

SpWaW is really too late to change
But Combat Leader is still in development and can be changed

[AmmoSgt]

Fall .. I posted most of this in one level of detail or another is a series of threads over in CL way back when it started, to inculde the Issue of US Spotter aircraft and provided the references to support most of what i am saying to inculde the TO&E allocation of about 10 US Spotter Planes per Division and websites and books that supported thier use , explained the Terrian blindspot issue due to the trajectory and external ballistics on artillery . I was told it would not be fun . I am posting it here now because there is a fair chance that players who are indicating in polls that they want realism might have a little better control of the process. Matrix Officals have flat out said that realism is not fun and not what they want to represent on these issues.
I have discussed TOT, STONK , the radios , the doctrine , the differences, Gen Charles Somerall , I met the criteria of " an actual use of a spotter plane in direct support of maneuver units" reference set by PaulV several times over , only to have the criteria changed , because spotter planes would not be fun.
Realism , at least in unit types that are not tanks is not what Matrix ( and probably the buying public ) is about , You have to admit folks that hang out here are more grognards than "gamers" and comerical games have to pander to the lowest common denominator .. Geeze louise look at whats out there and is selling .

[Fallschirmjager]

Ive only seen Pauls comments about spoter planes in reference to the Eastern Front when he said they were outside the scope of the game


I am one of those that likes a balence between reality and playability so I wont comment on the rest


I would like to see historical arty TOT....but 4 turns would make artty useless for 90% of the nations in the game

So I would bend reality somewhat to give the US like a half turn delay..and the rest like a 2 turn max

[AmmoSgt]

Yeah , spotter planes are "outside" the scope of the game ..LOL can you imagine what Modern is going to be like without spotter planes , drones , heliocopters ect.
My guess is that every accusation about bias I have ever had , becomes self evident even to the most blind , when Spotter planes become "inside the scope of the game " when they are not a US only asset.

[Frank W.]

German comander could sometimes wait for up to 12 to 20 minutes unless the area to be hit was pre registered

mhh.. seems quite long.

also the germans had a ammo prob in the late stages of the war . they never could get out enough rounds. while the allies had mostly more ammo supply.

[Frank W.]

only the US had spotter planes in WW2 ?

what about the fiseler storch plane of germaniac ?

for shure the brits used them, too.

[Bernie]

Bernie yeah on many of your points but on the high VT failure rate naw I disagree .. but in a funny way .. I don't disagree that there was an apprecable failure rate.. there was/is .. however compared to mechanical and black powder variable time / air burst fuzing .. Radar VT was an immense improvement.
The comparitive rate of Radar VT in getting an optimal air burst over a ground target was about 10 times higher than with mechanical delay/ black powder train fuzing and about 4 times higher if you count all the mechanical / blackpowder train fuzes that went off somewhat close to where intended , either a bit to high and a bit to low to be optimally effective. Nature of the beast on mechanical/ blackpowder fuze trains. So the Overall Net Increase of 3x to 4x on soft targets in the open would be what would need to be reflected.

Yes, I'll agree that Radar VT's were a vast improvement over mechanicals, but I still say they had a significant failure rate (by "failure" I'm only reffering to early/late/impact detonation, not misfires) My personal experience with them is about 1,500 or so rounds over the course of a few years, in various lot numbers (both frag and non-frag) and I'd say one in ten failed in one of those manners, with one in twenty-five being a "spectacular failure" (ie: detonated in mid-flight or never detonated at all...a dud). This was in the mid/early-70's, on rounds that were both fresh and remanufactured, none being more than 6 years from manufacture or overhaul. We even had one (VT Frag) that was overcharged, resulting in a broken recoil spring (!!!) and ruptured recoil buffer on the mount. The breech held, and the barrel "seemed" okay, but both were replaced anyway. The actual round detonated about 9 miles out, which given that the firing angle was only 22 degrees (I had to make so many reports on this!!), and our max range was about 13,000 yards at 45 deg tells you quite a bit about how overcharged this round was! (Interestingly, we never had a single problem with an AP round, even though more than a few were originally from the 40's, and not remanufactured since the early 60's. And we fired close to 3,000 of those.) If VT's get modeled in, they need to have similar failure rates (IMHO)

You want incremental .. I'll take what I can get if and when I can get it ..
But I warn ya ..I get realistic times....

Okay, here is where you and I have a parting of the ways.

I'd be satisfied to get any real improvements made, one bit at a time, but you seem to want the whole hog, and a couple of chickens and goats too!

IMHO, none of the things you and I have discussed are currently in the game because the changes asked for have been too sweeping. Ask for a couple of small change at a time and you're likely to get them. Ask for the whole artillery function of the game to be overhauled and you can forget about it because it's too much work. We'd need to convene an OOB team just for artillery to make all these changes, if they even could be made. They'd affect every OOB in the game, and cause nightmares for scenarios already designed, as well as the MC's. The OOB's are a finite resource, with only so many slots. The major nations are already full to overflowing, and what you propose would take dozens and dozens of slots to model correctly. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it probably wouldn't be backwards compatible with things out already. And if that's the case, might as well start fresh, rewrite everything, and use the new sets only for scenarios written for them.

(Hmmm... Maybe I should write an "OOB Swapper" program for the game? I don't know that it could be made to work "in" the game, and swap OOB's during an actual game to access "extra" units, but I know it could be made to pop up a choice of OOB sets before loading mech.exe)

[FNG]

Having been reading The Guns of Normandy and The Guns of Victory by George Blackburn (a Canadian arty officer who spent a lot of time FOOing), his first hand accounts of the speed and (usual) accuracy of the massed British/Canadian artillery imply that they were certainly a cut above what the Germans had in the field at the time (July '44 on), at least in terms of response time. He recounts German POWs wanting to see the semi-automatic 25-lbers they must be using to dump that amount of ordnance in such a short space of time.