Artillery gets bugged

[WildCatNL]

What i see ingame, which might be wrong shows that the random generator forms a circle (when a lot of shells are fired and if what i see is what it inside of the game). Which means that it looks to me that shells land in a circle with an approx radius of 250m from the center of the hex. If it is 250m, than some corners of the hex are not in(the circle will be inside the hex). The second picture kinda makes me sick as it suggests that we are not looking at the center of the hex or the arty can shoot really inaccurately. As i said i think i understand the model, it is very good, but i am not sure what is what in the picture (what to the x/y represent, where are the centre of the hexes etc).

Anyway 2 suggestions: 1. Please check that the position of the units is correctly inside the hex(sorry i simpy cannot do that based on the picture). 2. Please check that the possible landing area of the artillery actually covers the entire hex(inlcuding the position of the actual leo) (easy fix here would simply to increase the dispersion (so the radius) - which will lower the overall accuracy but allow full coverage - the hex should be inside the circle). It just seems to me that units are actually positioned on the edge or closely outside of the edge of the arty coverage, in which case the hit chance is either 0 (if more than 25m outside and if 25m is the killzone), or very close to 0 (the shell should land very close to the outer range of the circle of coverage, which is indeed difficult).

Also please check only 1215. for the city one i did manage to confirm it is possible to hit (though difficult and also i dont understand why the arty on your picture shoots there and not near 0,0).
4000k + rounds practically suggest that the hit chance is very close to 0. (which it shouldn't be).

Hi. Like you, I want to be sure what the game is does (and, in my case, that it is doing what it is designed to do). I need a bit of time to run the tests; there are a few other things to look at as well.

I do want to clarify that what you see on the map (crater placement) is independent and unrelated of the simulation we run under the hood. The crater placement is an older mechanism, whose purpose is to give you feedback in which hex artillery is falling (and how often this happened). One crater per volley, with the game attempting to picking a empty spot in the central 70% of the hex. The sides of the hex are deliberately kept free from crater markers so players don't lose visibility of the hex edges and the elevation steps shown there, and so craters don't drop into hex side water obstacles (since that looks odd). The distribution you see there is not the distribution we use 'under the hood'.

William

[Genosse]

I appreciate you looking at this but boy I don't know. Forget neurotic analysis of shell placement, on general principles to me my experience felt worse than FC:RS - it seems like in some sense artillery should be a Pact advantage, you've got a tremendous number of DANA tubes, a competent artillery piece, and they can't perturb stationary German armor, and far from their heaviest?

Meanwhile I have BVP-2 companies wiped out completely while on the move in one turn, from maybe 1-3 volleys? Just feels more off kilter than my experience in the older games. I'm going to continue the campaign and report back to you, but it feels like it's going to be a heinous slog for the Pact.

My sense from past Cold War games in this series and Armored Brigade for example, is that if the Pact commander can keep his core force intact while getting recon eyes on NATO defensive positions then artillery should be a net benefit to him, giving him a chance to negate defender/optics advantages of NATO. Let me play more and see if it was a fluke.

[garga3]

The artillery is much more effective against bigger units. It is also much more effective under direct observation. And also more effective against non-tanks. That is natural. (All units occupy space, all arty hits somewhere => more units -> more probabilities of direct/non-direct hit; heavy arty is lethal; under observation it goes even more lethal). I am actually surprised how good the model is overall and that it actually behaves as the practical tests done about arty effectiveness (which i have access to).

This is why you observe that the 30size mot inf gets wrecked. And overall to think that NATO has the edge. No it doesnt, not in that scenario. Simply max NATO unit size is 4 which is already making the WP arty ~7 times less effective to hit than a 30s unit. If there was a 30s NATO unit the Dana's would annihilate it too.

I also feel that it is a bit too effective against larger units, but that is just a feel.

But the problem in this thread is about it becoming useless in certain condition. This is what i hope will get addressed.

If you have a problem with the nato artillery, my general advise would be to use the small units to draw the fire on them. In that specific scenario you do not need to use the mot inf at all. Also NATO has a lot of observers so it basically teaches you how to advance under the threat of arti defence.