The magic of separate artillery

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Seriously? Norm said so for the entire game. Yet it got changed in so many ways and is being changed at this very moment. [;)]

A weapon system should operate the same across the board. That's all I'm saying. Entirely up to you of course. [:)]

Shouldn't it be entirely up to the designer? How a weapon system functions is also impacted by the abilities of its crew. I gave the example I used in Soviet Union 1941: The Soviets lacked enough skilled personnel to use most of their guns effectively in ballistic mode. Currently designers have just such a tool. You want to take it away from them.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Furthermore, at scales greater than 1km per hex who is to say they shell is not ballistic?

The designer: when he decides to put the gun in an infantry unit instead of an artillery unit.

But the trouble is that above certain scales, putting the guns into an artillery icon unit is not practical.

Really? At what scale are there no ranged and non-ranged unit types available? You did understand what I did in my Soviet Union 1941 example, right? That's at 50km/hex.

As a result your infantry division's guns fire indirectly at one scale and directly at another scale.

Small enough caliber that it makes little difference. Otherwise, I would have put them in the HQs too. This was a trial and error process you understand. Once the scenario was working correctly, why muck with it?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Really? At what scale are there no ranged and non-ranged unit types available? You did understand what I did in my Soviet Union 1941 example, right? That's at 50km/hex.

Sure- and in that scenario you're forced to make distortions to the OOB to keep the artillery in an indirect fire role.

Small enough caliber that it makes little difference.

What has the calibre to do with it? My original test was with 75mm Guns- and the difference was huge.

Are you under the impression that the only difference between direct and indirect fire is the "digging out" effect? Because that's simply not the case.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Sure- and in that scenario you're forced to make distortions to the OOB to keep the artillery in an indirect fire role.

Well, to keep some of it in a ballistic role. So what?

What has the calibre to do with it? My original test was with 75mm Guns- and the difference was huge.

Are you under the impression that the only difference between direct and indirect fire is the "digging out" effect? Because that's simply not the case.

Calibre has everything to do with disentrenchment. As for other effects, as I said, it was a trial and error process. Had I decided to do so, the divisional guns could have gone into the army HQs as well. That that step was not necessary perhaps says something about divisional artillery usage - at least in Barbarossa.

[Curtis Lemay]

Regardless, the fact is that I did use the technique I'm describing (some artillery in ranged units, some not) in a 50km/hex scenario. And the effect was highly beneficial to the scenario.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Seriously? Norm said so for the entire game. Yet it got changed in so many ways and is being changed at this very moment. [;)]

A weapon system should operate the same across the board. That's all I'm saying. Entirely up to you of course. [:)]

Shouldn't it be entirely up to the designer? How a weapon system functions is also impacted by the abilities of its crew. I gave the example I used in Soviet Union 1941: The Soviets lacked enough skilled personnel to use most of their guns effectively in ballistic mode. Currently designers have just such a tool. You want to take it away from them.

I'm taking nothing away. They can do as they please. Including not having to worry that their artillery functions differently depending on the unit symbol. Taking away is forcing them to use a symbol because you tell them an artillery piece is different depending on the symbol they use. Now that is restrictive.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Regardless, the fact is that I did use the technique I'm describing (some artillery in ranged units, some not) in a 50km/hex scenario. And the effect was highly beneficial to the scenario.

Again, you are telling scenario designers they have to use the Bob method of scenario design because you refuse to give them the ability to design a scenario in a way they want to. Why can't I put an artillery piece in an infantry unit and expect it to perform the way it is intended to. And I don't want to hear the direct fire Soviet drivel because that only covers the Soviets. What about the rest of the world? And even at line of sight there are ballistics especially with mortars and howitzer. Also, you act as though all fortifications, field and otherwise, are below ground. That certainly is not the case. Your logic seems to be, 'make Bob right', instead of, 'make the game right'.

Pay close attention to the Terminal Effects at the bottom of the page especially the German bunker. BTW, this was all direct fire totally reducing fortifications to rubble the last one being German:
http://www.alternatewars.com/WW2/WW2_Do ... _Forts.htm

This one could reduce fortifications at point blank range. The gun could be suppressed horizontal to the ground. Didn't matter if it was a trench or a bunker:
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/milita ... 155mm.html

Experience tells me that anything anyone says will not make a difference in your opionion but it's worth a shot.

[rhinobones]

If you separate the artillery into another infantry unit, I doubt there will be any effect. But you probably put it from an infantry unit into an artillery unit. That's the difference between bombardment and direct fire (line-of-sight). Bombardment for sure gets the shell weight effect. Direct fire probably not.

If you added an artillery icon as secondary to a non-artillery unit, would that give the non-artillery unit an indirect (bombardment) fire capability?

Regards

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I'm taking nothing away. They can do as they please.

That is exactly what you are doing: removing the ability of the designer to limit artillery to function only in a direct fire mode.

Including not having to worry that their artillery functions differently depending on the unit symbol.

Including not having the option to make artillery function as direct fire.

Taking away is forcing them to use a symbol because you tell them an artillery piece is different depending on the symbol they use. Now that is restrictive.

No. It is not restrictive: They can use whichever icon they please to achieve either effect they desire. You would deny them that option.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

If you separate the artillery into another infantry unit, I doubt there will be any effect. But you probably put it from an infantry unit into an artillery unit. That's the difference between bombardment and direct fire (line-of-sight). Bombardment for sure gets the shell weight effect. Direct fire probably not.

If you added an artillery icon as secondary to a non-artillery unit, would that give the non-artillery unit an indirect (bombardment) fire capability?

Regards

No. It does not reduce the fortifications, it suppresses them but they are still entrenched regardless of what artillery you have in the unit. You could have a million 160mm mortars in an infantry unit and the entrenched unit would still be there. Doesn't matter that the mortars use plunging fire, per Bobs explanation, they still don't reduce the fortifications.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Again, you are telling scenario designers they have to use the Bob method of scenario design because you refuse to give them the ability to design a scenario in a way they want to.

If you want to call it the "Bob" method that's fine. But it was Norm who did it. And it is an option designers can now use to effect the way their artillery functions. You would have us take that away.

Why can't I put an artillery piece in an infantry unit and expect it to perform the way it is intended to.

You want to dictate to designers how their guns are to function. And anyone can see that artillery in an infantry unit will NOT have a range. To give it a range, it has to go into a ranged unit. Designers have to be blind, deaf, and dumb not to understand that.

And I don't want to hear the direct fire Soviet drivel because that only covers the Soviets.

A huge chunk of wargaming.

What about the rest of the world?

A tool for designers wherever they feel the effect is called for.

And even at line of sight there are ballistics especially with mortars and howitzer. Also, you act as though all fortifications, field and otherwise, are below ground. That certainly is not the case. Your logic seems to be, 'make Bob right', instead of, 'make the game right'.

If direct fire had ballistics it wouldn't need to be line-of-sight, would it? Entrenchments are below ground. The effect is disentrenchment.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I'm taking nothing away. They can do as they please.

That is exactly what you are doing: removing the ability of the designer to limit artillery to function only in a direct fire mode.

Including not having to worry that their artillery functions differently depending on the unit symbol.

Including not having the option to make artillery function as direct fire.

Taking away is forcing them to use a symbol because you tell them an artillery piece is different depending on the symbol they use. Now that is restrictive.

No. It is not restrictive: They can use whichever icon they please to achieve either effect they desire. You would deny them that option.

It gives them both options. If there are two options and they can use both how is that restrictive? If they have no options...well it doesn't take a genius to understand which is most restrictive. [:D]

http://www.alternatewars.com/WW2/WW2_Do ... _Forts.htm
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/milita ... 155mm.html

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

It gives them both options. If there are two options and they can use both how is that restrictive? If they have no options...well it doesn't take a genius to understand which is most restrictive. [:D]

You can twist an turn however you like, but you can't escape the fact that you are the one demanding that a design option be removed!

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

It gives them both options. If there are two options and they can use both how is that restrictive? If they have no options...well it doesn't take a genius to understand which is most restrictive. [:D]

You can twist an turn however you like, but you can't escape the fact that you are the one demanding that a design option be removed!

When there is one way given to do something explain to me how that is an option? Options imply at least two.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

It gives them both options. If there are two options and they can use both how is that restrictive? If they have no options...well it doesn't take a genius to understand which is most restrictive. [:D]

You can twist an turn however you like, but you can't escape the fact that you are the one demanding that a design option be removed!

Let me spell it out.

Bob method constricts how artillery functions.
Option 1) Artillery had to be in a HQ or Artillery unit to fully utilize it's abilities.
There are no further options.

Proposed treats artillery the same regardless of unit it is in.
Option 1) Artillery can be in a HQ or Artillery unit to fully utilize it's abilities.
Option 2) Artillery can be in a non HQ or Artillery unit to fully utilize it's abilities.
Option 3) Turn off option 2.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

It gives them both options. If there are two options and they can use both how is that restrictive? If they have no options...well it doesn't take a genius to understand which is most restrictive. [:D]

You can twist an turn however you like, but you can't escape the fact that you are the one demanding that a design option be removed!

When there is one way given to do something explain to me how that is an option? Options imply at least two.

Option 1: Artillery in a ranged unit icon. Functions one way.
Option 2: Artillery in a non-ranged unit icon. Functions another way.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




You can twist an turn however you like, but you can't escape the fact that you are the one demanding that a design option be removed!

When there is one way given to do something explain to me how that is an option? Options imply at least two.

Option 1: Artillery in a ranged unit icon. Functions one way.
Option 2: Artillery in a non-ranged unit icon. Functions another way.

That's still only one option you just said it two different ways. [:D]

Let me spell it out.

Bob method constricts how artillery functions.
Option 1) Artillery had to be in a HQ or Artillery unit to fully utilize it's abilities.
There are no further options.

Proposed treats artillery the same regardless of unit it is in.
Option 1) Artillery can be in a HQ or Artillery unit to fully utilize it's abilities.
Option 2) Artillery can be in a non HQ or Artillery unit to fully utilize it's abilities.
Option 3) Turn off option 2.

Fully flexible and gives the scenario designer complete control over how they design the scenario.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




You can twist an turn however you like, but you can't escape the fact that you are the one demanding that a design option be removed!

When there is one way given to do something explain to me how that is an option? Options imply at least two.

Option 1: Artillery in a ranged unit icon. Functions one way.
Option 2: Artillery in a non-ranged unit icon. Functions another way.

That's still only one option you just said it two different ways. [:D]

Wherever you got your lobotomy you should get your money back.

Let me spell it out.

Bob method constricts how artillery functions.
Option 1) Artillery had to be in a HQ or Artillery unit to fully utilize it's abilities.
There are no further options.

No. There is the option in which they don't fully utilize their abilities.

Proposed treats artillery the same regardless of unit it is in.
Option 1) Artillery can be in a HQ or Artillery unit to fully utilize it's abilities.
Option 2) Artillery can be in a non HQ or Artillery unit to fully utilize it's abilities.
Option 3) Turn off option 2.

Fully flexible and gives the scenario designer complete control over how they design the scenario.

So...artillery always fully utilize their abilities. There is no option to restrict those abilities. That's the bizarro world you live in, in which options = no options and no options = options!!!

[Lobster]

You totally missed option 3. Selective reading?

[Lobster]

Time and again you dig in and refuse to see beyond the tip of your nose. I gave you a way to keep everyone happy and yet you still say there are no options. It's because you are always right, never wrong, and you'll be darned if you admit something might work in a way to give people more flexibility in designing a scenario. I gave a way to keep the function of artillery as it is now and a way to make it function in a more historical manner. So now the scenario designer can do what they want to make their scenario work in a manner satisfactorily to them. But nope. You won't see that. Not much more than I can say. You'll just insist how you are right and everyone else is wrong. That's your legacy.