Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

HE effectivness in direct fire - suggestions please !

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> HE effectivness in direct fire - suggestions please ! Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
HE effectivness in direct fire - suggestions please ! - 7/13/2000 7:29:00 PM   
Arralen


Posts: 827
Joined: 5/21/2000
Status: offline 		It was mentioned a few times that direct HE fire from guns up to 90 mm is pretty uneffective now, rendering CS-tanks, Inf-Guns and similar mostly useless. My first few tests seem to verify this. What are your feelings about this? I don't know if this could be fixed with modifying the OOBs alone - maybe there must be a code change as well? (Hello Paul? Wouldn't this be soemthing for v3.0?) Arralen

_____________________________

AMD FX-4300
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Seagate Barracuda SATA III 1TB
Windows 8.1
Post #: 1
- 7/13/2000 7:42:00 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		My feelings tend to weight on the side that HE needs to be increased. Problem with an issue like this is that there are differing opinions on just how effective artillery fire should be vs soft targets. Recent mods like SP:WWII have continued a trend of increasing inf toughness where its now to the point that could could spend 40 turns spraying MG and artillery fire and only get a handful of casualties. SP:WAW has certainly improved the situation returning a decent level of 'lethality' to MG and small arms fire. when used in indirect mode, artillery certainly makes an effect, causing heavy suppression of inf units. Direct fire though is almost a waste of time. rather than wax-poetic (in the scientific mode) i see it this way, you know somethings's askew when the primary weapon (the artillery piece) scores next to nothing most of the time, but the unit's secondary weapon (usually a bolt action rifle) scores equal to greater casualties on a frequent basis. I'm also of the opinion that at the very least, inf units caught out in the open and/or moving should be way more vulnerable to HE fire than currntly showing. Certainly MG fire can be devastatingly effective in such a situation. Some have suggested that the 'askew' portion needs to be addressed by reducing MG and small arms effectiveness but dont believe that to be the problem. Though i'd like to see a less tendancy for squads to stand still while they are decimated i like the current level of lethality shown by automatic small arms fire.

_____________________________


(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 2
- 7/14/2000 5:50:00 AM   
Jon Grasham

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: St.Louis, MO, US
Status: offline 		Yeah, I agree, the Support weapons seem pretty weak. I have only used the PzKpfw IV series with the 75mm/L24 guns, and the Soviet's 76mm on the early tanks (BTseries, T28, etc). They don't do a whole lot, other than make noise most of the time. If the infantry are out in the open, a couple kills can usually be had. For myself, I think Ill just raise the kill rating a point or 2 for the support weapons, since that's all that can be done in the present. Also, I think accuracy plays a part, as the bolt action rifles are pretty accurate, while the infantry guns are far from it. Against crewed weapons though, I have seen some good results from these weapons. (usually against my own guns... :-) [This message has been edited by Jon Grasham (edited 07-13-2000).]

_____________________________

?

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 3
- 7/14/2000 6:16:00 AM   
Arralen


Posts: 827
Joined: 5/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Jon Grasham: For myself, I think Ill just raise the kill rating a few points for the support weapons, since that's all that can be done in the present.
We are working on the OOBs, that's why I'm asking, and than there's the v3.0 coming (hopefully) - so there are plenty possiblities for changes. IF enough people agree on this ... ?! Arralen

_____________________________

AMD FX-4300
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Seagate Barracuda SATA III 1TB
Windows 8.1

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 4
- 7/14/2000 1:36:00 PM   
Belaja smert

 

Posts: 483
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Arralen: We are working on the OOBs, that's why I'm asking, and than there's the v3.0 coming (hopefully) - so there are plenty possiblities for changes. IF enough people agree on this ... ?! Arralen [/B]
I too think that the HE kill rate should be increased, it is so frustrating to bombard an infantry unit for several turns with a 75mm CS-cannon and score no kills. MG's are much more effective now. Belaja smert

_____________________________

"THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YE FRET"

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 5
- 7/14/2000 7:28:00 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline 		Isn't the role of a CS-tank to disrupt or force infantry out of prepared defences from a reasonable distance? Obviously, this is a role where small arms (MG or rifle) would be particually ineffective. So a direct comparison of casualties inflicted by direct fire howitzers or small arms against a unit in the open is irrelevant. What is more important is how the game models each of these weapons in their designated role. Can anyone comment how effective CS-tanks are at disrupting infantry defences compared to historical instances? Just a thought, Reg

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 6
- 7/14/2000 7:50:00 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Reg; valid points, however i cant help but question things when one sees the secondary weapon (the bolt action rifle) scoring equal to better kill rates even at extreme range than the primary weapon itself. One might also question the validity of the unit even *firing* the secondary weapon at all since in real life i would assume the crew would only unsling such a weapon in defence. Otherwise i would expect the crew to be too busy working the gun to do so. same thing for MG crews, and i've been toying with the idea of reducing all the secondary weapons of AT/Howitzer guns and MG units to zero ammo to sim this.

_____________________________


(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 7
- 7/14/2000 9:08:00 PM   
Dean Robb

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: Va Beach, VA USA
Status: offline 		Guderian's OOBs on Tankhead's website, http://sites.netscape.net/rcclout, did some very nice work with support weapons. The IGs and MGs I've used so far have been sufficiently lethal. Recommend snagging them - if nothing else they provide good data points for working on your own OOBs.

_____________________________

Job Security: Being a Micro$oft lawyer...

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 8
- 7/14/2000 10:45:00 PM   
Arralen


Posts: 827
Joined: 5/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Dean Robb: - if nothing else they provide good data points for working on your own OOBs.
Don't get me wrong - I'm talking about the official OOBs which should be included with v3.0 That's why I'm asking here - if all agree that something must be done, than most probably it will ... And thanks for the replies - I'll see what I can do ! Arralen

_____________________________

AMD FX-4300
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Seagate Barracuda SATA III 1TB
Windows 8.1

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 9
- 7/15/2000 1:24:00 AM   
Dauphin

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 7/1/2000
Status: offline 		I don´t know if I´m a real minority, but i´m pretty happy with the actual state of HE effectivness. This maybe is based more on personal preferences (in war movies I hated scenes where a whole platoon was blown away by a single shell) than on historical knowledge, but the game feels a lot better (realistic) in my eyes. IMHO shooting with big guns on spread infantry isn´t supposed to do more than one kill (if any). (On the other hand i´ve seen a T34 taking out seven men of a 88 crew with a single shot). In the same way, i think that tank MGs are more suited to deal with infantery than even shot barreled CS-guns. A MG maybe can maw down a whole line of infantry, where a 75mm shell would just get one kill (but also suppresses the others more). But why then the big guns? First the supression. Second they are a safe way dealing with remote targets. Safer then bringing infantry or mgs in range. (again: that´s just my personal view, don´t *know* if it´s historic correct).

_____________________________


(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 10
- 7/15/2000 1:39:00 AM   
rexmonday

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 7/4/2000
Status: offline 		Yeah, it seems strange to me when crewmens' rifles do more damage than the big gun, but I have a reservation about just upping HE kills for the large calibre weapons. Yes, artillery killed more people than any other form of weaponry, but I have a problem with simulating this within the time frame of standard scenarios. If a standard turn lasts 'a few minutes' - generally viewed as about three (but some go for two or five), then a standard scenario (16 - 20 turns) clocks in at about an hour. Does this realistically (within the limitations of the game) model world war 2 conflict. It seems to me that most attacks are described in scenario notes, for example, as lasting four, five, etc. hours, whereas the game compresses them into about an hour of game time. I just worry that increasing HE kills will wipe out/incapacitate/render useless infantry squads at too fast a rate. At present taking five or six turns to 'kill' a squad using small arms seems reasonable to me. If HE kill for large calibre weapons is increased, aren't these same squads only going to last about two or three turns? *** This is all just uninformed opinion, of course, but I just worry about trying to improve one aspect at of the game by increasing lethality.

_____________________________


(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 11
- 7/15/2000 4:11:00 AM   
Major_Johnson

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 6/29/2000
From: Beach Haven, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by rexmonday: [If a standard turn lasts 'a few minutes' - generally viewed as about three (but some go for two or five), then a standard scenario (16 - 20 turns) clocks in at about an hour. Does this realistically (within the limitations of the game) model world war 2 conflict. It seems to me that most attacks are described in scenario notes, for example, as lasting four, five, etc. hours, whereas the game compresses them into about an hour of game time. I don't now how you play to finish a 15-20 turn scenario in an hour. And we have the luxury or being able to sit back and contemplate our moves, rather than the split second decisions that those honorable soldiers had to hang their lives on. For me 15-20 turns = 5+ hours! ------------------ MJ We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves. [This message has been edited by Major_Johnson (edited 07-14-2000).]

_____________________________

M.J.!
We serve others best when at the same time we serve ourselves.

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 12
- 7/15/2000 4:48:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		Remember, a turn does not represent a fixed amount of time. Tomo

_____________________________


(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 13
- 7/15/2000 4:51:00 AM   
RobertMc

 

Posts: 134
Joined: 5/10/2000
From: Birmingham, Alabama, USA
Status: offline 		Seems to me the HE effectiveness question can be difficult, because: How much do we want to model reality, and how much do we want a "game"? In reality, it took an awful lot of ammunition to kill anybody on the battlefield. Soldiers hunkered down and found cover, thus though they didn't move forward they weren't mowed down by machine-gun fire or HE shells. And fifty yards is a good-sized area of ground for men to spread out and make themselves small targets on, no matter if the game pronounces it "Clear terrain" or not. I actually like the HE fire as it currently is, which I think weighs in on the side of "realism". However, it makes for a slower "game", and maybe not as much fun as getting a lot of kills every turn. But then, I like to feel that there is some historical veracity in the endgame casualty levels. But is this fun for everyone? No. I guess you could say that casualty levels also indicate individual men breaking and running, so increased HE kills would model that. But who knows? It's just up to the individual whether he wants the reality of low-performing weapons or a faster game.

_____________________________


(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 14
- 7/15/2000 7:26:00 AM   
Scipio Africanus

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Somerville, Ma, USA
Status: offline 		Read any account of a battle in WWI and you will realize that artillery effect against exposed infantry is potent in the extreme. Survivors of the Somme tell of being surrounded by their entire company during an advance and then losing everyone but 3 or 5 men in a matter of 30 seconds to machinegun and artillery fire. Often these men were required to move 200 yards, yet only made it 40. Take a platoon and charge an M7 in open ground in SPWAW. In fact give the M7 an FO and then charge at it across 800 yards holding a close line formation- the M7 and its 105 will lose every time. Infantry should not be able to move like this in front of big guns; The Turks proved this 4 centuries ago, Napoleon proved this, WWI proved this. Most men die from artillery fire when they are moving. 105 guns and 4.2 inch mortars should be devastating against soldiers moving in open ground under view of an FO. "Artillery is the god of war," and this holds most true for the scale at which SPWAW presents itself. I personally use 250% on artillery vs soft targets to properly simulate what happens when 2,000 Italians charge across open ground against 4 US M7s, three 4.2 inch mortars, and a 155mm battery- the poor soldiers make it 200-300 yards in the first 5 minutes of accurate delivery, suffer 40% casualties, turn around and flee. They use WWI tactics, they suffer WWI casualties. Without proper Artillery effect, the tactics used in the game are incorrect, with infantry having accentuated mobility even while under fire. Cheers, ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

_____________________________

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 15
- 7/15/2000 7:55:00 AM   
Scipio Africanus

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Somerville, Ma, USA
Status: offline 		And speaking of the Somme... This battle and others often seem to give people the impression that artillery was not all that effective. This is because of the amount of ordnance expended in pre battle bombardment (which numbers are incredible). It is important to remember that when the pre battle bombardment took place, most German soldiers found themselves in 30 foot deep mined dugouts. Therefore the initial bombardment had little effect (except on their nerves). But, when the real fighting started, (which is what we're interested in for SPWAW) that is precisely the moment when artillery started actually killing people in numbers. Yes, the British were moving forward in "open" ground, but there were already numerous shell holes, hillocks, and berms to take cover in. Artillery effect was still considerable and casualties massive. A 75 HE shell exploding within 50 yards of a non prone individual is extremely dangerous, larger shells more so. WWI medical accounts of death by artillery fire are surprising: Often, cause of death was not even immediately discernable (corpses having no external indication of cause). Death could be caused by such unusual circumstance as spinal cord rupture and lung or brain hemmorage from explosive overpressures (no shrapnel in these cases, and sometimes this effect could occur at surprising distances: 25+ yards for big shells).

_____________________________

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 16
- 7/15/2000 8:29:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		It would be cool if the game engine just cranked up the casualties for units moving and out in the open. Then, assume that they are all on the ground scared... and do less damage. Tomo

_____________________________


(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 17
- 7/15/2000 9:24:00 AM   
rexmonday

 

Posts: 119
Joined: 7/4/2000
Status: offline 		Hokay - my last post wasn't the clearest. I said something about a 16-20 turn scenario lasting an hour. Major_Johnson read that as meaning I play through it in an hour. Actually, what I meant was those 16-20 turns represent _within_the_game_ about an hour. I am also aware that a certain flexibility exists in the length of game turns. They have always been described in the manuals and such as "a few minutes". If you wanted to be pedantic you could do some calculations based on the speed of vehicles to work out exactly how few or how many they are. All of this is by the board though - the point I was wanting to make was just that I was worried about trying to solve the HE kills 'problem' by increasing their kills. If one does increase HE kills, then troops are going to get incapacitated even faster than they do already. Already most infantry units, even those in cover, only last two or three turns before being rendered defunct. As far as the game goes this represents a fire-fight of about five-fifteen minutes. In my very uninformed opinion this seems like it produces quicker resolutions to combat than the game is intended to simulate/wargame. If HE kills are upped then, is the life expectancy of troops going to be decreased excessively? (as a side note I personally tell myself a turn lasts fifteen minutes of _in_game_ time, although this figure bears no relation to any of the distances or speeds encountered in the game).

_____________________________


(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 18
- 7/15/2000 10:12:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		That on the occasions where large amounts of artillery fell on men in the open, it wrecked horrid carnage, is quite true. But one has to look at the capability from a C3 standpoint to put that ordnance on target. ITs a hard problem and in WW2 and Korea there are many instances where artillery seemed to feast or famine. While a single M7 firing over iron sights has a hard time to take on a plt is one of the reasons it had that .50cal in the "pulpit". IN a test series (WO 291/113) the British put 81 targets representing standing men in a 100x 150 yard target area and fired several series of rounds the 105 series was 100 rounds 95 of which were "effective" 65 of the targets considered "incapacitated" by the shrapnel That is about 2 casualties for every 3 rounds. Other docs put the effectiveness reduction for the target "going to ground" at between 300 and 700% or 2 casualties fo every 6 to 14 rounds. Another WO doc 291/496 "Against men in slit trenches, 25-pdr groundburst must hit the trench or parapet to be effective. If firing 1000 25-pdr shells into a 300 ´ 300 yard box with 100 men in it in slit trenches, the expected number of casualties would be nine." NINE yes not 900 or 90...NINE. Morale effect (lasting after the bombardment ceases) "...can only be achieved against enemy in open positions, unless the duration is about 8 hours or more, in which case lightly protected positions may be affected especially if retaliation is impossible." On open positions a bombardment intensity of 0.1 lb/sq yd/hour in 25-pdr equivalents produces collapse in about 4 hours; 1.0 lb/sq yd/hour in about ¼ hour. Neutralising effect, in NW Europe, on an enemy in open positions, was achieved with a bombardment intensity of 0.02–0.08 lb/sq yd/hr. in 25-pdr equivalents. Lethal effect: A density of 0.1 lb/sq yd causes 2% casualties on targets in slit trenches, about 20% on targets in the open. Material effect: A density of 0.1 lb/sq yd damages about 1½% of weapons or guns in pits, 20% of soft vehicles in the open. If a hex is ~2000 sq yd that means 200lbs or 8 25 lber rounds should cause 2 casaulties on average to a squad caught in the open. Wwe are a little shy of that right now, but are tweaking it for version 3 to get closer. Now one of the pitfalls of warfare analysis is to isolate a single weapon system in a vacuum. One also has to look at engagement level statistics. Based on an analysis of 217 engagements, those at the battalion level that lasted 1 hour resulted in casualties per company between 9 and 32 with an average of 17. In 3 hour engagements it was between 10 and 57 with an average of 24. Advance rates against heavy opposition for going 2500m was between 350 and 790 m per hour with an average of 525. As it stands units that move great than 1 hex are 4 times more vulnerable than units tha move 1 hex and 5 times more vulnerable than units that remain stationary. We feel that over the course of a standard scenario (I think of 30 turns as representing between an hour and a half and 3 hours) The units tend to suffer moderately greater casualties than the analysis indicates. THis is do to several reasons, the largest being teh players tending to "fight to the death". We have to balance "game fun" with realism in all this. Absolute realism is just no fun! What typically happens is that the focus tends to be on "realism" of individual unit on unit encounters and not the engagement as a whole. We have tried to balance the two! That requires "stretching realism" to achieve an overall effect and feel that achieves funa and exiting games that have a realistic "feel" to them. Botom line is if you want high infantry casualties, lower the experience of the units (FReds editor does this in seconds), jack up arty vs infantry and lower inf toughness a bit. Mike and I have done a lot of research in to casualty rates to the various weapons systems and if yo udisagree, given you teh tools you need to make it the way you like!!

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 19
- 7/16/2000 12:12:00 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Paul; your arguments are sound in regards to the HE issue. Certainly i'm not campaigning for a return to the outragious results seen in SP-1 (and very much so in SP-II) such a move, combined with the much more lethal small arms of the game would quickly make infantry as virtually useless as they are in SP-II. however, what distresses me about the current artillery routines is that most (if not all) of our observations and/or test scenerios concern moving infantry, caught out in the open....the worst possible situation for a squad to be caught in...yet no great penalty is being suffered by these inf groups for commiting such a tactical 'sin' of warfare. (unless your a human wave advocate like the Soviet Union was) most of your own examples are in situations where the infantry are in some kind of cover terrain, some specifically designed to reduce the threat of artillery. In those situations (trenches, buildings, trees, rough hexes etc) i would agree and expect to see few inf casualties. But if i get a squad caught out in the open, or worse, if that squad is moving, then i would expect the enemy to make their foe pay dearly for their blunder. But we just dont see that right now in SP:WAW. This would allow players to buy masses of inf and use them in ahistorical ways (unless the opponent dicards artillery and buys mass MG units) and charge defence positions with more than acceptable losses. true one can adjust the preferences but i see two problems with this. 1) adj artillery will not affect the direct fire attributes of HE weapons (since its not technically a bombardment) 2) changing such a general prefernce will unbalance other factors. For example, right now the indirect bombardment routines work fine at normal level. even if increasing the artillery preference affected direct fire HE it would make indirect bombardment overly devastating. same thing for lowering INF toughness, it would make small arms and MG fire totally devastating against INF and they would die faster than snowballs in hell. I experienced this problem with SP-II. in that game INF die in droves, so i increased the INF toughness to 250%. while it made inf somewhat tougher to kill against small arms the negative result was that it made artillery bombardment and indiv small arms weapons (like MG armed halftracks) virtually useless and seriously unbalanced some of the scenerios there. So i'm all for INF being able to 'take steps' to reduce the effect of artillery, thats what makes SP such a fantastic game, few systems or techniques in the game dont have some tactic or weapon that can counter them truely making it a battle of wits between men as well as machines. but as it stands right now, Inf can pretty much just disregard the threat of artillery (direct fire artillery) and plough on ahead, thus creating ahistorical situations

_____________________________


(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 20
- 7/16/2000 12:46:00 AM   
Jon Grasham

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: St.Louis, MO, US
Status: offline 		Well, if you max out the arty to 250% effectiveness, yes, it would become the uber weapon of the game, but, have you tried kicking it up by 10%,20%, 30%, etc? A slight increase (compared to the 250%) but enough to give it a little extra kick? This would not really be unbalancing, as it would make only artillery more effective, which is what you seek, if I understand correctly. Granted, the troops in the trenches would be a bit worse off, but the troops in the open would be even more so, w/ no defensive benefits. I played around with an increase like that, and it seemed to work well. The guys in the trenches weren't getting vaporized, while the guys in the open were fairing worse. I do agree though, that perhaps there should be a check. If the unit moved during the turn the bombardment falls (either teams part of the turn, since it is during the "same" time span) then they incur a defensive penalty by x%. I don't know how hard it would be to implement though, I imagine fairely difficult. :-(

_____________________________

?

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 21
- 7/16/2000 1:07:00 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Jon; as far as i can tell at this point, increasing the artillery vs soft does not affect *direct fire* artillery, only indirect bombardment which as it stands (at 100%) i dont have a problem with. It causes decent casualties out in the open and under cover while it might not do much killing, does awesome suppression. I've fiddled with the preference and saw no difference when firing single CS-Tank or Howitzer guns at infantry out in the open Fiddling with the HE-kill produced some...er, interesting results heh.

_____________________________


(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 22
- 7/16/2000 1:39:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		Artillery in 2.3 is actually pretty effective. I don't know how many people are supposed to die or get ko'd.. but when you drop a bunch of ordnance on guys they get screwed up. Not as many go down as the numbers above suggest should, (but not really all that far off either) In the game, I feel that artillery does what you want it to do, as long as you hit. Single, on-map barrels seem a little weak, but that's because when used individually they're really hit-or-miss. I'm playing right now and think that it's rather well balanced into the game system. Tomo

_____________________________


(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 23
- 7/16/2000 1:51:00 AM   
Jon Grasham

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: St.Louis, MO, US
Status: offline 		I gotcha, I would agree, the batteries are awesome, especially if you get a nice group at ground zero. :-) My only arty complaint is the fall pattern.. the old SP1 top to bottom line. Usually lands a hex or 2 deep, and effects may carry over a hex or 2 farther depending on tube size, but would be nice to have a circular, pattern for "blind" bombardments, or if you want to damamage a more spread out enemy.

_____________________________

?

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 24
- 7/16/2000 2:12:00 AM   
Scipio Africanus

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Somerville, Ma, USA
Status: offline 		Hi Paul, thank you for your timely and detailed response to this issue I must say that I agree with you completely in terms of HE effectiveness against "In Cover" or "entrenched" units: It should be quite low in effect, mostly useful as a supression tool. But I also agree with Nikademus in that infantry can currently sprint across open ground when being heavily bombarded and still not suffer terribly. Since the rulebook states that casualties include troops that have not been injured, but who simply can't continue, I find it a little difficult to believe that regular infantry can so often face down a 75 or 105 in open ground. Soldiers with their faces down in the mud, deaf and screaming are casualties (tank crews bail and refuse to take orders in similarly threatening situations, or disperse, or get counted as casualties). So far, by jacking up the art vs soft, I have seen very little increase in casualties for units that are in cover, entrenched, or moving slowly. I have seen a massive increase in casualties to infantry doing stupid things in front of big guns or FOs. One of the things that casualty per ton of shell statistics in WWII will tell us is that, in learning from the Great War, infantry were less often ordered to do stupid things in front of artillery, such as running around in front of it. Further, these statistics are often skewed by the fact that 90% of all bombardment occurs against hardened or entrenched targets, where it has only a very minor casualty effect. Our concern here is with the ease at which infantry can charge large guns SPWAW, a tactic that has been extremely costly for the attacker during the past 2 centuries, (even when they eventually won). As far as the 50CAL on the M7 goes, I would assume it was used primarily for close flank defense against assualting infantry (thus it can sweep, while the turretless main gun cannot), as well as a means by which one could suppress a direct fire target while reloading the main gun. The design intent of including a 50CAL on the M7 was AA, I should think (which was not likely its function in actual use). What the general artillery tonnage statistics don't account for are certain tactical situations that are arising in SPWAW. We know from the seemingly endless accounts of these situations that infantry should suffer greatly when it finds itself moving rapidly in open ground. If you are interested, or if you find this argument in any way convincing, or at least worthy of consideration, here is my positive suggestion Artillery and direct fire guns would have an effect of 200-250% of their current values vs soft targets; at the same time, effect against units moving slowly (gone to ground), entrenched, in cover, etc. would be halved from their current values (thus, infantry moving slowly would only accept 12.5% artillery effect- entrenched units 10%), which would keep those units having such disposition at their current state of protection. Thus infantry under fire by artillery would still be in good shape if they were doing tactically smart things, they can still advance slowly or in woods or by using APCs (which would not be affected by the change in artillery) or by using smoke- all of the things that they should currently be doing. That is my argument and my suggestion, thank you Paul, for your time, your effort, your knowledge, and your consideration. ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

_____________________________

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 25
- 7/16/2000 2:17:00 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Tombstone; just to clarify, what were harping about is the effectiveness of 'direct fire' artillery (either say from a CS-Tank, or a howtizer gun crew), especially in comparison to accompanying small arms fire. Often i'll see the defensive (and secondary) bolt action rifle of an artillery gun score equal to even *more* casualties than the howitzer itself. This happens even with super large calibur like the massive 152.4mm cannon of the KV-IIa. If the infantry is in cover terrain and such, its true i would not expect a single cannon to do much more than cause suppression but i've consistantly seen little to no affect even against moving inf in open terrain. adding to this distress is that the mentioned bolt action rifle in the same circumstance (even at long range) "will" often score a hit. this happened to me in the bushmasters scenerio....twice i got suprised by a hidden Japanese 77mm infantry gun position, caught out in the open (and moving of course) only to score no injuries....'until' the secondary rifle fired, then causing a hit. does'nt that sound strange to you too?

_____________________________


(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 26
- 7/16/2000 3:00:00 AM   
Scipio Africanus

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Somerville, Ma, USA
Status: offline 		Just another quick thing on HE effect in open ground (so just how big is that hex?) A hex that is 50 yards corner to corner has an area of ~1623 square yards. Now let us assume that an infantry squad of 10 men is visible and walking upright, spread evenly throughout the hex (so they've moved at least 2 hexes this turn). They're in open ground, this means: If they hit the deck they'll find some cover- some grass, a bump, the body of a cow, a rock, a burned out jeep, etc. But they have no recourse to tall grass (that would be a wheatfield), shellholes, big rocks/ rolling hillocks (that's rough terrain), trees (maybe one or two, but nothing major). Of course, currently they are walking A shell from a 105 lands somewhere in the hex (It's coming from the M7 on the hill, some 200 yards distant, which our squad has foolishly decided to ignore). We are conservative (I believe) in assuming that the 105mm HE shell will put shrapnel into 80% of standing soft targets (the poor men)within a radius of 12.5 yards. This gives us an 80% casualty blast area of ~490 square yards, ~30% of the area of the hex. Our men are spread out evenly, so this shell should drop 3 of them 80% of the time (but sometimes 2 or none, sometimes 5- most often 3). A second shell comes in on the same turn, this time injuring/killing ~30% of the remaining 7 (2). Fortunately that's all for this turn, but 2 105 shells have cost this foolish squad 5 men. Next turn nobody moves: thinking better of it, the squad has gone to ground- one is behind a lone tree, two are in a little depression, etc. So this turn each shell has 1/8 of its rated chance to cause casualties (read my post above on this please). Thus, the now much smarter squad really only has a 3-4% chance of accepting casualties this turn. And in fact, they take none- but are surpressed by the 105s. Next turn they rally, and the squad leader orders them to start crawling toward the gun. I wonder if the gun has infantry support, I think I see a satchel charge on one of those guys... The numbers are based on assumed lethal blast radius and the area of a hex as well as adjusted formulas for "in cover/moving slowly" modifiers. This is what I think should happen in such situations. ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

_____________________________

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 27
- 7/16/2000 5:59:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		Excellent Feedback guys ! This sort of exchange is what really makes this forum shine! We really appreciate this level of detailed input! One of the troubles we have is since the "balance" on the casualty system is complex (there are are 3 seperate routines that "feedback" into each other) when you try to increase light arty, you can increase heavy arty more than you want! The other problem is that the game abstracts the "how many guys are standing up when the shells fall". The WO I refed cited 105 HE and achieved only 2 kills per 3 rounds and that was against 81 targets in a 2x3 hex area. A single squad in that would likely have only suorred 2 casualties per 25 rounds or so. I understand teh effectiveness figures you cite, but they are aoften not realized in practice. The target stance (upright or prone) REALLY has a large effect. A period study I read on the desireability of simultaneous time on target barrages said that 50 rounds that land at the same time are something like 15 times more effect than 50 rounds that land 5 at a time. This stems from the troops "hitting the deck" and only the first few rounds landing against "upright targets". The game assumes that veteran troops (80+) are often able to "hit the dirt" before the rounds even fall becasue they can gauge the threat by the shell noises. At the least even poor troops get down after the first 2 or 3 impacts. We are looking at one little tweak toward increased arty effect in ver 3, but the disparity of opinion makes this an area best customized by trading off inf toughness and Soft arty effect. Its not so simple as just increasing HE kill or warhead or the defensive "save". Like any system with "feedback" a little change can suddenly throw the whole thing out of whack! And what seems good at 70 exp, is out of whack vs 50 or 90. The point about casualties being other than killed is a good one, sources conflict on this, however some indicating that the desire to strike back after being caught impotant often instilled a near berseark rage, while others cite frequent shell shock (but stress the this effect is very often delayed by upt to several hours or as culminating effect of days in such conditions, making it moot in the time frame of an SP battle. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited July 15, 2000).] [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited July 15, 2000).]

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 28
- 7/18/2000 1:06:00 AM   
Elvis

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 6/20/2000
From: Clarion, PA
Status: offline 		We are conservative (I believe) in assuming that the 105mm HE shell will put shrapnel into 80% of standing soft targets (the poor men)within a radius of 12.5 yards. I posted something similar in "Artillery effectiveness (yet again)" a week ago, using U.S. Ordnance Department results. Check it out, too long to post again ------------------ alea iacta est [email]sooperduk@hotmail.com[/email]

_____________________________

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -- George Orwell

(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 29
- 7/18/2000 7:43:00 AM   
Tombstone

 

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline 		I'm working on this Kursk scenario right now, and I've included a platoon of Brummbars with the german force. They do a really good job of causing casualties, at that range I don't think anything else compares. Occasionally MG's and rifles cause casualties at their extreme range, but not all that often. I was getting 1 or 2 casualties per fire with the 150 gun on the brummbar. I think direct fire HE is modelled pretty fairly. Remember, it's only one shell. It get's kills once in a while, that makes it's kills/shell pretty good. Tomo

_____________________________


(in reply to Arralen)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> HE effectivness in direct fire - suggestions please ! Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.484