Artillery

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Artillery

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 >> Artillery

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Artillery - 7/17/2000 9:27:00 PM

johnfmonahan

Posts: 82
Joined: 6/11/2000
From: Waterford WI, USA
Status: offline

I think that we need a complete relook at artillery. The SP system uses arty as the American army does. This is not true of any other WWII (and most modern) armys. There was a good article in an old Strategy and Tactics magazine about arty fire in WWII. Basically, it said that the Soviets fired off a planned timetable by bn or brty. The Japanese had only one know bn shoot in the whole war, they used direct fire almost exclusively. The Germans fired by dedicated btry or rarely bn, the Brits by btry or bn and the US by the way we all know and love, btry, bn and Group adjusted by anyone with a radio. The flexibility in most wargames is a reflection of US practices. It is not reflective of history. The effectiveness of arty in SPWAW is low. A 152 round impacting in a 50 meter hex should cause MANY casualties. The fragmentation zone is larger tha 50 meters. I think the functional issue is that arty can be called in so quickly. I am playing a PBEM game and I am chasing Tigers with Soviet arty. I can call it in anywhere in 1.1 turns with an FO. I think that this is very ahistoric. In addition, only the arty units organic FO should be able to call fire for any arty unit (except US). This means that All other units should not be able to call for fire(except US). I would limit most countries to a rigid fire plan, with a little flexibility for the Brits and Germans. The US is ok they way it is. We would need a way to schedule fires. The Soviets would plot their fire attacks in the assault. I.e., battery a fires at hex xx,xx for 3 turns then shifts to hex xx,xx with a 3 turn delay. This would mean that the Soviets would not be able to call for fire(adjusted) in the advance or delay. In the defense they could call for fire at a registration hex with a several turn delay. THe ability to have a small chance to get LARGE concentrations would be accurate for the US player. How about an arty BN with enough ammo for 1 shot. Kind of similar to a rocket unit. I can't forget reading Hans von Lucks book where his PanzerGren division was halted by arty fire only. He though it was 18 BNs firing at once. Comments ? ------------------ When in doubt, go on line.

_____________________________

When in doubt, go on line.

Post #: 1

- 7/17/2000 10:09:00 PM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

There certainly is some merit to your suggestion. SPWAW already takes national styles into account for morale, equipment breakdown (reported to be in V3), etc. I'm sure your idea has merit for non-organic arty but what about organic stuff? The soviets had organic mortars that had US style flexability I believe. I don't know what it would take to code this but it does seem to be the first time someone has mentioned this aspect that certainly would increase the historical accuracy. Good thinking. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 2

- 7/17/2000 10:42:00 PM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

I dont know about the other countries you are talking about but the Germans had very flexibility arty system. Often a forward observer would ride in one of the forward tanks of a attack and call down arty on any AT or tank positions that were incountered. As for infantry, most infantry definsive positions had a forward observer to call in arty on any attack that was made against the position.

_____________________________

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 3

- 7/18/2000 7:47:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

It might be nice if the soviet's could purchase a 'kind' of artillery that could only participate in certain kinds of bombardment. That way you could have more realistic soviet battles, with bombardments that have a lot of tubes but aren't that expensive because all they can do is follow a pre-ordained order of bombardments or something. Maybe you could purchase a 3 turn preliminary bombardment from a regiment of 122mm howitzers that would cost less, but basically expend ALL of it's ammo on one spot that you determine before you see the enemy dispositions... dunno. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 4

- 7/19/2000 6:26:00 AM

GLK

Posts: 8
Joined: 6/14/2000
From: Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Status: offline

I believe that you are absoutely correct. I have wondered about the same thing. It is a question of degree. The US was the most flexible, by far, in massing artillery. The British and Germans somewhat less so. The Soviets, Japanese, and others very inflexible. The dedicated battery firing for one FO in conjunction maybe with some planned/scheduled fires should be the norm for these type armies. ------------------

_____________________________

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 5

- 7/19/2000 10:10:00 AM

johnfmonahan

Posts: 82
Joined: 6/11/2000
From: Waterford WI, USA
Status: offline

The Germans and the Brits often had forward FOs. They only adjusted fire for their own battery. It was dedicated support and probably should qualify as fast arty in SPWAW. They could not, however, adjust any other units fire. No coordination, different radio freqs, etc. It was really the American system that was different. By using common registration, any FDC (Fire Direction Center) could compute relative data to fire anywhere. Only the Americans did it. Evan now, I don't know anyone except the American, Brits, Germans and Canadiens who do it. The American army, both in WWII and now has about one arty bn per maneuver bn, which means unit in contact get several to MANY times their unit size in support. Many means MANY, the cold war corps had about 18 arty bns supporting 2 divisions and one cav regiment. That is a lot and it was about the same in WWII. Maybe if we eliminated everybody elses FOs with the exception of one that is organic to each firing battery and can only spot for it ? Also should we make American arty Real cheap ? ------------------ When in doubt, go on line.

_____________________________

When in doubt, go on line.

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 6

- 7/19/2000 10:44:00 AM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by johnfmonahan: The Germans and the Brits often had forward FOs. They only adjusted fire for their own battery. It was dedicated support and probably should qualify as fast arty in SPWAW. They could not, however, adjust any other units fire. No coordination, different radio freqs, etc. It was really the American system that was different. By using common registration, any FDC (Fire Direction Center) could compute relative data to fire anywhere. Only the Americans did it. Evan now, I don't know anyone except the American, Brits, Germans and Canadiens who do it. The American army, both in WWII and now has about one arty bn per maneuver bn, which means unit in contact get several to MANY times their unit size in support. Many means MANY, the cold war corps had about 18 arty bns supporting 2 divisions and one cav regiment. That is a lot and it was about the same in WWII. Maybe if we eliminated everybody elses FOs with the exception of one that is organic to each firing battery and can only spot for it ? Also should we make American arty Real cheap ?

I dont think its a matter of the american arty system being that much more affective. Its just were they had so much of it, they could affort to do what they did. I do think the US off map arty should be at lest 25% to 40% cheaper then other nations. But then you run into the matter of a fair Email games. Like you would not want to play against the US with their arty being 25 to 40% cheaper.

_____________________________

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 7

- 7/19/2000 4:56:00 PM

amatteucci

Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline

It's absolutely true that a reworking of the artillery system is needed to enhance the realism of the game. Of course it was already pointed out that it could be not so simple. IIRC at the TGN website there was a series of articles dealing with WW2 standard artillery practices of the major armies involved. After a lengthy discussion of the different approaches and methods the results could be summarized as follows: US Quick reaction / High precision UK Quick reaction / Low precision GER Slow reaction / High precision All others Slow reaction / Low precision So it would be a simple and realistic add on to the game to model the response times and the inherent accuracy of indirect fire along those guidelines. Comments? Amedeo

_____________________________

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 8

- 7/19/2000 6:03:00 PM

Pack Rat

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline

More ammo for off-board please. ------------------ Good hunting, Pack Rat

_____________________________

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 9

- 7/19/2000 6:32:00 PM

Michael Wermelin

Posts: 60
Joined: 7/3/2000
From: Karlstad, Sweden
Status: offline

Well i don't think I agree to say that Gerry had slow responding artillery all over. Perhaps this is true for the larger artillery but for example, pzgr fighting withdrawing could lay down very fast and accurate fire with their 81mm mortars, while retreating to foreplanned positions further back. If one are to estimate the response time and accuracy of different nations artillery performance, the caliber, type of artillery and battle type must be considered. Don't generalize all artillery.

_____________________________

Attacking is the best of all defences.

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 10

- 7/24/2000 9:35:00 AM

Shooter

Posts: 2
Joined: 5/18/2000
From: Thiensville, WI, USA
Status: offline

For v3.0 I'd like to see FO's able to call fire for their organic units only. Each firing unit should get it's one organic FO as part of the unit buy for the firing unit. It is unrealistic to have people buying dozens of FO's, running all over the map calling in fire with a 1.1 or 1.4 turn delay, and getting rounds on target from batteries they were not a part of. Didn't happen. A0 should be able to call fire for any available firing unit, but at a substantial increase in time delay because their primary comm links were tactical, not geared to their arty or mortar units unless in the defense and hard wired by comm wire. Additionally, you might want to consider having US FO's be given the ability to call fire for any firing unit higher in echelon, meaning a battery FO could call a battalion mission, but also, at an additional time delay beyond that of his call for fire to his own battery. Calling fires for lateral, or adjacent units was coordinated by higher headquarters, usually only in the defense. Registration hexes should be keyed, not to the entire side, but to each individual firing unit, since the firing unit is what is "registering" its fires by a process of FO adjustment once a firing battery emplaces. Preplanned fires, or fires in support of offensive movement are generally not registered, and hence, inherently more inaccurate. You can have a choice of preplanned fire, which comes in either at the beginning of a game or, at a predetermined schedule which should be set at game startup. Other fires which would be "on call" can be referred to by the spotter and the firing unit would then commence either a spotted or unspotted fire mission where the firing battery knew what the target coordinates were in advance and had azimuth, elevation and charge data precomputed, but not "registered" by actually firing spotting rounds ahead of time and adjusting those rounds into the target, recording the data when the rounds were "on target" and saving the data for later use. That is, by definition, registering a target. Generally, in the offense, on call missions saved time because the FO could refer to the on call target by an abbreviated name, and the firing unit's FDC or command post did not have to go through the lengthy process of obtaining target and FO coordinates prior to firing the mission. Lastly, I agree with the first post in this thread, that large caliber (150mm+) arty landing in a 50m hex should be producing a higher degree of lethality to infantry type units, in cover or otherwise. If you doubt this, go get yourself about 30kg of dynamite or suitable alternative, set it about 40m away, dig yourself a nice hole, jump in and give it a whirl. You'd be amazed at how hard it is to do anything useful for the next hour or so, let alone employ your primary weapon. Lastly, one of the main reasons we saw a lot of infantry guns, and later, SP guns, in use by most WWII armies was because their arty was so inflexible, and the time delays inherent with intermittent communications rendered fast, responsive artillery unachievable in most armies. Infantry guns, on the other hand, closely accompanied advancing units and were designed to engage crew served weapons outside of the crew served weapons range, and with less inherent delay because they were under the command of the infantry unit CO whose men were usually pinned down, or who had identified a significant obstacle. I'd love to see a little more emphasis on increasing the game's lethality of IG's because that's what was available, on hand, and controllable given the command and control limitations which existed during this time period. I believe that IG's also have been significantly "underpowered" in their lethality in the game, to the point where very few players buy these units despite their almost universal use during the war by most armies. ------------------

_____________________________

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 11

- 7/24/2000 7:46:00 PM

victorhauser

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline

And while we're at it, what about adding a Time-On-Target effect for American artillery?

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 12

- 7/24/2000 9:15:00 PM

Panther

Posts: 201
Joined: 4/19/2000
From: Dover,NH,USA
Status: offline

I'd love to see a little more emphasis on increasing the game's lethality of IG's because that's what was available, on hand, and controllable given the command and Shooter said control limitations which existed during this time period. I believe that IG's also have been significantly "underpowered" in their lethality in the game, to the point where very few players buy these units despite their almost universal use during the war by most armies. To my understanding most of the infantry guns with the exeptions if self prepelled units were used by the germans. In germany there seemed to be a differentiation between IG and altillery. Most other countries used their guns in the altillery mode with some exeptions with dirrect fire role if neccesary. For example the 25 pdr was used in the dual role in the desert but it was not an IG. As for lethality for direct fire I would like to see an increase my self.

_____________________________

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 13

- 7/24/2000 9:41:00 PM

johnfmonahan

Posts: 82
Joined: 6/11/2000
From: Waterford WI, USA
Status: offline

A Time-on Target(TOT) effect can be had by adding battaions of arty with only enough ammo for one volley. I think this would be a great adition to the American OOB. Bill, Paul ?

_____________________________

When in doubt, go on line.

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 14

- 7/25/2000 3:59:00 AM

BA Evans

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by johnfmonahan: A Time-on Target(TOT) effect can be had by adding battaions of arty with only enough ammo for one volley. I think this would be a great adition to the American OOB. Bill, Paul ?

I think that I am already using the TOT method. When I see a strong enemy attack developing, I target my big guns and note down how long it will take for the shell to arrive. I then note how long it takes for my smaller shells to arrive, but I don't target them immediately. After one or two turns, the arrival times for both the big guns and the small guns roughly match each other. I then target the smaller guns, and all the shells will land about the same time. Is this what you mean by TOT? A concentrated barrage like this can really break up an attack. BA Evans

_____________________________

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 15

- 7/25/2000 4:40:00 AM

Epicurius

Posts: 44
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Texarkana, AR
Status: offline

This thread has really been hashed out. The way that I look at it is that some general nationality differences could be cool, over complexing the issue might take away from the game. The game is called Steel Panthers...Not Steel Artillery. I am not trying to sound snobbish, but my problem with arty is not in how it is delivered, but more on how much effect it has. So far, I have seen very little effect in regards to HE arty vs infantry. The same can be said for HE shells from tanks. I don't know if the designers wanted to make arty and tank HE less effective or infantry more strong. At any rate, it seems that unless you are advancing and you want smoke cover, there is no reason to buy arty. Please let me know how you guys feel about this.

_____________________________

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 16

- 7/25/2000 5:38:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

We have found a couple "bugs" in the routines that have been fixed in version 3. Suppression by direct fire is up substantially and kills are increased some, but not a lot. Smaller (90 and lower mm) arty gives failrly historical 9using UK War Office docs as "history" so for instance 8 25 lber rounds ill generally casue about 2-3 casualties. We have stuck with a fairly linear increase with warhead, despite the good arguments to the contrary simply beacsue th eplayer has more control and information than he should and to do otherwise makes artillery far more effective than it was in "real life". Tis is a game limitation 9ie we can;t completely redo all the artillery routines" so to get the combat arms balanced, we had to keep the larger caliber guns toned down some. Now 120mm and above WILL affect units in adjacent hexes and a 150mm barrage Daivid put to my Russians last night killed anout 12 or 14 of a company of troops (that was to batteries worth over a bout a 4 x 8 hex wooded area that my company was advancing thorugh. It stopped it pretty much dead in its tracks. One can argue the casualties should have been higher, but he also should have had a lot more difficulty getting the arty on target. So, since we can't implement the excellent suggestions for revamping the artillery. so we have to limit its effectiveness at the higher calibers to keep the combat arms balanced in game terms.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to johnfmonahan)

Post #: 17