Artillery inconsistency

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 inconsistency

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] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Artillery inconsistency

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Artillery inconsistency - 6/14/2006 8:25:05 PM

henri511

Posts: 83
Joined: 6/8/2006
Status: offline

I don,t mean to criticize, but it seems to me that thre is an unnecessary incnsistency in the way artillery is implemented in the game. Apparently it was very important for the designers to have the ocntent of units as close as possible to the historical counterparts. A consequence of this is that many artillery units can never be used, because short-range artillery is bundled with the large range. I mean in real war, do they keep the mortars with the 150 mm heavy artillery 1o km behind the lines? No, it goes right to the front with the infantry, but in TOAW, the only way to do that is to stick your 150 mm guns right on the front line.

The could be alleviated by allowing the artillery to go where it belongs, and although this might result in ahistorical unit composition, it would lead to more historical use of the artillery. One way would be to attach the short-range artillery to infantry units; another would be to allow it to shoot from long range, with the understanding that it has been "virtually" shifted to the front line in support of the infantry. I am sure that there are other creative solutions.

Although this is not a MAJOR issue, it IS a bit frustrating to not be able to use a large fraction of one's short range artillery, not to mention the misleading information on the range indicator that actually only applies to the longest range weapon in the unit (so if you have ONE 150 mm gun and 50 mortars, you have the impression if you don't check that you have an ass-whopping long-range artillery unit whn what you have can hardly force the enemy to blink.

Henri

Post #: 1

RE: Artillery inconsistency - 6/14/2006 8:30:53 PM

Siberian HEAT

Posts: 140
Joined: 6/20/2003
Status: offline

Yep, this is purely a scenario design issue. Not all designers choose to do it this way. You will find the same thing with air groups....with short and long range fighters mixed together. A few can reach 50 hexes, while the bulk only reach 10. If the battle happens at 11 hexes, you will get pummeled because most of your aircraft can't reach the fight and the ones that can get torn up. Sadly, this means you have to pay a bit more attention when using air and artillery. It may be alleviated down the road if we get things like overlays for range of artillery (possibly showing a deep red for maximum coverage, a lighter red for the longest range so you can see if there are mixed ranges). I'm speculating though...not sure if this is possible.

For now, it is all in the design.

< Message edited by Siberian HEAT -- 6/14/2006 8:33:35 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to henri511)

Post #: 2

RE: Artillery inconsistency - 6/14/2006 8:38:55 PM

Yank

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/19/2004
From: Boston, MA
Status: offline

One of the nice features in WITP is the ability to do an artillery bombard only attack with artillery that is integrated into a larger formation. In an assault by the larger unit, I'm just assuming the engine figures in the unit's integral artillery tubes.

That would solve the problem maybe?

(in reply to Siberian HEAT)

Post #: 3

RE: Artillery inconsistency - 6/14/2006 10:05:41 PM

Chuck2

Posts: 830
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline

There is a trade-off between unit count and flexibility. The more formations are reduced into smaller component pieces, the more flexibility you'll have. However, this also means you need to move more pieces each turn, making the game longer and leading to micromanagement.

_____________________________

(in reply to henri511)

Post #: 4

RE: Artillery inconsistency - 6/14/2006 10:22:01 PM

JReb

Posts: 459
Joined: 9/18/2002
Status: offline

So, still can't fire an interdiction mission to disrupt supply?

_____________________________

My shrink says I have anger management and conflict resolution issues....and I'LL FIGHT ANYBODY THAT DISAGREES!

(in reply to Chuck2)

Post #: 5

RE: Artillery inconsistency - 6/15/2006 3:49:15 AM

henri511

Posts: 83
Joined: 6/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

There is a trade-off between unit count and flexibility. The more formations are reduced into smaller component pieces, the more flexibility you'll have. However, this also means you need to move more pieces each turn, making the game longer and leading to micromanagement.

I agree, and that is why I would prefer a solution without more micromanagement, like for instance "invisible" limited (one hex) movement of short range Art into front line units in support. i.e. simply increase their range when required and justify it by saying that they have moved temporarily to the front (where they could take front-line casualties).

Henri

(in reply to Chuck2)

Post #: 6