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 costs

 
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 costs Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
artillery costs - 12/5/2000 5:47:00 AM   
Alastair Anderson

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Taunton, Somerset, UK
Status: offline 		Folks, It has been a while since I visited this board - forgive me if this has been raised already... As an ardent fan and player of all the SP versions I am thrilled with the effort put into spwaw and the sophisticated and enjoyable gameplay. Now that a patch is imminent to sort out the VCR replay once and for all [we all hope...] we PBEMers can all breathe a sigh of relief. HOWEVER I am amazed that nothing has been done about the costs of artillery in the game. Realism is good - huge naval shells in beach assaults cause havoc and the massive 220mm Czech guns I have been on the receiving end of in my most recent battle have quite correctly blown my defenders away. Why on earth, though, have the costs of these units been left so low?? I am aware that many players are pure scenario lovers, but for pbem the costs of artillery are leading to the same problems that were apparent with self spotting arty in sp3. Quite simply artillery is so cheap that massive quantities of off board units with high ammo levels can be bought for next to nothing and gameplay is dead. The battle becomes a chore, watching huge areas of the battlefield churned up for no more than the cost of a sherman or 2. Old negotiations regarding the quantity of artillery will become the name of the game, but this is such a pity - why cant the issue be resolved by cost?? Why should 2 players have to agree not to buy more than 2 offboard batteries for example?? This creates unrealistic equality. If my opponent wants to use heavy artillery as part of his tactic then I am all for it - to outlaw it in the form of an agreement is ridiculous, but that is the only way forward now because of the totally disproportionate cost of the big guns. In my opinion the cost of 150mms or above need to be raised by as much as 400% - that is only my opinion, but I would love to hear from any player who thinks the current costs of artillery are either realistic or good for gameplay. PLEASE can we have this remedied? I am no programmer, but surely it would not be very hard to include some basic cost adjustments in a future patch? Getting them exactly right would take some considerable testing, but surely we can get them a hell of a lot more accurate than at present?? I love the game. I love using artillery in my plans and seeing it work. I hate seeing realism and gameplay compromised because I can buy an entire battery of US 155mms for a fraction more than the cost of a single Wolverine... Cheers Al

_____________________________
Post #: 1
- 12/5/2000 6:04:00 AM   
Kharan

 

Posts: 505
Joined: 5/9/2000
Status: offline 		Personally I haven't seen overuse of artillery, but I have noticed that because the heavier guns have been given just the same amount of ammo as the lighter guns and the cost difference is not large enough (although it has been improved), there isn't much reason to buy anything but the heaviest guns. I'd go for a 20% cost increase for anything heavier than a 150mm... but yes, in my opinion the overall balance (inf/tank/air&arty) is pretty good.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 2
- 12/5/2000 6:46:00 AM   
Alastair Anderson

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Taunton, Somerset, UK
Status: offline 		Altering ammunition levels would certainly be another way forward. This is the approach adopted in Combat Mission and it works very well indeed. However I am surprised to hear you state, Kharan, that the balance of cost is just about right. Try setting up a battle 1938 Czech vs German and see what one single offboard battery of 220mms does to 5 German infantry squads, in points terms its equal. Obviously it is hard to compare units of different type in such a way, and probably not a valid exercise anyway, but how can it be right that for 1000 points a player can buy 5 whole batteries of those monsters and still have points left over? I cannot see how this enables gameplay to be properly represented. If you haven't seen the overuse of artillery yet you are lucky. In the pre 1939 period before armour takes off it is even more marked and I defy anyone to fight out a decent match in this time span without limits on artillery. If the cost were raised the problem would be solved at a stroke because paying as much as 600 points for a battery of 220mms would require a great deal of thought. Infantry/Cavalry are just not worth having in the face of such cheap, well supplied fire support. Such battles are a pointless exercise. Cost is certainly NOT reflecting either reality or good gameplay.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 3
- 12/5/2000 6:54:00 AM   
Alastair Anderson

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Taunton, Somerset, UK
Status: offline 		Falcon, I agree with what you say exactly, but my main gripe is not that players resort to blanket fire of heavy ordinance - that is a legitimate tactic, but I object to it being such a CHEAP one. Again, using pre 1939 as the basis for many of my comments, no matter how cunningly you deploy your ground forces and build in flexibility into your strategy the big guns will tear you apart. This can be done for a negligible cost and with a shrug of the shoulders the only way I can counter this is to buy equally ridiculous quantities of cheap artillery to throw at my opponents sprinkling of troops advancing to mop up. At that point the game for me ceases to be a worthwhile exercise.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 4
- 12/5/2000 7:05:00 AM   
Kharan

 

Posts: 505
Joined: 5/9/2000
Status: offline 		Wait a second - how can a Czech 22cm battery in '38 cost 109 points when the encyclopedic cost is 178 and still have experience of 50-70? On earlier SPWAW versions the heavier guns did have less ammo, I do not know why it was changed. Feel of the seat, 150mm batteries should have 48 ammo (12 bombardments) and over 200mm batteries 32 ammo (8 bombardments). That could be an alternative to upping the heavy battery prices a bit. I have not experienced the overuse problem, but I can see how it happens on larger battles where you have lot of points, targets and turns so you can utilize your artillery to it's fullest. Maybe the weak CBF also affects the inf/tank/arty relationship, letting the artillery do whatever it can in peace. [This message has been edited by Kharan (edited December 04, 2000).]

_____________________________


(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 5
- 12/5/2000 7:34:00 AM   
Alby


Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alastair Anderson: the costs of artillery are leading to the same problems that were apparent with self spotting arty in sp3. Quite simply artillery is so cheap that massive quantities of off board units with high ammo levels can be bought for next to nothing and gameplay is dead. Yes, I agree...been playing some guys who buy 6 BTN of arty. Gameplay becomes stagnant due to lack(or fear) of movement, Constant barrages on either side of VP hexes, Any group of trees,ect ect...A higher cost for arty would definately eliminate the shelling of the entire map.(P.S. Hated that self spotting arty in sp3!!, We used to agree never to use it, but never could really be sure whether opponent did or not)

_____________________________



(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 6
- 12/5/2000 11:41:00 AM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline 		In my opinion you can't hold squat with artillery, it still boils down to manpower/tanks. If you think there is to much fire power, use your head, wait it out. On bigger maps 100 X 100 and up the amount of rounds is pretty good and firing continuously for even a 25 (short battle IMO) will take you to the edge of nothing left. The game cannot be designed for all to be happy and I think the only way to achieve your type of battle is to find your conterpart. In poker a person who would really so heavily on one thing would loose his money in short order. ------------------ Your mine is a terrible thing to lose. Pack Rat

_____________________________

PR

(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 7
- 12/5/2000 12:29:00 PM   
Raindem

 

Posts: 696
Joined: 7/15/2000
From: Arizona
Status: offline 		I also wouldn't mind seeing the bigger guns with fewer rounds, but I wouldn't tinker with the cost too much. Heavy arty bombardment is simply a tactic, not a show stopper. And for every tactic there is a counter tactic. I was playing a hot seat game against my son, who I knew from experience would buy all the arty he could and plaster the foward deployment zone on the first turn. I just held my force back and waited for the dust to settle. By mid-game most off his arty was out of contact, and his meager ground force was easily overwhelmed. Sure I took a pounding, but arty can't control victory hexes. My point is that I don't think the arty cost is a game flaw. But in any case, the cost and ammo load is easily changed.

_____________________________

Grab them by the balls. Their hearts and minds will follow.

(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 8
- 12/5/2000 4:47:00 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I don't mind being axis 44 and being pounded by allied arty/air it was a fact of life. The German defense in Russia only held as long as the arty was there to support it, once Ivan figured out to go after the arty before sending the infantry/tanks things went better for them. No defense with suffiecent arty support can be broken. There is no way to spend 10-15k on ground units, you max out so attacker buys large cal guns to eat up cost. (only speaking of large battle assault) in small battle (3k or less) buying lots of arty will slow enemy movement or hurt him if he concentrates but a well dispersed player will be ok (reality) A well placed hidden MG that holds it's fire intill you are almost stepping on it is more effective then a blind arty btry (cheaper too) I believe most countries set up their divisions to provide a btry of arty per company (105mm) with each arty bn having a btry of 155mm. There is no way to inforce what a player buys (all 155mm or larger) Well used arty can influance the course of battle (reality) Arty has caused more casualties in war then any other weapon type. Rifles make the enemy take cover/stop moving then arty does away with them. To leave arty out of a battle makes no sense. But to allow more then was possible ruins the game, since the only recourse is to have a ridiculous amount yourself, turning the battle into an arty dual. Counterbattery fire should be more effective (I wish I could assign it as fire mission/air strike) ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction! [This message has been edited by Mogami (edited December 05, 2000).]

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 9
- 12/5/2000 6:54:00 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Alastair Anderson: PLEASE can we have this remedied? I am no programmer, but surely it would not be very hard to include some basic cost adjustments in a future patch? Getting them exactly right would take some considerable testing, but surely we can get them a hell of a lot more accurate than at present??
Wouldn't the 200 games in progress at the Combat Command be an opportunity to do something like this??? (Joe, are you listening??) Perhaps if you collected the final turn of all these games or compiled a questionaire you might be able to extract some interesting statistical data. (Take some time to process though ). 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 Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 10
- 12/5/2000 7:05:00 PM   
Alby


Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami: since the only recourse is to have a ridiculous amount yourself, turning the battle into an arty dual. Counterbattery fire should be more effective (I wish I could assign it as fire mission/air strike) Yes!! Good call!

_____________________________



(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 11
- 12/5/2000 9:15:00 PM   
Warhorse


Posts: 5712
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Status: offline 		As Paul Vebber has pointed out before, the naval guns are what is throwing the arty costs out of whack!! The highest cost per unit you can have is 255, cut and dried, you have to work down in cost from the naval guns, so this is thrown off I do like the idea of less rounds, which they are supposed to have, but may not have been standardized across the board. All I can say is don't stay in one place long. My opponent in a PBEM game must have bought many bty's of 203mm arty, so my only recourse is to move often, as soon as I see the star next to my unit status, I pack it up and move fast, or pay the consequences!! Sure it can piss you off at times, but hey, if he wants lot's of arty, so be it, I try to stay semi realistic, and don't buy more than a bty or two, and thats with 2-3 bn of infantry!! But it certainly does make an interesting game, my side looks like the surface of the moon!! ------------------ Mike Amos Meine Ehre Heisst Treue

_____________________________

Mike Amos

Meine Ehre heißt Treue
www.cslegion.com

(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 12
- 12/6/2000 1:29:00 AM   
BA Evans

 

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline 		PRE '39 ?!? What happened in WWII before 1939? Spain vs. Spain? Isn't this a WWII simulation? BA Evans

_____________________________


(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 13
- 12/6/2000 2:50:00 AM   
Warhorse


Posts: 5712
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Status: offline 		Italians in Ethiopia, Japan vs. China for a few examples;-) ------------------ Mike Amos Meine Ehre Heisst Treue

_____________________________

Mike Amos

Meine Ehre heißt Treue
www.cslegion.com

(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 14
- 12/6/2000 4:28:00 AM   
Kluckenbill

 

Posts: 278
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Lancaster, PA, USA
Status: offline 		I'm partially in agreement that artillery is too cheap, but not completely. I assume you guys are playing with Command and Control on? The drawback of artillery is that it uses up commands (yes I know about the "free adjustment" routine) and is often, or at least occasionally, out of contact. ------------------ Target, Cease Fire !

_____________________________

Target, Cease Fire !

(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 15
- 12/6/2000 4:50:00 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Kluckinbill said: I'm partially in agreement that artillery is too cheap, but not completely. I assume you guys are playing with Command and Control on? The drawback of artillery is that it uses up commands (yes I know about the "free adjustment" routine) and is often, or at least occasionally, out of contact. If you use FO's to call arty you don't use orders from a formation leader. Also they get a faster response and keep it on target better. Make no mistake I like arty and use it in every battle (120mm mortar as Soviet 105mm how as Axis) I don't object to Western allies taking a large amount of arty but don't like battles where majority of points are arty/air or "special forces" Put something on the map I can kill. ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 16
- 12/6/2000 8:55:00 PM   
Alastair Anderson

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Taunton, Somerset, UK
Status: offline 		Some good responses here. Mike has enlightened me as to one aspect anyway - I did not know that the cost of any unit has to stay below 255 in programming terms. sounds bizarre to me, but then again my programming attempts ended years ago and I'll believe the experts... To reiterate my point again it is the cost of artillery that cheeses me off, not the use of it. Naval artillery has been mentioned and I have 3 times now been on the end of huge 8in, 14in and 16in guns with a shed load of artillery killing my troops in droves for incredibly low cost. Disperal of troops?? Sure - except that the salvos span 200m of ground in a line of 4 and can kill troops a further 100m away from the point of impact - at least from what I have seen anyway. This means that your dispersal has to be massive and as soon as any unit moves, either to get out of the way of the incoming rounds or to advance to the V area again it is destroyed. Wait out the bombardment? someone earlier mentioned waiting stating that 30 turns was not a long time. I beg to differ - in terms of a pbem game 30 turns is an age and probably signals 1-2 months of gaming. If the only way to cope with this cost based disaster is to sit tight on the edges of the map and then launch a counter attack after 30 turns then something has gone wrong with the overall structure of the game. Besides, my point has always been that the COST of the artillery is so small comparatively that it is not as though the enemy is using all his points on big tubes. There are still plenty of ground units left too. A counter tactic? This has been mentioned also. With counter battery fire so ineffective what is the counter tactic?? You cannot launch air strikes at the guns, you cannot easily move out of the way and if you deploy so far away from the V hexes to escape any blind softening up bombardment you lose the game. Massive artillery use has no counter - the historians of ww1 and ww2 would tell you that. Just look at the casualty figures. Ultimately I am not convinced totally by any of the replies on this thread. smaller ammo limits, a max formations button as for aircraft with regard to off board artillery - both would work but neither has been implemented. For pbem games the current situation is not good. If my opponent buys 5 batteries (or more) of 16in naval guns or even just plain old nasty 150mms I need to know that it has cost him many points to do so. It does not. In anything battle larger than 3000 points this kills the play - noone here has claimed that they would rather buy a single wolverine rather than a battery of long toms, but that is what the game presents us with. It was mentioned earlier that a hidden mg is more valuable than a blind offboard artillery spotter. Perhaps we ought to put that to the test... Enough talk. I have made my point and I am sure enough people have read my comments to understand what I am getting at. I will return to negotiating the number of batteries with my opponents and buying between 5 and 10 batteries of the biggest guns available for those who wish to leave things to open purchase. Unless my opponent also buys between 5 and 10 batteries he will lose - no contest. Perhaps someone in Matrix has read this and might consider at least reducing the ammo or giving as a max artillery formations button? Great game. Please do not mistake my irritation at the artillery costs for any attack on the programmers, designers or other players of the game. I just feel the balance for pbem games of medium to large size is not right... Cheers Al

_____________________________


(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 17
- 12/6/2000 10:39:00 PM   
BA Evans

 

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline 		I would suggest creating two levels of artillery guns. First are normal artillery like mortars, 105's and 150's. Let's get the costs on these weapons perfected. It is unlikely that one unit of these guns will reach the 255 cost limit, so we should be able to find a nice balance between the different artillery guns' cost and their effects on the battlefield. Secondly are the 'super-guns' like the 16" naval guns. Up front we need to think of these guns as being outside of the normal scale of the games we are playing. These guns should be thought of as 'scenario pieces' instead of normal artillery pieces. In PBEM games, both players should be aware that these guns are not priced correctly due to in game limitations and their use should be severely limited. I see no other way to balance these 'super guns' other than to have all players understand that these weapons can have drastic effects on the battlefield and that their costs are not 'in-line' with their destructive power. If players understand this, then creating player agreements to limit their use should be much easier. I don't think anyone wants to remove these guns from the game. They are really neat to have for scenario design and historical situations. BA Evans

_____________________________


(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 18
- 12/7/2000 12:05:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		So who would object to relegating guns greater than 155mm as "scenario only" available only 12/49 and recomputing costs on that basis? But the bottom line is that no pricing scheme can prevent a person from exploiting "bang for your buck" economies in ahistorical force composition. I've argued for years that gamers tend to two schools, the "game as a game...win at all costs" school and the "game as historical insight...play with historical forces" Players must estalish what "school" a game will be played under and agree to certain guidelines. I would argue that at the game scale and scope, 1 battery per Battalion max is a good ratio (Given a Division normally had an arty regiment of 2-4 Battalions). There is only so much "Big Brother" that can be coded.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 19
- 12/7/2000 12:59:00 AM   
victorhauser

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline 		The impression I get is that most people think that the weapon-breakdown rate in version 4.4 is too high. Their solution is to activate the Weapons Breakdown setting for only a certain percentage of the game. For instance, I only turn Weapons Breakdown ON on odd-numbered turns starting with turn 3 which yields a weapons-breakdown rate of around 49% of that which would occur if I left it on the whole game. Similarly, it seems to me that most players think artillery is too powerful in version4.4, or is underpriced, or is otherwise not making the game fun for them to play. Well, the solution is simply to adjust the Artillery Effectiveness settings. Set the Artillery Effectiveness to 70%, or to 50%, or whatever you believe accurately models your vision of artillery's historical effectiveness (as influenced by version4.4's pricing structure). The Matrix Staff was aware that different people have different ideas about what is "right" regarding various aspects of the game (artillery being only one of many "controversial" ones). That's why they put the Artillery Effectiveness settings in the Player Preferences--so you can tailor your game to suit your vision of history. Please use them. You will be happier and have more fun.

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 20
- 12/7/2000 6:09:00 AM   
BA Evans

 

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

Originally posted by Warhorse: Italians in Ethiopia, Japan vs. China for a few examples;-)
My feelings are that since it is called WORLD War II, it really didn't start until the world at large became involved in the conflict. The Italians in Ethiopia really seems like a side show to me since the world really wasn't very interested in it. At least not interested enough to declare (go to) war against either the Italians or the Ethiopians. The same can be said for Japan vs. Russia (early 30's?), Spain vs. Spain, etc. The world at large really didn't start getting drawn in until Poland was attacked. My knowledge of early Japan vs. China is not very good so any opinion I voice would be suspect. What year did hostilities begin? What response did the rest of the world have at this time? Did anyone else go to war against China or Japan at this time? I seem to remember that the USA tried to apply economic pressure (steel and oil exports) but that is a far cry from war. The USA stayed out of the war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor which I believe was much latter. BA Evans

_____________________________


(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 21
- 12/7/2000 10:26:00 AM   
victorhauser

 

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline 		Hostilities (armed fighting) between Japan and China began in 1931 in Manchuria. Open war began in 1937. The Soviets and Japanese fought briefly in 1939.

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 22
- 12/7/2000 10:50:00 AM   
Flashfyre

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: Waynesboro, PA, USA
Status: offline 		Quote: My knowledge of early Japan vs. China is not very good so any opinion I voice would be suspect. What year did hostilities begin? What response did the rest of the world have at this time? Did anyone else go to war against China or Japan at this time? I seem to remember that the USA tried to apply economic pressure (steel and oil exports) but that is a far cry from war. The USA stayed out of the war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor which I believe was much latter. BA Evans Between the turn of the century and 1931, Japan had already annexed, thru military and diplomatic means, Manchuria, Korea, Formosa, and the Ryukyu and Pescadores islands from China, and had taken southern Sakhalin and the Kuriles from Russia. Also, as part of the post-WWI agreements, they were awarded the Marshall, Caroline, and Mariana Islands, former German outposts. As for Spain, it was the Spanish Civil War that gave the Wehrmacht a chance to test men, equipment, and tactics, without risking international disfavor. In 1936, the Nationalists and Republicans came to blows. The Nationalists, needing men and equipment to counter the Communist threat of the Republicans, asked Germany for help. Like the Americans in early WWI, many Germans volunteered, as part of the Condor Legion, to help Franco in his war. From '36-'39, the OKW was able to battle-test many of it's newly-produced weapons, including the JU-87 Stuka, the ME-109 and -110, the PzKmpfW-I, and many others. Here, Guderian's armor theories were explored; the Luftwaffe learned valuable lessons about their aircraft; and Germany got a corps of veteran soldiers, just in time for the invasion of Poland. So, in truth, WWII began long before 1939. And for some of us history buffs, the ability to re-create the Japan-China, Japan-Russia, and Spanish War conflicts, adds another dimension to this incredible game. We bow, in humility and reverance, before His Highness, Wild Bill. Lead us, we shall follow.

_____________________________

The Motor Pool http://www.geocities.com/aurion_eq/index.html?976419304550 [email]kmcferren@onemain.com[/email]

(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 23
- 12/7/2000 11:16:00 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: So who would object to relegating guns greater than 155mm as "scenario only" available only 12/49 and recomputing costs on that basis? I've argued for years that gamers tend to two schools, the "game as a game...win at all costs" school and the "game as historical insight...play with historical forces"
Put me down for a vote and a half on the side of the historical school!!! 'Power Players' who insist on having hordes of the powerful unit in the game with maximum experience/morale levels drive me to distraction. I feel this style of play tends to recreate a skeet range rather than a historical battle field. [Even with this game, there are a couple of scenarios where a single line of burning hulks soon marks the edge of visibility]. Please limit proliferation of super weapons. 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 Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 24
- 12/7/2000 3:01:00 PM   
frank1970


Posts: 1678
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline 		Wouldn´t it be a possibility to give support points to each battle, eg 3000 points core force and say 300 support points, like in campaigns? You should be able to buy offboard arty and/or planes only with the support points.

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 25
- 12/8/2000 2:14:00 AM   
BA Evans

 

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

Originally posted by Flashfyre: Quote: So, in truth, WWII began long before 1939.
Well if we were to take that tack, doesn't that mean that WWII doesn't exist? Since the terms handed to Germany (after WWI) were so harsh it basically guaranteed that Germany would have to go to war again just to bring the country back into solvency. These conditions basically make WWII a continuation of WWI, just with a 20 year cease fire. We could also go back much farther than that, until the beginning of the human race if we wanted to use your line of reasoning. Sorry, I can't agree with your reasoning. While Spain vs. Spain can be modeled with our current game engine, it definately wasn't part of WWII. In actuality, Spain remained neutral during WWII. BA Evans

_____________________________


(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 26
- 12/8/2000 2:19:00 AM   
BA Evans

 

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

Originally posted by victorhauser: Hostilities (armed fighting) between Japan and China began in 1931 in Manchuria. Open war began in 1937. The Soviets and Japanese fought briefly in 1939.
Thanks for the info. Which countries sent troops to support Japan/China/Russia in 1931? 1937? 1939? BA Evans

_____________________________


(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 27
- 12/8/2000 10:24:00 AM   
Flashfyre

 

Posts: 330
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: Waynesboro, PA, USA
Status: offline 		True, BA, we could go back to early man and say it all began with a fight over a rock. But, you can't discount the events that happened after WWI, and say that war only was world-wide after Poland. Actually, by that line of thought, true World War happened after Dec. 7, 1941. In essence, the blitzkrieg of Poland, France, Norway, and the Low Countries, and Rommel's push across North Africa, should be excluded. It is true, that except for economic sanctions, the US and Britain did not attempt to stop Japan from empire-building. But this was a case of post-WWI isolationism. Both countries had suffered greatly during that conflict, and the public was not about to go through it again. It is also true that most of the political upheavals in Europe (Marxism, Nationalism, Communism, etc.) were direct results of the Versailles Treaties stipulations. But these events are what prepared the stage for the conflicts in Spain, Indochina, and Africa. And those, in turn, led to all-out war. My point is that there are some of us who like the ability to model these pre-War conflicts, in order to understand the evolution of men and equipment the various nations fielded.

_____________________________

The Motor Pool http://www.geocities.com/aurion_eq/index.html?976419304550 [email]kmcferren@onemain.com[/email]

(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 28
- 12/8/2000 11:50:00 PM   
JTGEN

 

Posts: 1279
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Still on artillery The amount of artillery i do not see as a problem when playing my 44 campaign with germans in the east front exept that that to me computer uses it too little. To my knowledge in eastern front both sides used massed artillery when attacking and used allso other than normal divisional artillery but shifted artillery to the main attack or defensive areas. These also included the bigger than 150mm artillery in massive scale. Personally i think not using several batterys of arty when playing countries having them is more realistic. Several people said here it kills game play but using the artillery right is part of that game play. I think the pricing on artillery up to about 210mm is quite right. I agree on special artillery pieces being available only on certaint types of battle, but how can you put in the game that when for example fast advancing troops come to contact with the enemy, ob artillery being slow on the move is behind and not available in large amounts. Then again on assault all major powers used massed artillery to smash the front lines to make it possible to even try to get through. I would be interested to know how somebody gets throug a 44 Soviet or German defence line without a massive and realistic artillery. The effects of large artillery pieces are not overstated. On the contrary using 210mm artillery should stop everything on the receiving end including tanks just like the Soviets painfully learned in Finland (i am Finnish)where to my knowledge many attacs were stopped simply by using accurate artillery on troops starting to attack. I heard a story in the army about destroying a building by a 305mm coastal gun whose shell did not even detonate. Such is the power of such weapon. But tose particular guns could only fire about 150-200 shells before the barrel had to be changed and therefore the amount of aamunition on such special guns(this 305mm is basically a naval gun)should be quite low. But 200mm normal infartry gun should have at least 50 rounds available in a battle cause that is what they had in reality. What is not in the game is that artillerys accuracy and the knowledge on how to use it effectively was wery different in many countries.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 29
- 12/9/2000 5:40:00 AM   
Billy Yank

 

Posts: 151
Joined: 5/18/2000
From: Northern Virginia, USA
Status: offline 		Just a comment on one case of historical usage. According to the Center for Military History's brochure on the Tunisia campaign, after the lessons of Kasserine Pass, the US Army's doctrine was altered to provide at least 3 battalions of artillery for every battalion when on the attack. ------------------ Billy Yank I don't define "my own" the way you want me to.

_____________________________

Billy Yank
"If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world."
-- Thorin Oakenshield

(in reply to Alastair Anderson)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> artillery costs 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

2.234