RE: The magic of separate 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

RE: The magic of separate artillery

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> The War Room >> RE: The magic of separate artillery

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/8/2021 8:33:11 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

No one is talking about earth churning.

That's exactly what the "Shell Weight" effect is modeling.

quote:

The vast quantity of artillery is less than 150mm. So you off handedly dismiss the vast number of shells.

As does the disentrenchment effect, basically.

quote:

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

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

quote:

And how would you account for mortars greater than 120mm?

If they are expected to disentrench, they should be put into a ranged unit.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 31

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/8/2021 8:45:55 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

Have you been seen an earthen bunker hit by a 150mm infantry gun? That will churn the earth and it's direct fire. It will ruin fieldworks in a breath and that was the intent. The Soviets intent for their KV2 was the destruction of fortifications. If that didn't churn earth nothing did.

So somehow, because I put a 600mm mortar in a unit with a non artillery, non HQ symbol it magically no longer churns not even butter. Like GD said, the magic of separate artillery.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I�m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn�t come back?
A: A stick.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 32

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/8/2021 10:32:41 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Have you been seen an earthen bunker hit by a 150mm infantry gun? That will churn the earth and it's direct fire. It will ruin fieldworks in a breath and that was the intent. The Soviets intent for their KV2 was the destruction of fortifications. If that didn't churn earth nothing did.

So somehow, because I put a 600mm mortar in a unit with a non artillery, non HQ symbol it magically no longer churns not even butter. Like GD said, the magic of separate artillery.

If the weapon is large enough and its trajectory will be ballistic enough it should go into a ranged unit. Designers therefore have the tool to make that call themselves.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 33

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 1:15:04 AM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

So artillery functions differently in a non artillery unit differently than it would in an artillery unit simply because you say so. I get it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 34

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 3:16:00 AM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

So artillery functions differently in a non artillery unit differently than it would in an artillery unit simply because you say so. I get it.

Norm said so. For sure it operates differently in a non-artillery unit: It doesn't have a range. And I would think it is better to leave designers a choice how they want the artillery to function, rather than cramming your presumptions down their throats. This is a tool in their toolkit.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 35

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 7:58:31 AM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

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

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

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 36

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 8:55:19 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

GD, so, in these tests you did that forced units to withdraw, did the towed gun units advance into the vacated hex? That would be a gamey outcome.

Cheers

No, a unit with an artillery icon will never advance after combat.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to cathar1244)

Post #: 37

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 8:57:52 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

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

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

But the trouble is that above certain scales, putting the guns into an artillery icon unit is not practical. As a result your infantry division's guns fire indirectly at one scale and directly at another scale.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 38

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 8:59:38 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Seriously? Norm said so for the entire game.

Bob's point is that he didn't introduce this: it's always been this way. However, I think the advantage of range 1 artillery (compared to a non-artillery unit with the same guns) was less notable prior to TOAW III as I think there were some changes which made these units less vulnerable on the attack.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 39

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 9:25:05 AM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

To be honest Bob didn't introduce anything to the original releases. But has had no trouble introducing a continuous string of new functions. Artillery does reduce the effectiveness of entrenchments when not in a unit with a HQ or artillery symbol:

ARTCombat:997 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 9,6 by 19%.

But the unit retains it's entrenched status. Saying they can't 'churn the earth' because they are in the same command structure as some other equipment shouldn't negate what they are capable of. They lower the effectiveness of entrenchments. It's right in the TOAW log, 'suppress entrenchment'. That is lowering the effectiveness. It does NOT say anything about whether or not they are in a unit with a HQ or artillery icon. That is something Bob just came up with to justify not putting things right. It's all him, not Norm. I'd wager Norm did not intend the current state of affairs to exist. It's not the first mistake he made. And until you brought it up, 22+ years after the game is released, no one noticed.

19.2.2. Artillery vs.
Entrenchments
Artillery can lower the effectiveness of prepared
defensive positions during combat. The effect is
intended to model the earth-churning tendencies
of heavy Artillery and is tied to the weight of
individual shells. Heavier pieces are much more
effective than lighter pieces. MRL�s (Multiple
Rocket Launchers) generally do not receive this
advantage. While the Anti-Personnel strengths of
heavy Artillery may seem weak (due to very low
rates of fire), weapons of 150mm or larger can be
very effective against entrenched enemies.

_____________________________

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 40

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 2:18:21 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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

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

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

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 41

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 2:24:02 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 42

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 2:29:12 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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

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

quote:

Small enough caliber that it makes little difference.

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

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

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 43

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 2:36:58 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 44

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 2:39:51 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 45

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 3:03:57 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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

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

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

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

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 46

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 3:09:27 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

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

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

Pay close attention to the Terminal Effects at the bottom of the page especially the German bunker. BTW, this was all direct fire totally reducing fortifications to rubble the last one being German:
http://www.alternatewars.com/WW2/WW2_Documents/War_Department/Ordnance/OM-Mobile_Arty_VS_Jap_Forts.htm

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

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

< Message edited by Lobster -- 2/9/2021 3:39:29 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 47

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 3:20:48 PM

rhinobones

Posts: 1540
Joined: 2/17/2002
Status: offline

quote:

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

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

Regards

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Colin Wright:
Comprehensive Wishlist Forum #467 . . . The Norm (blessed be His name, genuflect three times and accept all values in the program as revealed truth)

Pre Combat Air Strikes # 64 . . . I need have no concern about keeping it civil

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 48

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 3:30:48 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 49

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 3:41:21 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

quote:

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

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

Regards

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

_____________________________

(in reply to rhinobones)

Post #: 50

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 3:41:38 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

A huge chunk of wargaming.

quote:

What about the rest of the world?

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

quote:

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

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

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 51

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 3:43:33 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

http://www.alternatewars.com/WW2/WW2_Documents/War_Department/Ordnance/OM-Mobile_Arty_VS_Jap_Forts.htm
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/self-propelled-155mm.html

< Message edited by Lobster -- 2/9/2021 3:49:11 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 52

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 3:56:13 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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

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

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 53

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 4:00:13 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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

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

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

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 54

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 4:10:10 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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

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

Let me spell it out.

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

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

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 55

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 4:10:59 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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

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

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

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

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 56

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 4:12:32 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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

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

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

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

That's still only one option you just said it two different ways.

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 57

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 4:24:11 PM

Curtis Lemay

Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

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

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

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

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

quote:

That's still only one option you just said it two different ways.

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

quote:

Let me spell it out.

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

< Message edited by Curtis Lemay -- 2/9/2021 4:29:08 PM >

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 58

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 4:38:37 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

You totally missed option 3. Selective reading?

_____________________________

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)

Post #: 59

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/9/2021 4:50:54 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 60