Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, card scrapping

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, card scrapping

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] >> Shadow Empire >> Suggestions and Feedback >> Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, card scrapping

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, card ... - 5/26/2021 8:43:50 AM

phyroks

Posts: 41
Joined: 12/1/2020
Status: offline

1st
Off with the biggest issue, Flak Gun unit use WAY too much ammo, heavy tanks fuel logistics looks like a minor issue with this. They use 60/30 ammo, so if you were to add 1(10x) unit into your troops, the heavy grenadiers would go from wanting 70 ammo stockpile into 800+(while having artillery would make it 180~). Battlegroup with 100 heavy tanks, 50 armored transport and 50 Flak would want stockpile of 2000 fuel and 3260 ammo. The fuel I can understand but the ammo not so much... it has to be mistake?

2nd
Now with custom formations you can consider adding some arty units into formation, but they cripple the movement of the unit entirely, adding 10 artillery into 1000 foot soldiers should not cripple them so much, it seems to be better idea to add Mech.Artillery instead(as you dont need to spent more points on formation and apc cost would be almost the same), which turns normal artillery more pointless, was hoping custom formations would make them more used in my games but meh, seems like no :(

3rd
Custom formation cost, it currently cost as much to add 1 unit to formation as it does 4, could there be option to add something into formation like you do now OR pay less for minor change or perhaps add multiple types but with less max amount. Also if you want to add artillery or something similar, option to add something to tow it, instead of having to spend even more planning points to fix the issue.

4th
You start to auto scrap cards when there are too many, could there be some list where you could add cards that always get scrapped instead of manually going trough them? When minors are gone from the game one does not really need the cards anymore etc.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by phyroks -- 5/26/2021 8:45:12 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 5/26/2021 10:15:16 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

1st
Flak is insanely inefficient for killing Bombers.
A single Flak 8.8 could fire 15-20 shells per minute.
They were organized in batteries of 4.
A large city like Berlin could have ~104 Batteries.

Some Napkin math puts them at 6240 Shells Per Minute.
And those were 10 kg shells each, not some small bullets (so they represent a lot of ammunition).
Like the AT gun, it is a Stopgap until you get to Cold War era tech - SAM Launchers and RPG's

2nd
What about adding just enough Trucks to carry the guns? Is the game "smart enough" to cover the slowest unit with the wheels first?

3rd
Hearts of Iron 4 Gives a surcharge for the 1st Unit of a Type. Adding the 1st Tank is much more expensive then adding Nr. 2, 3, 4, or 5.
However it should be pointed out that Artillery, AA and AT guns are classed as Infantry.

4th
A good idea

(in reply to phyroks)

Post #: 2

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 5/26/2021 11:56:00 AM

Soar_Slitherine

Posts: 426
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
2nd
What about adding just enough Trucks to carry the guns? Is the game "smart enough" to cover the slowest unit with the wheels first?

You can't add transportation to custom formations, it's locked in based on the formation's base type. That means no adding model types that require transportation to foot formations either, or the formation's movement will be crippled.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 3

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 5/26/2021 1:24:15 PM

phyroks

Posts: 41
Joined: 12/1/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
1st
Flak is insanely inefficient for killing Bombers.
A single Flak 8.8 could fire 15-20 shells per minute.
They were organized in batteries of 4.
A large city like Berlin could have ~104 Batteries.

Some Napkin math puts them at 6240 Shells Per Minute.
And those were 10 kg shells each, not some small bullets (so they represent a lot of ammunition).
Like the AT gun, it is a Stopgap until you get to Cold War era tech - SAM Launchers and RPG's

I think you missed the whole point that they use close to 17 times more ammo than larger artillery does. They also use smaller ammo, but even if those would be more expensive ammo we could still try to rule that they consume the same amount per shell/round because of it. Now explain to me why it fires 10x more ammo than artillery would fire in combat? They do fire at ground targets too.

< Message edited by phyroks -- 5/26/2021 1:37:17 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 4

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 5/26/2021 1:36:03 PM

BlueTemplar

Posts: 887
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline

Funny, I just watched this video, like yesterday !
Flak 88: Accidental Tank Killer?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnHc98r15k
(Spoiler : also fortification killer !!)

----

quote:

You can't add transportation to custom formations, it's locked in based on the formation's base type. That means no adding model types that require transportation to foot formations either, or the formation's movement will be crippled.

But it makes sense that you couldn't just do that for the on foot formations ? Just add artillery + trucks/APCs to the already motorized/mechanized formations ?

Mechanized Artillery has the benefit of being self-towed and having hard armor, but the downside of having to care about model weight and having hard armor. It also has different bonuses/penalties to attacks and HPs than towed Artillery.

< Message edited by BlueTemplar -- 5/26/2021 1:38:02 PM >

(in reply to Soar_Slitherine)

Post #: 5

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 5/26/2021 3:16:52 PM

Soar_Slitherine

Posts: 426
Joined: 6/7/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlueTemplar
But it makes sense that you couldn't just do that for the on foot formations ? Just add artillery + trucks/APCs to the already motorized/mechanized formations ?

Not particularly, in real life foot formations usually have some form of transportation for their heavy equipment. IMO it would be better for OOB customization to be based around addable, swappable & removable formation segments consisting of 2 foot subunits or 1 vehicle/gun + optional transport.

(in reply to BlueTemplar)

Post #: 6

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 5/26/2021 4:10:31 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

I think you missed the whole point that they use close to 17 times more ammo than larger artillery does.

Which is a entirely realistic number!
FLAK does not do aimed fire.

It does a sort of "creeping air barrage". FLAK barrages make Artillery barrages look like aimed fire!
You did most of the damage via Sharpnell killing a important component. The chance of directly hitting a aircraft was basically non-existant. "Small Plane, big Sky".
And even if you hit, 99 of 100 cases the shell would explode after it had pass through, as they did not use contact fuses - only timed fuses.

(in reply to phyroks)

Post #: 7

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 5/26/2021 4:30:39 PM

phyroks

Posts: 41
Joined: 12/1/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

I think you missed the whole point that they use close to 17 times more ammo than larger artillery does.

Which is a entirely realistic number!

No.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 8

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 5/26/2021 5:01:30 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: phyroks

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

I think you missed the whole point that they use close to 17 times more ammo than larger artillery does.

Which is a entirely realistic number!

No.

Then please show me how many shots did a 88 FLAK need to kill 1 allied Bomber on Average.
Then compare it to the figures for the 88 in AT useage (I found 1 claimed kill per 20 shots).

One of us will be prooven wrong by those numbers. I doubt it will be me, but I would love to learn something new!

(in reply to phyroks)

Post #: 9

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 5/26/2021 5:25:30 PM

Reppu

Posts: 10
Joined: 5/24/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: phyroks

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

I think you missed the whole point that they use close to 17 times more ammo than larger artillery does.

Which is a entirely realistic number!

No.

Then please show me how many shots did a 88 FLAK need to kill 1 allied Bomber on Average.
Then compare it to the figures for the 88 in AT useage (I found 1 claimed kill per 20 shots).

One of us will be prooven wrong by those numbers. I doubt it will be me, but I would love to learn something new!

1st: This is not WW2.
2nd: That flak is using 60 ammo on attack land targets! 30 ammo on defence!
His 300mm arty is using 3.6/1.8 ammo!
My heavy tank with 180mm gun is using 3/1.5 ammo!
300mm AT gun is using 3.6/1.8 ammo!

It has nothing to do with WW2. Your AT kill per 20 shot argument is pointless.
In this GAME using flak is too expensive. Just use planes, MGs, Manpads or nothing for air defence it will be better for you industry.

< Message edited by Reppu -- 5/26/2021 5:50:06 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 10

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 5/26/2021 5:39:45 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

1st: This is not WW2.

It is WW2 era tech.
Indeed one of the Flak callibres is 8.8cm.
Just to drive home what it is based on.

quote:

2nd: That flak is using 60 ammo on attack land targets! 30 ammo on defence!
His 300mm arty is using 3.6/1.8 ammo!
My heavy tank with 180mm gun is using 3/1.5 ammo!
300mm AT gun is using 3.6/1.8 ammo!

So it is uses the wrong ammo amount against land targets.
This is very different from wrong ammo consumption against Air tragets. If that was realy the only consideration, I am sorry that I missed that.

(in reply to Reppu)

Post #: 11

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 5/26/2021 5:43:49 PM

phyroks

Posts: 41
Joined: 12/1/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: phyroks

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

I think you missed the whole point that they use close to 17 times more ammo than larger artillery does.

Which is a entirely realistic number!

No.

Then please show me how many shots did a 88 FLAK need to kill 1 allied Bomber on Average.
Then compare it to the figures for the 88 in AT useage (I found 1 claimed kill per 20 shots).

One of us will be prooven wrong by those numbers. I doubt it will be me, but I would love to learn something new!

You just started to drift off the point, I did not feel like continuing argument on something that has gone off-course

< Message edited by phyroks -- 5/26/2021 8:08:06 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 12

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 6/3/2021 3:20:40 AM

Zanotirn

Posts: 113
Joined: 3/12/2021
Status: offline

I think it's a valid point that some real world weapons are actually very ammo-inefficient. Unguided aircraft bombs for example require dropping many tons of explosives to achieve the same damage as a few well placed shells weighing 50 kg each. WWII and cold-war era (which is the tech level you're working with in-game before you get energy weapons) artillery is not particularly efficient either, but they are somewhat limited by their low rate of fire. Anti-aircraft guns on the other hand are built for high rate of fire AND were still horribly inaccurate before development of proximity fuse by the British half way through WWII, and even with it it was mediocre. In the end these kind of weapons look great in movies, but supplying all those tons of ammunition that even a short battle requires was indeed a serious logistic challenge - while the game's numbers may be off for some types of units, the fact that some weapons require significantly more effort to be supplied with ammunition than others and that AA guns are among these is perfectly realistic. Very few games go to this level of detail about logistic though, so the sheer amount of ammo some weapons require may come as a surprise.

(in reply to phyroks)

Post #: 13

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 6/3/2021 5:09:45 PM

phyroks

Posts: 41
Joined: 12/1/2020
Status: offline

The issue has never been about anti air fire, its more about the insane initial stockpiles and large ammo usage in ground combat. Realistic or not, having to pay more resources in ammo than building the unit cost makes it far from desirable in game. Airplanes I do understand having high ammo costs because they enjoy so many other advantages, but flak has none of those.

But if its all about how realistic it is, some multi purpose flaks were used and desired in ground combat, so the flaks stats should make it desirable to have in ground combat formations.

... I think it should have stats that make sense in game, if it can combo with real world that is just bonus.

< Message edited by phyroks -- 6/3/2021 7:35:40 PM >

(in reply to Zanotirn)

Post #: 14

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 6/3/2021 8:39:23 PM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: phyroks

The issue has never been about anti air fire, its more about the insane initial stockpiles and large ammo usage in ground combat. Realistic or not, having to pay more resources in ammo than building the unit cost makes it far from desirable in game. Airplanes I do understand having high ammo costs because they enjoy so many other advantages, but flak has none of those.

But if its all about how realistic it is, some multi purpose flaks were used and desired in ground combat, so the flaks stats should make it desirable to have in ground combat formations.
... I think it should have stats that make sense in game, if it can combo with real world that is just bonus.

To my knowledge, teh 8.8 cm FLAK was the exception for being useable in anti-ground useage. Machineguns are ground weapons with minimal AA ability.
But most other AA weapons are utterly useless vs ground targets - like, you can not even fire them onto most ground targets.

(in reply to phyroks)

Post #: 15

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 6/4/2021 6:12:05 AM

phyroks

Posts: 41
Joined: 12/1/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: phyroks

The issue has never been about anti air fire, its more about the insane initial stockpiles and large ammo usage in ground combat. Realistic or not, having to pay more resources in ammo than building the unit cost makes it far from desirable in game. Airplanes I do understand having high ammo costs because they enjoy so many other advantages, but flak has none of those.

But if its all about how realistic it is, some multi purpose flaks were used and desired in ground combat, so the flaks stats should make it desirable to have in ground combat formations.
... I think it should have stats that make sense in game, if it can combo with real world that is just bonus.

To my knowledge, teh 8.8 cm FLAK was the exception for being useable in anti-ground useage. Machineguns are ground weapons with minimal AA ability.
But most other AA weapons are utterly useless vs ground targets - like, you can not even fire them onto most ground targets.

It was designed to fire at ground targets as multipurpose, every flak in the game shoots at ground targets, therefore every single flak is that exception in shadow empire. And that is why the ammo is a problem, you cant even stop them from firing.

< Message edited by phyroks -- 6/4/2021 6:15:28 AM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 16

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 6/4/2021 8:08:07 AM

Zanotirn

Posts: 113
Joined: 3/12/2021
Status: offline

A flak gun is basically a cannon designed to fire high explosive shells with a high velocity and reasonably high rate of fire. Whether it is usable on ground targets depends mainly on the way it's mounted. Given a bit of time usually it's not too difficult to adapt it for anti-ground use even if it's not deliberately designed for it. What made the 8.8cm flak guns special though was specifically their armor piercing capability - in AT role they outperformed almost every other weapon Germany had (in fact their best tank destroyers used the 88mm guns as well). The fact that the standard mount was designed to allow easy anti-ground use didn't hurt either though.

I agree though that they should use less ammo in anti-ground role - in it they are not particularly different from traditional anti-ground guns.

(in reply to phyroks)

Post #: 17

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 6/4/2021 9:07:05 AM

phyroks

Posts: 41
Joined: 12/1/2020
Status: offline

It should be less efficient in soft/hard attack than unit that only does that. There should not be situation where two flak is better than one AT+artillery (in ground combat). It having 75% dmg vs AT and artillery + double ammo usage and reduced AA power(??? I dont have any testing from its current capability to shoot down planes so I dont know if its required or not

). It would still make it "ok" but worse when comparing to something that only does one of those things. It would still see use in some formations and using it would not be like shooting out gold bullets.

The ammo it hauls around is just bonkers as it stands, 17x is not okay.

(in reply to Zanotirn)

Post #: 18

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 6/4/2021 11:36:08 AM

zgrssd

Posts: 3385
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: phyroks

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: phyroks

The issue has never been about anti air fire, its more about the insane initial stockpiles and large ammo usage in ground combat. Realistic or not, having to pay more resources in ammo than building the unit cost makes it far from desirable in game. Airplanes I do understand having high ammo costs because they enjoy so many other advantages, but flak has none of those.

But if its all about how realistic it is, some multi purpose flaks were used and desired in ground combat, so the flaks stats should make it desirable to have in ground combat formations.
... I think it should have stats that make sense in game, if it can combo with real world that is just bonus.

To my knowledge, teh 8.8 cm FLAK was the exception for being useable in anti-ground useage. Machineguns are ground weapons with minimal AA ability.
But most other AA weapons are utterly useless vs ground targets - like, you can not even fire them onto most ground targets.

It was designed to fire at ground targets as multipurpose, every flak in the game shoots at ground targets, therefore every single flak is that exception in shadow empire. And that is why the ammo is a problem, you cant even stop them from firing.

Being able to engage something and being good or efficient at it, are two very different things. Technically a MG can hurt a tank crew, by hitting into a sight slit. And HE can shatter the tracks or any exposed external weapon - and again manage to hit a sight slit. You should still try AT shells unless there is realy no other option.
Technically landbased, mobile artillery units can shoot ships. But any landbased artillery unit is so utterly outclassed in range, callibre and armor by even small naval artillery, it hardly maters.

Given that flak can cover all nearby hexes with AA fire (the one with 0 Range was apparently a bug), there is no need for them to even be in combat - offensive or defensive. But if you allow them to be caught in battle, you can bet they fire every last shell they got!
If you want spread out/token AA, look for MG#s, not Flak.

They have actually been multiple evaluations of AA weapons to be used as AT weapons or generally multipurpose and the 8.8 was not even considered both times.
However the 8.8 was given "bunker buster" ammunition for the invasion of france - and it turns out tanks are a lot easier to kill then bunkers with the same ammunition!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXnHc98r15k

(in reply to phyroks)

Post #: 19

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 6/4/2021 3:25:02 PM

Zanotirn

Posts: 113
Joined: 3/12/2021
Status: offline

You need to exercise caution when using materials from before 1941 on anti-tank warfare as indicative of WWII situation.

For example it's natural that in mid 1930s it was mainly lighter guns that were considered for AT roles because pre-WW2 tanks (with a few exceptions like Matilda II) had very thin armor by WWII standards (e.g. Panzer I had armor thickness of about 10 mm). In interwar period traditional AT guns were viewed as more viable because the lighter guns needed to penetrate most tanks were still easily moved by a couple men.

In practice the 88 guns have first seen sporadic use in AT role in Spanish Civil War, but their high-profile AT use begins with Rommel using them to great effect against the British in Arras in 1940 and subsequently in Africa.

Interestingly enough even the 1938 source he quotes concludes that 88 "is capable of engaging tanks at considerable range", it's just that in 1938 the 88 gun was largely an overkill in AT role, it was not considered necessary to lug this huge thing around just for AT use , so they mainly used the very effective general-purpose cannon against bunkers. Similarly the listed 1940 source still describes 2cm guns as adequate for anti-ground defense even though they would be completely outclassed by the middle of WWII.

Then he looks at the way batteries were setup under normal conditions. In makes perfect sense that under most circumstances they were set up in a way optimized for AA use since an air attack can happen on a short notice, while you usually have an earlier warning of tanks heading your way.

Still even this video concludes at 10 minute mark that 88 guns were very effective in AT role. It just mainly looks at their origins.

But actually on the subject of artillery in AT role, one of the most effective weapons USSR had against the heaviest (and fortunately not numerous) German tanks was an artillery/assault gun - the SU-152 and related guns, whose sheer blast wave would simply knock the turret off the enemy tank without the need to penetrate it.

< Message edited by Zanotirn -- 6/4/2021 3:31:11 PM >

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 20

RE: Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, c... - 6/5/2021 1:48:59 AM

DeltaV112

Posts: 45
Joined: 10/16/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
To my knowledge, teh 8.8 cm FLAK was the exception for being useable in anti-ground useage. Machineguns are ground weapons with minimal AA ability.
But most other AA weapons are utterly useless vs ground targets - like, you can not even fire them onto most ground targets.

The 8.8cm wasn't an exception, it's just that it's become well-known for it's anti-tank capabilities. People don't think about the 90mm M2, the 76mm M1938, or the 85mm 52-K gun as being used in the anti-tank role, even though they were. The 8.8cm was I think used more and issued to dedicated anti-tank formations, but that's in part I think a result of the Germans running into better-armored tanks early in the war that made adapting a stopgap like this more necessary.

(in reply to zgrssd)

Post #: 21

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Suggestions and Feedback >> Flak ammo, artillery movement, custom formations, card scrapping

Page: [1]

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

1.234