RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions

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: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions

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 >> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/14/2004 11:22:49 PM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

The ROF adjustment for off-board arty is still in the testing phase--this was primarily to improve the 75s, which too often were out of contact and had plenty of ammo left at the completion of a campaign scenario. Now, my preliminary tests indicate that for the 105s and 155s, holding a battery or two in reserve for late-game situations becomes more important.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it's always a good idea to turn off one gun for each off-board battery anyway. This actually is a de rigeur tactic, as a malfunction does not disable an entire battery. Ammo conservation should play a part on the scale of these battles anyway. You gotta remember that your battalion is borrowing regimental and divisional assets--to assume a never-ending ammo supply (unless you turn reduced ammo "off" in your preferences) is just unrealistic.
I see no need to increase ammo loads, as this defeats the purpose of the ROF adjustments. I believe that the current ammo loads are more than adequate. On the "Historical Arty Delay" thread, I gave the proposed adjusted ROF chart. You guys can do your own tests, and let us know what you think. We need to discuss this more. IMHO, I think it's a good idea.

_____________________________

(in reply to hogg)

Post #: 31

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/15/2004 1:05:20 AM

Resisti

Posts: 1351
Joined: 1/22/2001
From: Livorno, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hogg

The other thing that has crossed my mind is on board artillery - specifically the (so-called) portable mortars, 82mm or less.

Surely, such a weapon in a prepared position, in a defend or delay scenario, would have more ammunition available than the same unit in an advance or assault, that relies on what it's crew (and friends!) can carry?

Still have mortars in defend situations running out of ammo after turn 4 - can't be right?

Yes, it would be reasonable for a scenario designer to raise the ammo load in delay/defend scenarios.

When playing a random battle against AI or human player,instead, this is where ammo dumps/ammo carriers come in play, to simulate what you're saying.

what can't be done, is to introduce another unit for each type of mortar, in each oob, with an higher ammo load; there wouldn't be space enough, and the solutions I proposed above would be enough anyway, imo.

_____________________________

Federico "Resisti" Doveri

(in reply to hogg)

Post #: 32

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/15/2004 2:25:26 AM

hogg

Posts: 30
Joined: 2/10/2004
From: Yorkshire. 'Nuff said!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Resisti

what can't be done, is to introduce another unit for each type of mortar, in each oob, with an higher ammo load; there wouldn't be space enough, and the solutions I proposed above would be enough anyway, imo.

Roger that - it would make the oob's about 600 meg?

lol

(in reply to Resisti)

Post #: 33

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/15/2004 2:29:30 AM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

The ROF adjustment for off-board arty is still in the testing phase--this was primarily to improve the 75s, which too often were out of contact and had plenty of ammo left at the completion of a campaign scenario. Now, my preliminary tests indicate that for the 105s and 155s, holding a battery or two in reserve for late-game situations becomes more important.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it's always a good idea to turn off one gun for each off-board battery anyway. This actually is a de rigeur tactic, as a malfunction does not disable an entire battery. Ammo conservation should play a part on the scale of these battles anyway. You gotta remember that your battalion is borrowing regimental and divisional assets--to assume a never-ending ammo supply (unless you turn reduced ammo "off" in your preferences) is just unrealistic.
I see no need to increase ammo loads, as this defeats the purpose of the ROF adjustments. I believe that the current ammo loads are more than adequate. On the "Historical Arty Delay" thread, I gave the proposed adjusted ROF chart. You guys can do your own tests, and let us know what you think. We need to discuss this more. IMHO, I think it's a good idea.

If the guns fire faster, the ammo is gone WAY faster. Now you are saying that we have to play your way to conserve ammo. I don't like to turn tubes off. I also do not believe ammo conservation should be a part of some of my battles. You guys should not force your style of play on us because you like it more. We don't have that option.

When my force is attacking, I don't ecpect to run out of ammo in a couple turns. You state that my force is 'borrowing regimental and divisional assets'. I say to you that it isn't. my force is doing what I want it to. To me, I am the tip of the spear, and they are not telling me, "Well, sorry, here's ten rounds, I suggest you turn a couple of the guns off." Don't take our options away from us based on how you guys like to play it. Playing with unlimited ammo also affects APCR/bazooka/PF's etc, and just isn't an option. I don't think having arty run out in three or four turns should be either.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 34

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/15/2004 2:46:07 AM

hogg

Posts: 30
Joined: 2/10/2004
From: Yorkshire. 'Nuff said!
Status: offline

Time for a noob question!

How do you turn artillery tubes off, in the game?

In sp III, I could see how you do it for onboard artillery - just redline tubes in the unit list. But in spwaw, each artillery icon is usually one gun!

As far as accessing oba, I am totally lost, can't figure it out at all!

Yours,

Thickly,

Hogg.

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 35

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/15/2004 2:55:51 AM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

You goto the artillery plotting screen, and there are buttons to view each units stats. Click on one of the green gun names, and it will turn red. It is now 'off'.

What I don't understand is speeding up artillery firing rates, and then telling us to turn off guns to conserve ammo. Why have a 'battery' if you cannot use all the guns because you will run out of ammo instantly? Since the option for reduced ammo is in the game already, why not bump the ammo supply up some, let us decide if we want the entire battery to fire, and let the guys who don't want alot of ammo play with reduced ammo ON?

A battery is multiple guns for a reason.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to hogg)

Post #: 36

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/15/2004 3:41:55 AM

hogg

Posts: 30
Joined: 2/10/2004
From: Yorkshire. 'Nuff said!
Status: offline

Thanks for the info, Goblin, I appreciate it!

Turning to the topic in general - I suspect the fear of those on high is really that artillery will become so powerful, and influential, that it overshadows everything else - a sentiment I would support.

How to do it?

Ammo loads.

I am sorry. I really, really am. But I just can't see artillery units running out of shells, especially either side in advance or assault games. See my comments earlier about on board mortars, but, basically, off-board artillery is behind the lines, in prepared positions, with a whole tail-load of logistics driving shells up to the prepared positions.

Imagine the scene - Montgomery talking to staff officer, prior to an assault in the desert - "Tanks - check - infantry - check - salt tablets - check - large air filters for the engines - check - artillery ammo - oops, bugger, we forgot to bring enough!". Hmmmmm.

I can see, after periods of prolonged firing (and I mean prolonged!), units starting to get short, but if that where the case, surely the batteries would reduce the number of shells fired per fire mission, to conserve ammo and keep going?

Please could someone who knows what they are talking about clarify this?

Artillery Availability

Now this, to me, is the real argument!

Tommy Atkins, advancing on the battlefield, sees target of opportunity. Works out co-ordinates, finds a radio that works, passes fire mission request up the line to the artillery co-ordinator, message passed to battery, battery works out which direction and distance to fire in, guns laid, ammo loaded, lanyards pulled, shells leave barrel, fly some distance, and land in rough area of intended target.

All of this takes time.

And, depending on the nationality and era, the time will vary considerably from one army to the next.

But, what do we in spwaw do? Artillery flung about the map at a moments notice, hitting moving targets with ease.

And the introduction of forward observers has made it worse! Now, with there access time reduced to less than a turn, hide a forward observer somewhere safe, and you can drop (admittedly unobserved) artillery roughly where you want it, supressing the enemy, at the end of your curren turn!

To me, the answer to all this is simple - allow off board artillery virtually unlimited ammo, but considerably extend the amount of time it takes to call it in - again dependant on nationality.

Get the call in time up to two turns, and you start to have to think about where you want it, and plan ahead. No more sniping at fleeting targets with 150mm howitzers!

Sorry to ramble on!

Cheers,

Hogg.

(in reply to Goblin)

Post #: 37

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/15/2004 8:45:32 AM

Kevin E. Duguay

Posts: 1044
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Goldsboro, North Carolina
Status: offline

I worked with PZ Leo to correct the artillery in HIS Mod of SPWaW. Some things he accepted some he did not. If anyone looks up anything about larger guns in the 150 to 203mm range you will find that many of these guns have a ROF of only 1 or 2 RPM. That give's a whole battery only 8 to 16 shots per turn, depending on the gun. With the correct splash effect this ROF is correct.

_____________________________

KED

(in reply to hogg)

Post #: 38

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/15/2004 9:11:32 AM

Kevin E. Duguay

Posts: 1044
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Goldsboro, North Carolina
Status: offline

I,m Going to bring up the issue about the 60mm M19 mortar again. I found a book by I.V. Hogg says exactly what I said. The M19 was issued as was. No base, No aiming devices, Jap Knee Mortar type of weapon. Latter in the War a base plate and sights were made for the weapon. As originally produced the mortar was rejected by the US Army. But it did enter service in spec. ops.. Paras etc. Both theaters of operation. With base plate and sights the weapon was found to be heavier than the original 60mm Mortar and production was stoped. Some of these weapons made it into the Vietnam War. However most were scraped before this time. SF modern 60mm are a more robust type of this same type. I.E. It can be used with or with out the base plate.

_____________________________

KED

(in reply to Kevin E. Duguay)

Post #: 39

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/15/2004 9:36:57 PM

Major Destruction

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/10/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

To those who would like to have a large supply or longer bombardment period, why not simply buy more batteries?

But to those who would like to keep this in the tactical realm of company/battalion sized battles, how many batteries of 4.5's would Tommy Atkins be able to call on to cover the front of his company?

I know that some would argue that at times, the Allies could count on artillery from every available tube within range. So be it. But then why is it that in most PBEM battles players tend to opt for a limit to the batteries purchased?

To reduce the ammo loadouts, or increase the costs or increase the ROF or some combination of all these factors would eliminate the need to limit purchase quantities of artillery. Players would then opt to buy more batteries which in turn could be used to produce a greater saturation bombardment of a targeted area.

Would this be of any value to thosee who play PBEM? or to those who play vs AI in Campaigns?

_____________________________

They struggled with a ferocity that was to be expected of brave men fighting with forlorn hope against an enemy who had the advantage of position......knowing that courage was the one thing that would save them.

Julius Caesar, 57 BC

(in reply to Kevin E. Duguay)

Post #: 40

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/15/2004 11:21:22 PM

hogg

Posts: 30
Joined: 2/10/2004
From: Yorkshire. 'Nuff said!
Status: offline

Major Destruction - Yes, I agree with your basic point - whatever we do, players will find a way round it to have constant bombardments on tap - e.g. turning off a couple of tubes. Allowable? Ethical?

My big beef with artillery as it is set up at the mo is the (with forward observers) sub-one turn reaction time. It lets you snipe at moving tanks. Accurate?

I recently played a diy scenario against Double Deuce - 1939, Russians -v- Japanese, Manchurian border dispute.

I was the Japanese, and their artillery of the period was a real pain. Two turn reaction time!

What it did do was make me plan my fire missions two turns in advance - "In two turns, my attacking forces should be about here, so I want the barrage there to avoid them".

That (whilst a major pain) felt more realistic, as I was planning my fire missions on the current state of the game, not directing them to fleeting targets of opportunity.

(in reply to Major Destruction)

Post #: 41

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/16/2004 3:49:59 AM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction

To those who would like to have a large supply or longer bombardment period, why not simply buy more batteries?

But to those who would like to keep this in the tactical realm of company/battalion sized battles, how many batteries of 4.5's would Tommy Atkins be able to call on to cover the front of his company?

I know that some would argue that at times, the Allies could count on artillery from every available tube within range. So be it. But then why is it that in most PBEM battles players tend to opt for a limit to the batteries purchased?

To reduce the ammo loadouts, or increase the costs or increase the ROF or some combination of all these factors would eliminate the need to limit purchase quantities of artillery. Players would then opt to buy more batteries which in turn could be used to produce a greater saturation bombardment of a targeted area.

Would this be of any value to thosee who play PBEM? or to those who play vs AI in Campaigns?

Why have to buy more batteries? That IS unrealistic. Having a single battery support a battalion is realistic, but running out of ammunition almost immediately is NOT.

Goblin

< Message edited by Goblin -- 2/15/2004 8:51:04 PM >

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Major Destruction)

Post #: 42

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/16/2004 8:39:24 PM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

The ROF adjustment for off-board arty is still in the testing phase--this was primarily to improve the 75s, which too often were out of contact and had plenty of ammo left at the completion of a campaign scenario. Now, my preliminary tests indicate that for the 105s and 155s, holding a battery or two in reserve for late-game situations becomes more important.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it's always a good idea to turn off one gun for each off-board battery anyway. This actually is a de rigeur tactic, as a malfunction does not disable an entire battery. Ammo conservation should play a part on the scale of these battles anyway. You gotta remember that your battalion is borrowing regimental and divisional assets--to assume a never-ending ammo supply (unless you turn reduced ammo "off" in your preferences) is just unrealistic.
I see no need to increase ammo loads, as this defeats the purpose of the ROF adjustments. I believe that the current ammo loads are more than adequate. On the "Historical Arty Delay" thread, I gave the proposed adjusted ROF chart. You guys can do your own tests, and let us know what you think. We need to discuss this more. IMHO, I think it's a good idea.

Why not simply rate artillery according to a median historical RoF instead of this WAG?

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 43

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/16/2004 8:44:58 PM

harlekwin

Posts: 5863
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: arkham asylum
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

The ROF adjustment for off-board arty is still in the testing phase--this was primarily to improve the 75s, which too often were out of contact and had plenty of ammo left at the completion of a campaign scenario. Now, my preliminary tests indicate that for the 105s and 155s, holding a battery or two in reserve for late-game situations becomes more important.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it's always a good idea to turn off one gun for each off-board battery anyway. This actually is a de rigeur tactic, as a malfunction does not disable an entire battery. Ammo conservation should play a part on the scale of these battles anyway. You gotta remember that your battalion is borrowing regimental and divisional assets--to assume a never-ending ammo supply (unless you turn reduced ammo "off" in your preferences) is just unrealistic.
I see no need to increase ammo loads, as this defeats the purpose of the ROF adjustments. I believe that the current ammo loads are more than adequate. On the "Historical Arty Delay" thread, I gave the proposed adjusted ROF chart. You guys can do your own tests, and let us know what you think. We need to discuss this more. IMHO, I think it's a good idea.

Why not simply rate artillery according to a median historical RoF instead of this WAG?

Because then certain OOBs won't have their effectiveness artificially increased....

Ah well....

time to move on to Cl as the OOBs/gameplay will get even more disneyland as time goes on it seems.........

< Message edited by harlekwin -- 2/16/2004 2:01:58 PM >

_____________________________

$ociali$m-from those who will to those who won't.....

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 44

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/16/2004 11:30:36 PM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

Harlekwin, how did you get the pic for the new weapon we're putting in the Norway OOB?
This is a transport for the Elite Para Girl Scouts, another new unit. They will be equipped with Explosive "Bomb-bomb" cookies, which can be planted near enemy positions. They look like regular GS cookies, which will naturally tempt the hungry but unsuspecting bad guys--one bite and

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

The ROF adjustment for off-board arty is still in the testing phase--this was primarily to improve the 75s, which too often were out of contact and had plenty of ammo left at the completion of a campaign scenario. Now, my preliminary tests indicate that for the 105s and 155s, holding a battery or two in reserve for late-game situations becomes more important.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it's always a good idea to turn off one gun for each off-board battery anyway. This actually is a de rigeur tactic, as a malfunction does not disable an entire battery. Ammo conservation should play a part on the scale of these battles anyway. You gotta remember that your battalion is borrowing regimental and divisional assets--to assume a never-ending ammo supply (unless you turn reduced ammo "off" in your preferences) is just unrealistic.
I see no need to increase ammo loads, as this defeats the purpose of the ROF adjustments. I believe that the current ammo loads are more than adequate. On the "Historical Arty Delay" thread, I gave the proposed adjusted ROF chart. You guys can do your own tests, and let us know what you think. We need to discuss this more. IMHO, I think it's a good idea.

Why not simply rate artillery according to a median historical RoF instead of this WAG?

Because then certain OOBs won't have their effectiveness artificially increased....

Ah well....

time to move on to Cl as the OOBs/gameplay will get even more disneyland as time goes on it seems.........

_____________________________

(in reply to harlekwin)

Post #: 45

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 1:01:40 AM

harlekwin

Posts: 5863
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: arkham asylum
Status: offline

If you say so.....

I get the sneaking suspicion that had I done my work on the Tiger Team US OoB saying "I just want it to feel right" you'd get my point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Harlekwin, how did you get the pic for the new weapon we're putting in the Norway OOB?
This is a transport for the Elite Para Girl Scouts, another new unit. They will be equipped with Explosive "Bomb-bomb" cookies, which can be planted near enemy positions. They look like regular GS cookies, which will naturally tempt the hungry but unsuspecting bad guys--one bite and

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

The ROF adjustment for off-board arty is still in the testing phase--this was primarily to improve the 75s, which too often were out of contact and had plenty of ammo left at the completion of a campaign scenario. Now, my preliminary tests indicate that for the 105s and 155s, holding a battery or two in reserve for late-game situations becomes more important.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, it's always a good idea to turn off one gun for each off-board battery anyway. This actually is a de rigeur tactic, as a malfunction does not disable an entire battery. Ammo conservation should play a part on the scale of these battles anyway. You gotta remember that your battalion is borrowing regimental and divisional assets--to assume a never-ending ammo supply (unless you turn reduced ammo "off" in your preferences) is just unrealistic.
I see no need to increase ammo loads, as this defeats the purpose of the ROF adjustments. I believe that the current ammo loads are more than adequate. On the "Historical Arty Delay" thread, I gave the proposed adjusted ROF chart. You guys can do your own tests, and let us know what you think. We need to discuss this more. IMHO, I think it's a good idea.

Why not simply rate artillery according to a median historical RoF instead of this WAG?

Because then certain OOBs won't have their effectiveness artificially increased....

Ah well....

time to move on to Cl as the OOBs/gameplay will get even more disneyland as time goes on it seems.........

_____________________________

$ociali$m-from those who will to those who won't.....

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 46

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 5:09:52 PM

Alby

Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

Artillery Availability

Now this, to me, is the real argument!

Tommy Atkins, advancing on the battlefield, sees target of opportunity. Works out co-ordinates, finds a radio that works, passes fire mission request up the line to the artillery co-ordinator, message passed to battery, battery works out which direction and distance to fire in, guns laid, ammo loaded, lanyards pulled, shells leave barrel, fly some distance, and land in rough area of intended target.

All of this takes time.

And, depending on the nationality and era, the time will vary considerably from one army to the next.

But, what do we in spwaw do? Artillery flung about the map at a moments notice, hitting moving targets with ease.

And the introduction of forward observers has made it worse! Now, with there access time reduced to less than a turn, hide a forward observer somewhere safe, and you can drop (admittedly unobserved) artillery roughly where you want it, supressing the enemy, at the end of your curren turn!

To me, the answer to all this is simple - allow off board artillery virtually unlimited ammo, but considerably extend the amount of time it takes to call it in - again dependant on nationality.

Get the call in time up to two turns, and you start to have to think about where you want it, and plan ahead. No more sniping at fleeting targets with 150mm howitzers!

Sorry to ramble on!

Cheers,

Hogg.

To me this is one thing I hate, It seems most of my pbem games are spent running from artillery every turn. I move my units, then get hit with arty , move them again, get hit with arty and so on and so forth
These .00 .01 and .02 delays reall bugger me sometimes

_____________________________

(in reply to hogg)

Post #: 47

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 5:14:59 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby
To me this is one thing I hate, It seems most of my pbem games are spent running from artillery every turn. I move my units, then get hit with arty , move them again, get hit with arty and so on and so forth
These .00 .01 and .02 delays reall bugger me sometimes

Obviously something should be done to the ultra-fast-response artillery. I haven't actually played SPWW2, but I've heard that it has more decent delays for arty. Is it true?

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Alby)

Post #: 48

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 5:15:25 PM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby
To me this is one thing I hate, It seems most of my pbem games are spent running from artillery every turn. I move my units, then get hit with arty , move them again, get hit with arty and so on and so forth
These .00 .01 and .02 delays reall bugger me sometimes

Obviously something should be done to the ultra-fast-response artillery. I haven't actually played SPWW2, but I've heard that it has more decent delays for arty. Is it true?

Yep. MBT too.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 49

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 6:56:50 PM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

Both SP:WW2 and SP:MBT have more realistic ROF and delay settings, but they have one major fault, IMHO: YOURartillery barrages only happen at the end of yourOPPONENT'Sturn. If a barrage is longer than one turn's worth, the carry-over portion (which in SPWAW falls at the end of the next turn, regardless of which side) waits until your opponent has taken his next turn.

What this means is that you are not able to plan a mission for the end of YOUR turn, in order to have it impact your opponent and suppress HIS troops, which hinders HIS movement and actions for HIS turn.

In both these versions, you have to plan your fire missions 'in the future'....where will my opponent be IN 2 TURNS, not where will he be NEXT turn. Otherwise, his troops will be long gone from the impact area.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 50

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 7:18:03 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
In both these versions, you have to plan your fire missions 'in the future'....where will my opponent be IN 2 TURNS, not where will he be NEXT turn. Otherwise, his troops will be long gone from the impact area.

Sounds pretty realistic to me.

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)

Post #: 51

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 9:25:18 PM

Rune Iversen

Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
In both these versions, you have to plan your fire missions 'in the future'....where will my opponent be IN 2 TURNS, not where will he be NEXT turn. Otherwise, his troops will be long gone from the impact area.

Sounds pretty realistic to me.

And to me.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 52

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 9:34:07 PM

harlekwin

Posts: 5863
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: arkham asylum
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP
In both these versions, you have to plan your fire missions 'in the future'....where will my opponent be IN 2 TURNS, not where will he be NEXT turn. Otherwise, his troops will be long gone from the impact area.

Sounds pretty realistic to me.

And to me.

yup

_____________________________

$ociali$m-from those who will to those who won't.....

(in reply to Rune Iversen)

Post #: 53

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 10:03:36 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

Realistic? Nope, if the only possible impact time is at the end of opponents turn.

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to harlekwin)

Post #: 54

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 10:24:41 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Voriax
Realistic? Nope, if the only possible impact time is at the end of opponents turn.

Why so? Remember that it is a igo-ugo system, where opposite turns combined presents an abstraction of 3-5 mins of action. Why should it be spoiled with ultra-responsive artillery firing before both sides have moved their units?

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Voriax)

Post #: 55

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 10:32:44 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

Why so? Remember that it is a igo-ugo system, where opposite turns combined presents an abstraction of 3-5 mins of action. Why should it be spoiled with ultra-responsive artillery firing before both sides have moved their units?

Did I say it has to be instant? By all means let the opponent finish a turn or even two, but if I'm defending I'd be quite happy if I'd be allowed to decide if my arty strikes land before opponent moves his units hindering his movement or after he has moved all his units.

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 56

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 10:38:05 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Voriax

Did I say it has to be instant? By all means let the opponent finish a turn or even two, but if I'm defending I'd be quite happy if I'd be allowed to decide if my arty strikes land before opponent moves his units hindering his movement or after he has moved all his units.

Now how realistic is that? Keep in mind the concept of igo-ugo system...

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Voriax)

Post #: 57

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 10:45:00 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

In my opinion quite realistic. I'm sure that in rl situation a smart FO would relay coordinates and then wait for the best possible time to actually call the fire.
How realistic is arty delay that has an increment of one turn? anyways, MBT doesn't really interest me so they can have whatever arty delays they want.

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 58

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 10:56:04 PM

JJKettunen

Posts: 3530
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Voriax

In my opinion quite realistic. I'm sure that in rl situation a smart FO would relay coordinates and then wait for the best possible time to actually call the fire.
How realistic is arty delay that has an increment of one turn? anyways, MBT doesn't really interest me so they can have whatever arty delays they want.

So in reality, opposite troops move in turns?...and a smart FO can order shells to land before the opposite side has had even the possibility to actually do anything during the same space of time?...

_____________________________

Jyri Kettunen

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn

(in reply to Voriax)

Post #: 59

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/17/2004 11:14:10 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

The obvious problem is that I do not vision mine and opponents turns happening simultaneously or combined. Now, if the game is 'plot everything and then watch action take place' thats another matter, but turn based is your turn, my turn, your turn etc. You may think in a way of combined turns,that's your right. And as such combining in 'my version' does not take place hence there is no problem with smaller increment arty delays.
Too bad this isn't a tabletop game where an arty barrage can be effective for severals turns. But then, I think CL will have something like that.

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to JJKettunen)

Post #: 60