Indirect artillery fire.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series



Message

dgk196 -> Indirect artillery fire.... (4/14/2008 11:51:42 PM)

Does indirect artillery fire work the way you expect it too? [sm=00000436.gif]

Again, yes or no, defend your position! [sm=duel.gif]

Dennis



tide1212 -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/15/2008 1:08:23 AM)

I think it does. more often then not it causes at least a disruption if not casualties but there's always a chance if your on the recieving end it won't touch your troops.



1925frank -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/15/2008 1:34:02 AM)

Here's an idea:  If you don't have a line of sight, artillery drifts up to two hexes in any direction.  That might be accurate if the artillery is shooting from long range, but if your artillery is shooting from a closer range, you'd think the drift would be less -- like perhaps only one hex.  I'm thinking the margin of error and the consequences of that error would escalate the further away you were from the target, but if you're close, you wouldn't experience the same drift.



tide1212 -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/15/2008 1:50:39 AM)

I've seen that kind of drift before. If memory serves me right. A good 4 hexs anyway with long rang shots.



dgk196 -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/15/2008 2:16:44 AM)

I think it does. more often then not it causes at least a disruption if not casualties but there's always a chance if your on the recieving end it won't touch your troops

Here's an idea: If you don't have a line of sight, artillery drifts up to two hexes in any direction. That might be accurate if the artillery is shooting from long range, but if your artillery is shooting from a closer range, you'd think the drift would be less -- like perhaps only one hex. I'm thinking the margin of error and the consequences of that error would escalate the further away you were from the target, but if you're close, you wouldn't experience the same drift.

I've seen that kind of drift before. If memory serves me right. A good 4 hexs anyway with long rang shots.


Again, yes or no, defend your position! Please! [sm=duel.gif]

Okay? [;)]

Dennis



tide1212 -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/15/2008 3:28:13 AM)

Yes it does. When there are 12 or more points in a 250m hex the kill ratio goes up considerably.When there are less points in a hex the game adjusts the kill ratio to fit the circumstances. 
When unspotted arty fires the game will assign a random percentage of drift to each firemission.  [;)] The sudafed is kicking in me thinks it's time for bed [>:]    



andym -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/15/2008 8:30:11 PM)

I have only ever seen  a one hex drift!maybe im doing something right.I never used to be a great fan of Artillery,but i love it now.Some casualty counts are awesome!!!



dgk196 -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/15/2008 9:00:22 PM)

To me, indirect artillery fire is a 'feature' requirement for a game at this level. It just wouldn't be as good as it is without it.
Seems obvious doesn't It?

But, to me how it functions in the game is just as important. Indirect artillery was used in many ways. Such various 'methods' of fire which where employed by artillery units might be modeled differently in the game. Armies spent a lot of time and money developing various types of attacks, why? If there is no difference between a fixed barrage, creeping barrage and concentrations, why did they have them? And since they did have them could they be modeled in the game? Making the right choices of attack types could be just as important a tactical decision as that of using your artillery for indirect fire or not!

Some types of guns might not lend themselves at all to certain types of attacks. Creeping barrages. Used to 'sweep' through an area. How much more effective would this be for a battery of 75's (rapid fire) verses a battery of 170's (slower firing)? The 'Dora' for example, firing a shell every 30 to 40 minutes? Probably not a good candidate for creeping fire against a fast moving target! Anyway, it might be necessary to 'detail' the guns as to their abilities!

The "doctrine's" and abilities of the various armies could be accounted for! This might manifest itself in limitations or time delays of various types of units to conduct the various types of attacks. Also, it would define which guns could conduct indirect fire and which could not and what level of organization is in control of such guns! The 'level' of this game is where those aspects would be seen. Again, I would like to see these items as a game option, like 'fire by map'!

Oh yeah, 'drift'. Just what the heck is being modeled by drift? If the target moves off, then forward observer tells the battery to stop firing. If the forward observer can no longer see the target or stops calling in effects or corrections, again the battery stops firing! Missing their target by 250, 500, 750 meters? A battery would risk such a thing especially if they firing at units in close proximity to their own troops?

Dennis [;)] 



Huib -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/15/2008 10:14:28 PM)

I would like to see that arty does not draw it's supply from the base ammo level, but would have a separate ammo level that designers can set. In general arty causes too much casualties in the game, due to the fact that all units can spot for all tubes so an enormous amount of fire can be placed on a restricted area.
I would prefer a different spotting system, but not exactly sure how it should look. In the current situation, as a designer I'm inclined to set the base ammo level rather low. This produces 2 effects 1. reduction of artillery fire. 2. it slows down the game as units are more dependent on their parent HQs to receive supply.

Huib



dgk196 -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/16/2008 2:56:29 AM)

@ Huib

Very interesting points! So, such things as a simulation of a unit continuing its advance with supplies struggling to keep up should be significantly different than say the start of an offensive such as the battle of Kursk!

Yes, the one size fits all, really doesn't, I guess. So as scenario designers I guess much more care should be given to the effects of supply. Generally supply levels are expressed in terms of 'combat loads'. Which is referenced when information is available about the supply level. However, the definition of a 'combat load' is often lacking. More research!!!!! What fun!? [sm=00000007.gif]

Your point is taken, and I for one will consider it when either evaluating a scenario or designing one. Thank you! [&o]

Dennis [:)]



countblue -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/16/2008 6:39:03 PM)

I never use indirect artillery fire "by the map" I have turned it off in the advanced rules.
I only operate with forward observers. So my artllery is always "on the spot" of course.
Unless my forward observer gets spotted in the enemy turn and routed so he isnt there when the arti fire arrives, then it drifts ususally one hex. [:(]

To Huib:
One argument for the high casualities:
If you research records of casualities, arti fire is considered the statistical majority of it on the eastern front.

Spotting system:
Best would be dedicating the scout platoon from  every arti battailon as forward observer.
("Vorgeschobener Beobachter" or VB in german).
They should be expendable so maybe two or three per battailon would be adequate.
They should be hard to spot since the were only very small groups of men 2 or 3 maybe.

my.02 cents

Countblue



andym -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/16/2008 9:05:21 PM)

Good call Countblue,i think a dedicated Artillery Spotter unit would be a good idea.



Warren -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/16/2008 10:44:17 PM)

This is where national characteristics could come into play with the Americans and British getting more FO's than the Germans and the Russians, thus showing more 'flexibility' in calling in artillery missions.



countblue -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/16/2008 11:24:09 PM)

Andym,

As a matter of fact since they included those "Stabs Kompanie" in the OOB´s I use their Kfz.13 scout section and/or the small machingun squad(2) that comes with them for this purpose.


Since they are linked to their "Abteilung" its easy to spot on the battlefield to whom the FO(VB) belongs you are looking at. Now lightning up the "visible hexes" with the FO on gives you the correct targets you may choose from for this given "Abteilung".


Countblue



Huib -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/17/2008 10:42:17 AM)


quote:


To Huib:
One argument for the high casualities:
If you research records of casualities, arti fire is considered the statistical majority of it on the eastern front.




I know that, but it is still too high in JTCS. A different spotting system like you mentioned could very well reduce the high rates though.

I would like to see that the effect of artillery would be the same as that of "indirect artillery by the map" UNLESS the fire is directed by the appropriate spotter, then the current maths of artillery fire on units in LOS would apply. I have no idea if it is programmable.... I guess not.

Huib



Miamieagle -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/17/2008 3:45:44 PM)

Now thats a terrific Idea. If I understood you correctly. You should be able to dialog or highlight a forward FO and enable it or activate it to get a sight view and then call in Altillery shots on a tarket. those Altillery shots should have a higher percetage of accurate hits than most indirect atillery hits.

You guys got to remember all nations used Altillery FO and not just the Germans,British,Americans and Russian. It should be included in most of the Nations OOB.



Warren -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/17/2008 6:08:40 PM)

Sorry I wasn't clear. As an example, I meant to say that the Americans would have more FO's in the field than the Russians. All nationalities would have FO's. The question is how many would be in a scenario?



Miamieagle -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/17/2008 7:32:37 PM)

I agree!



Miamieagle -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/17/2008 7:58:21 PM)

It should be decided by the amount of Altillery each side has on a scenerio or in the DCG. I hope you do not mind but I placed this suggestion as a request for patch 104. Pease place it your self if you so desire.I think its a terrific Idea!

I would do it this way. I would give it just 1 point as the units are very small.I would make them a very difficult to see. I would give them a very high concealment properties. The friendly units will only find it if they stumble or move into the Hexes that contain this type unit.

I would give this type of units a smaller Icon indicating how small and spcecialize they really are. You would only be able to see them when you see scroll down and look for specialize units and you want to use your Altillery spotter once you are ready to shell the enemy.

I would make them defficult to spot for the reason that this units worked by been stealthy and working behind enemy lines.This way if you notice your enemy Altillery is to accurate you know you have a spotter around and you need to find it and destroy this unit. This some times took a lot time. I hope this program can mimik as well.

I do hope they incorporate this feature in patch 104.

Thank you!



Warren -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/18/2008 12:29:57 AM)

It could even be simpler with a logical flag on a unit to declare it "FO capable" set in the scenario editor and thus could spot for artillery. So a scenario designer if he wished could leave it as it is currently and allow all of his units to spot. I do like the separate ammo levels for direct fire vs indirect fire, that is a great idea too.



dgk196 -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/27/2008 11:42:11 AM)

So, what aspects or features of indirect artillery support are currently not represented by the game? What 'details' should they include?

Dennis [;)]



Warren -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/27/2008 3:12:47 PM)

Calling in artillery was not as easy as is represented in the game. I don't think all units should be able to spot for artillery-e.g., truck units.



Arkady -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/27/2008 9:28:21 PM)

Spotting with truck is prohibited with most PBEM games (house rule)...they shows you only question mark icons but as a house rule, empty truck must move away from enemy line and can not be used to spot units, scout and draw opportunity fire



timshin42 -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/28/2008 5:43:20 AM)

Dennis,

The most important (and lethal) single artillery tactic which is missing from this game (and all other games that I know of) is the "TOT", Time On Target, where up to ALL the fires from DIVARTY, or even CORPSARTY, firing units can be massed on a target or group of targets SIMULTANEOUSLY! Obviously this is a very resource intensive, expensive tactic, but it was occasionally used against very critical targets.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/28/2008 12:20:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196

Does indirect artillery fire work the way you expect it too? [sm=00000436.gif]

Again, yes or no, defend your position! [sm=duel.gif]

Dennis


How about artillery affecting the hex through the friendly turn too!
I can see mortars being able to shut off the tap and turn it on every three minutes but, 155mm batteries?

And, indirect artillery should be more effective versus armor. The occasional "disable" is not enough to prevent a player from driving forward into the face of indirect fire. There are many historical accounts which point out that concentrated indirect artillery fire stopped an armored thrust in it's tracks? [:)]



Huib -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/28/2008 4:44:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner




And, indirect artillery should be more effective versus armor. The occasional "disable" is not enough to prevent a player from driving forward into the face of indirect fire. There are many historical accounts which point out that concentrated indirect artillery fire stopped an armored thrust in it's tracks?[/color] [:)]


That is incorporated in 1.03. I think the probability is now 5% instead of 1% to disable an armored vehicle. We also experimented with 10% during testing but that lead to unrealistic loss numbers that would make virtually any armored attack impossible any time.

Huib



serg3d1 -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/28/2008 6:27:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Huib


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner




And, indirect artillery should be more effective versus armor. The occasional "disable" is not enough to prevent a player from driving forward into the face of indirect fire. There are many historical accounts which point out that concentrated indirect artillery fire stopped an armored thrust in it's tracks?[/color] [:)]


That is incorporated in 1.03. I think the probability is now 5% instead of 1% to disable an armored vehicle. We also experimented with 10% during testing but that lead to unrealistic loss numbers that would make virtually any armored attack impossible any time.

Huib

Hmm, I hope it's only for heavy artillery 100mm+ ? I wouldn't like to see tank attack stopped by mortars.



countblue -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/28/2008 8:42:16 PM)

I also agree on that, the current way of handling arti vs. tanks seems good to me.

Arti fire should only rarely take out tanks if at all it should rather disable or disrupt them.

May be in "direct fire" a bit better than in indirect fire role. Of course then running the full risk of drawing opprtunity fire.

Countblue




MrRoadrunner -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/28/2008 11:02:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: serg3d1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Huib


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner




And, indirect artillery should be more effective versus armor. The occasional "disable" is not enough to prevent a player from driving forward into the face of indirect fire. There are many historical accounts which point out that concentrated indirect artillery fire stopped an armored thrust in it's tracks? [:)]


That is incorporated in 1.03. I think the probability is now 5% instead of 1% to disable an armored vehicle. We also experimented with 10% during testing but that lead to unrealistic loss numbers that would make virtually any armored attack impossible any time.

Huib

Hmm, I hope it's only for heavy artillery 100mm+ ? I wouldn't like to see tank attack stopped by mortars.


One thing that actually happened was the Tiger was disabled and hors de combat by Soviet 120 mm mortars firing indirectly. Check out where the radiators were located on the Tiger I. A tank "kill" or disable is relatively the same thing?

Artillery already has direct fire/penetration factored in when it shoots directly. There are tons of accounts of indirect artillery fire stopping armor attacks and/or taking out tanks. Who in their right mind would stop an advance by armor due to CS artillery fire?

And, how will you then show the two Tigers that needed to tow the disabled Tiger to safety? [;)]




Huib -> RE: Indirect artillery fire.... (4/29/2008 12:39:13 PM)

In CS mortars can also disable tanks. That was already the case and I think is one of the reasons why we did not use the intended probablility of 10% but reduced it. Jason knows better how this was decided than me though.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125