I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (Full Version)

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



Message

marcbarker -> I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/14/2008 5:25:07 PM)

I have been plating a DCG in all 3 games. And regardless of what side I am on my Armor gets pasted by 81mm mortars, 75mm howitzers. I mean geesh, had a platoon of Panthers going throuh an orchard, 1 hex at a time to try to draw fire to make it safe for the Infantry to move. The blam a series of indirect fire from 4 hexes away hits my platoon disrupts 1 , detsrotys 3. Go figure.



Jason Petho -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/14/2008 5:32:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: barker

I have been plating a DCG in all 3 games. And regardless of what side I am on my Armor gets pasted by 81mm mortars, 75mm howitzers. I mean geesh, had a platoon of Panthers going throuh an orchard, 1 hex at a time to try to draw fire to make it safe for the Infantry to move. The blam a series of indirect fire from 4 hexes away hits my platoon disrupts 1 , detsrotys 3. Go figure.


Might be better to lead with the infantry?

Or use smoke?

Or Engineers and smoke?

Or avoiding areas with lots of LOS?

Or Machinegun platoon and a leader?

Jason Petho




Arkady -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/14/2008 5:34:44 PM)

well, don't use tanks as shields [:)]
if you stay, cover, if you move, run like hell...
exposing armoured vehicles in static position, visible to enemy is not good tactic IRL [8D]



marcbarker -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/14/2008 5:51:09 PM)

But is 81mm mortar rounds effective enough to wipe panthers? Maybe a 75 in the right place or a salvo of 105's or 120mm with a direct hit. These HE Rounds not HEAT. That is why I led with the Armor to Draw ordance, so my infantry can rush open ground without getting tanked up. Smoke a good idea but when you 6 rounds for a 24 turn scenario you tend to be a miser. I almost makes me want to throw my half tracks away to draw fir for the armor. The point is that indirect firing is killing me.



Arkady -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/14/2008 6:42:31 PM)

well, Pather's hull top armor protection varied from 16-30mm, direct hit by 81mm HE somewhere near petrol powered (!) engine can definitely stop the tank

It can also kill tank's leader when he is looking from cupola [;)]



Arkady -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/14/2008 6:52:11 PM)

and WP (smoke shells - filled with white phosphorus) are officially used as weapon against dug-in tanks (static) ...
see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mortars.htm

eight paragraph: "WP is effective in starting fires in buildings and forcing the enemy out of cellars and light-frame buildings, and is the most effective mortar round against dug-in enemy tanks. Even near misses blind and suppress the tank crew, forcing them to button up."



auHobbes37 -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/14/2008 10:48:20 PM)

What is your difficulty setting?

If it is Impossible, that could be your answer.

I play DCG on impossible setting, but adjust the Advantage to normal.



Borst50 -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 1:09:24 AM)

I empathise with you....but if you think its bad now...wait until your tigers get shredded....that one really hurts. This happens to me all the time, and I firmly believe artillery fire is way way too powerful against tanks!



marcbarker -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 1:15:28 AM)

So do I, Take a MAUS and let it get hit with 4 salvos of 105's see how many survie and try it with 81mm mortars...life is grand



dgk196 -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 6:23:49 AM)

Okay, I'll 'byte'.............

A 'friendly' challenge, if you will.........

How many 'real world' Tiger and Panthers where lost to 'small' mortar attacks?

Bet its happened more times in your examples than it ever did in reality!

If I'm wrong, okay! Prove it! I'll apologize here!

Dennis [;)]



willy g -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 12:15:31 PM)

okay, I just played a DCG game for testing purposes, as Germany against Poland, regiment size, advantage set all the way for the Axis, and by turn 10, had lost 11 SP of tanks, half of which were Pz III and IVs, which is ridiculous given that I was moving my tanks each turn as to avoid the Arty. It seems sometimes that the AI just tells its artillery, "shoot wherever you feel like. I am starting to agree that the effectiveness against tanks is way to good for artillery's standards, however, I have not been able to find any documentation with any quantitative data about tanks lost to artillery fire.



marcbarker -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 12:25:21 PM)

Now try indirect fire on their artillery...point blank with Pz IV vs. USSR 122 kept firing 4 turns to destroy the unit. Yet I move the same Pz IV 4 hexes away and that same artillery price tears me a new one. I for one find it difficult to imagine a large artillery piece sighting a platoon of moving Pz IV's and then knocking out 3 of them. While that same tank platoon while 40 meters away standing still pumping round after round can't knock out 2 before round 3



simovitch -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 12:47:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willy g

...I am starting to agree that the effectiveness against tanks is way to good for artillery's standards, however, I have not been able to find any documentation with any quantitative data about tanks lost to artillery fire.

Bob McNamara, Producer and lead researcher for EFII dedicated 2 pages to the manual justifying his decision to minimize tank casualties from HE shell in CS. He displays a declassified document showing how causes of mechanical damage (tank is taken out of combat) from battle is distributed for different types of Allied tanks hit by different types of German shot.

The document showed that 3% of the casualties were from combined direct and indirect HE shot (so casualties from indirect alone were less than 3%.)

The study was taken in the last months of WWII which leads me to believe that the losses were heavily weighted toward AT guns and 'fausts. I would vote for slightly more frequent disabled results than EFII, but definitely less than what I'm hearing about in 1.03.



Jason Petho -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 3:50:03 PM)

It's interesting.

When I playtest these DCG's, I rarely lose vehicles to artillery (maybe once every couple scenarios).

I find I lose more vehicles due to the hidden AT guns; even then, that is limited.

Jason Petho



Huib -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 4:27:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch


quote:

ORIGINAL: willy g

...I am starting to agree that the effectiveness against tanks is way to good for artillery's standards, however, I have not been able to find any documentation with any quantitative data about tanks lost to artillery fire.

Bob McNamara, Producer and lead researcher for EFII dedicated 2 pages to the manual justifying his decision to minimize tank casualties from HE shell in CS. He displays a declassified document showing how causes of mechanical damage (tank is taken out of combat) from battle is distributed for different types of Allied tanks hit by different types of German shot.

The document showed that 3% of the casualties were from combined direct and indirect HE shot (so casualties from indirect alone were less than 3%.)

The study was taken in the last months of WWII which leads me to believe that the losses were heavily weighted toward AT guns and 'fausts. I would vote for slightly more frequent disabled results than EFII, but definitely less than what I'm hearing about in 1.03.


Would also be interesting to see that for German tanks and Allied artillery.
These were the figures I read when I made the scenarios around Hamich in Charles MacDonalds Siegfried Line Campaign page 424:

Though CCB had taken its four objectives in less than three days, the results would stand as a monument to the celerity with which an enemy endowed with advantages in observation and assisted by nature can seriously cripple an armored force. The armored infantry had incurred losses of about 50 percent. Of 64 medium tanks at the start of the attack, all but 22 had been eliminated. Including 7 light tanks, total tank losses were 49. Panzerfausts had claimed 6; mistaken U.S. bombing, I; artillery fire, 6; mine fields, 12; and antitank fire, 24. These did not look much like statistics of a breakthrough operation.

Huib



warhead2 -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 8:37:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196

Okay, I'll 'byte'.............

A 'friendly' challenge, if you will.........

How many 'real world' Tiger and Panthers where lost to 'small' mortar attacks?

Bet its happened more times in your examples than it ever did in reality!

If I'm wrong, okay! Prove it! I'll apologize here!

Dennis [;)]


correct.statistically this shouldn't be happening. in the previous engine there was a very small %(~1%) chance of an AFV suffering a disabled result that eliminated one vehicle



warhead2 -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 8:39:46 PM)

I agree
quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch


quote:

ORIGINAL: willy g

...I am starting to agree that the effectiveness against tanks is way to good for artillery's standards, however, I have not been able to find any documentation with any quantitative data about tanks lost to artillery fire.

Bob McNamara, Producer and lead researcher for EFII dedicated 2 pages to the manual justifying his decision to minimize tank casualties from HE shell in CS. He displays a declassified document showing how causes of mechanical damage (tank is taken out of combat) from battle is distributed for different types of Allied tanks hit by different types of German shot.

The document showed that 3% of the casualties were from combined direct and indirect HE shot (so casualties from indirect alone were less than 3%.)

The study was taken in the last months of WWII which leads me to believe that the losses were heavily weighted toward AT guns and 'fausts. I would vote for slightly more frequent disabled results than EFII, but definitely less than what I'm hearing about in 1.03.

and I remember the debate
for the record I've been playing this game(s) since november 1997
and was active on the original discussion board dedicated to the game

I even have a campaign still in progress from 1997 that a commenced after the 4th patch to EF
I think I'm in august 1944
I back up the files and reload if I get a campaign ending programming glitch



MrRoadrunner -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 8:55:47 PM)

So, the original game was 1 or 1.5%?
The "statistics" from the war show roughly 3%?
The new rules are 4 or 5% depending who you talk to?
Huib's show 11% of all losses, are from indirect fire, in that specific action? (That is if I did my math correctly). Which factored in to total war losses it could be one of the more serious actions where heavier losses occurred?

I guess the middle ground could be the 3% number?

Ed




Jason Petho -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 9:05:52 PM)

Some interesting statistic from the Dupuy Institiute: International TNDM Newsletter, Volume 1, Number 6, Page 28.

Percentage Loss by Type and Cause (Excluding breakdowns)
Soviet 1st Tank Army, Kursk (July 4 - 18, 1943)


quote:

Type...............Lost....Artillery.....Air.....AP Shot....Other...Unknown
T-34.....................451.........14.9.......1.8........8..3...........0..........0
T-70.....................73.........20.5.......2.7........76.7............0.........0
T-60.....................4............0..........0..........100.............0.........0
KV-1 & KV-2..........7.........14.3.......14.3........71.4.........0.........0
Grant.....................22.........4.5.......0..........95.5..........0........0
Stuart.....................9...........0.........0..........100..........0.........0


Jason Petho



Jason Petho -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 9:25:32 PM)

Additional data from the same report: Dupuy Institiute: International TNDM Newsletter, Volume 1, Number 6, Page 29.

Percentage Loss by Cause (Excluding breakdowns and Abandoned)


quote:

Type.......................Lost.......Artillery........Air.......AP Shot......Other...Unknown
Kursk.........................566.........14.8%.........1.9........83.2...........0..........0
Normandy I.................97...........9.3%.........10.3........54.6.........10.3......15.5
Normandy II.................51............7.8%........19.6........45.1...........2.......25.5
Falaise Pocket...............75...........11.8%.......47.4........14.5.........3.9.........22.4
Ardennes.....................62...........12.9%.......9.7..........58.1..........3.2........15.1
Krinkelt.......................77...........10.4%.........0..........57.1..........32.5.........0
Dom Butegenback........51............5.9%.........0..........68.6..........11.8.........13.7


Jason Petho



Borst50 -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/15/2008 11:49:24 PM)

and while all these statistics are interesting, to me it is purely academic. The problem as it is now...is that in DCG's the indirect artillery fire is far too powerful against the human player, while the AI player suffers virtually no losses in tanks to the human player. personally, I want to see the old rules re-established, better yet, the Talonsoft version for artillery fire vs tanks. As it is, a player could lose a third of the core tank battalion just to artillery fire alone. No matter how you slice it, it's not working. so I am hoping something can be done about this.



Jason Petho -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/16/2008 12:03:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Borst50

and while all these statistics are interesting, to me it is purely academic. The problem as it is now...is that in DCG's the indirect artillery fire is far too powerful against the human player, while the AI player suffers virtually no losses in tanks to the human player. personally, I want to see the old rules re-established, better yet, the Talonsoft version for artillery fire vs tanks. As it is, a player could lose a third of the core tank battalion just to artillery fire alone. No matter how you slice it, it's not working. so I am hoping something can be done about this.


If you play the campaign with no advantage set either way, does it do the same thing?

I am having a problem replicating the issue so far.

Jason Petho



Huib -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/16/2008 12:04:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

So, the original game was 1 or 1.5%?
The "statistics" from the war show roughly 3%?
The new rules are 4 or 5% depending who you talk to?
Huib's show 11% of all losses, are from indirect fire, in that specific action? (That is if I did my math correctly). Which factored in to total war losses it could be one of the more serious actions where heavier losses occurred?

I guess the middle ground could be the 3% number?

Ed




My statistics were from a specific action where US armor took heavy losses, but the Allies lost a lot of tanks nearly all the time and could afford it. It's one of the occasions where German artillery appears to be succesful against Allied armor. Most accounts that I've read were about US artillery breaking up a German armored formation though.
I would think that in the game it is much easier to plot your artillery on top of armor than it would be in real life. The trick is to put in that amount artillery (or ammo) in the scenarios, to get somewhat historical casualty figures. If you get that for the rest of the units then the armor losses from arty are probably about right too. If you put in all the artillery that was sometimes available and set your ammo level on 90 or something you get too many casualties, simply because directing accurate fire in much easier in the game than it was in reality. That's why it would be nice if not all units could spot for all artillery. Kind of like in HPS PzC where only subordinated units can spot. All that I'm saying applies to scenarios ofcourse... I'm completely unfamiliar with DCGs.

/H



marcbarker -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/16/2008 12:04:46 AM)

I agree Borst....when a mortar knocks out heavy armor from 3 different platoons that is a bit much....but again this is a game and I still have fun with it regardless of the losses



Borst50 -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/16/2008 12:54:22 AM)

Yes...as a test...my settings for DCG's are easy, with no advantage. and it is the same thing no matter what nationality I play. I have lost Russian IS IIm's the same way I lose mark VIB's. Check my thread on Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire for the entire story.



Jason Petho -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/16/2008 1:11:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Borst50

Yes...as a test...my settings for DCG's are easy, with no advantage. and it is the same thing no matter what nationality I play. I have lost Russian IS IIm's the same way I lose mark VIB's. Check my thread on Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire for the entire story.


Which DCG are you playing, I will try the same one.

Jason Petho



Borst50 -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/16/2008 1:42:42 AM)

As German: Road to Germany (WF) Storm on the Reich (EF)
As Soviet: Budapest to Vienna (EF)

In addition; see Posts number's 1, 10, 15, 23, 26, 30, 33, 35, and 39 Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire for additional information



Jason Petho -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/16/2008 2:01:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Borst50

As German: Road to Germany (WF) Storm on the Reich (EF)
As Soviet: Budapest to Vienna (EF)

In addition; see Posts number's 1, 10, 15, 23, 26, 30, 33, 35, and 39 Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire for additional information


Playing Storm on the Reich (EF); normal settings, heavy panzer battalion.

Will report.

Jason Petho



Jason Petho -> RE: I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire (7/16/2008 2:39:15 AM)

First scenario, winter, meeting engagement, 21 turns

Finished all turns.

1 disabled Tiger to report from artillery and that was only when I left two Tiger platoons on a hill in LOS of everyone to have artillery plotted on it.

For four consecutive turns 10-12 artillery hits each turn with only 1 disable.

The remaining Tigers that were on the move were A-OK. With the exception of one, running into an ambush of ISU-152's

I will play more later.

Jason Petho



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.1875