(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

frank1970 -> (12/12/2000 6:55:00 PM)

That is the point: In SPWAW you would mostly use a bataillon size force, not a whole regiment or division. A division would have about 48 artillery (12 batteries or 3 Bn), when German or 54(?) when US. When someone uses a company as on map force and about 10 bn artillery it is really a little unrealistic! [This message has been edited by Frank (edited December 12, 2000).]



Paul Vebber -> (12/13/2000 12:16:00 AM)

It is also important to understand the role of the artillery. The battalion commander would only have direct control over a small fraction of the assigned artillery for use in the manner the game portrays. THe vast majority was used en mass at the point of contact in a pre-planned fashion. THe game does not distinguish between attached assets under direct commnad of the Combat Command/Kampfgruppe/Operational Maneuver Group, and assets firing in support, but not under direct control. (one can simulate this somewhat by leaving some artillery assets under computer control) The doctrine for direct control of artillery in close support as the game portays was a rather late war development in any case, and even as late as the Rhine crossing, massed preparatory barrages were still common. THere is a fine line between artillery use to achieve operational level goals (ie shaping the battlespace to your favor, or in the best case disrupting an enemy attack or defense so a direct engagement is avoided) and its tactical employment in direct support of a company or battalion sized force. The distinction is very much blurred in the game and is the root of much confusion. Fixing the problem requires a new game engine...for now its best to think of artillery as that rather smaller amount (generally a battery per battalion, maybe a full Battalion in the attack) that the units has directly attached, not the Corps or Army level assets that could be supporting the support, but over which the commander in the field has relatively little control over.



JTGEN -> (12/19/2000 1:13:00 AM)

Thinking the troops as simply a battallion and the forces available on that ground is pretty rigid. I see them as a part of a bigger force. Then the battles are always taking place in the center of the goals, having the important crossroads. In reality who would split the assets of say division rigidly evenly to all its battalions. The artillery would be used were it is needed and not in the backland where the objectives are not. Also the range of artillery is long enough to assist troops needing it from other units. If there would be a map with for example only forest on it with some streams, then the reality would be little anything else but infartry. A piece from reality. If I remember right in 44 russias attacked a 3rd regiment holding ground between 2 finnish divisions. Knowing that this is where they should attack the artillery of those divisions was placed so that it could support also that regiment when needed as well as their own area(This is based wholy on memory and do not have literature to back me up). On the other hand I suppose Finnish artillery use was a lot more sophisticated than for example the russian one but the game engine can not handle that I believe.



victorhauser -> (12/19/2000 2:52:00 AM)

From what I can tell in this thread, the main complaint against artillery is that in PBEM and Online games players are buying "excessive" numbers of big guns because they are perceived as underpriced for the killing power obtained. It has been my personal life experience that people will take advantage of every "loophole" or "bargain" they can get away with. Whether this is universal human nature I don't know, but I've seen it all my life. However, I've also observed that people will go to extreme lengths to avoid being "overcharged". Currently, it appears to me that many (most?) players seem to believe that heavy artillery is a bargain and are buying it in large quantities because of that perception. My solution is to change players' perceptions if we can't change the game engine or pricing structure. And the way to do this is very very simple. Simply agree beforehand when playing PBEM or Online to set artillery effectiveness to 90% against both soft and hard targets. I am willing to bet that this very minor adjustment will have an immediate effect on players' perceptions. What was once seen as a bargain will no longer be seen as such. Hence, artillery will be less numerous on the battlefield. Try it and see. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Remember. If we can't change the pricing structure or the game engine, the easiest way to change the way players buy their forces is to change their perceptions of what they see as bargain-valued units.



Charles22 -> (12/19/2000 4:31:00 AM)

Good idea victor. OTOH perhaps some sort of nanny can be made for this or any subsequent games, where the users type in a maximum allowed for various units, such a artillery in this case, where the non-violator will be told of the exact nature of the other person's indiscretion during and before the game, and the non-violator will then be presented with the option of forcing forfeiture by the violator, at any stage of the game.



Paul Vebber -> (12/19/2000 4:41:00 AM)

The enemy forces are displayed at the end of the game, if one player breaks a predetermined limit, it will be obvious at the end. One solution that worked well was to have one side propose a general force structure, then the other player counter-propose the force he thought would be needed to accomplish the mission, then the original player chose which force he wanted. The end game screen would verify the forces bought were legit. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited December 18, 2000).]



Charles22 -> (12/19/2000 5:17:00 AM)

Forgot about that Paul, but the nanny idea has a good bit of poetic justice to it, don't you think?



Paul Vebber -> (12/19/2000 8:11:00 AM)

Especially if she has a skimpy little uniform and says ..."You have been a bad Colonel, Bad bad bad...now come here and I'll... Ooops wrong forum [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] BUt the last thing I have to do before I send the OOBs to David is run them through "spreadsheet from hell" and rescale the arty units so 155s are the largest arty you can buy (all others will be relegated for scenario use) that should help fix the arty cost problem. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited December 18, 2000).]



Charles22 -> (12/19/2000 8:59:00 AM)

Sounds good, at least the Gustav gun won't be making any appearances.



Kharan -> (12/19/2000 9:50:00 AM)

Does that mean all artillery costs will be recalculated to the 255 p scale? That could be bad for 75mm batteries which really don't give you bang for the buck as it is. Here's how I think it should be: ~75mm bty... 80 points ~105mm bty... 150 points ~150mm bty... 210 points Is it a big deal to also change the counter-battery effect to make the receiving battery to rout for 5-6 turns instead of 2-3? I know it shouldn't be a SPWAW commander's business to worry about counter-battery fire, but as it is, it might as well not be there [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img].



victorhauser -> (12/19/2000 10:25:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: [B]But the last thing I have to do before I send the OOBs to David is run them through "spreadsheet from hell" and rescale the arty units so 155s are the largest arty you can buy (all others will be relegated for scenario use) that should help fix the arty cost problem. B]
Thank you, Paul. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] P.S. What I want for Christmas, Santa, is a better turret for my IS-3s. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] [This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited December 18, 2000).]



Paul Vebber -> (12/19/2000 11:01:00 AM)

Unfortunately I ran into some problems with the spreadsheet from hell...no artillery changes this time. I don't want to make matters worse by rushing a supposed fix at the last minute...



Paul Vebber -> (12/19/2000 11:18:00 AM)

I did look at that...here is what I changed it to: FT 135@40 the rather flat mantle like the Tiger - I ave it an extra inch over teh mantle for overlap ST 160@45 I'll give you the benefit fo the doubt here with an "average" RT 120@40 Giving back a little here for the lack of horizontal curvature Sound better? Merry Christmas...



Cyberbump -> (12/19/2000 8:12:00 PM)

Regarding artillery, I don't think that it is used too much, but the usage is wrong, due to short response times, we can give very close support that in real life, was limited to mortars. Is it possible to change response times for arty based on country specs? then it would be possible to force players in more realistic artilery usage (sov. very bad response times, us best response times, but still 2 turns?) Also, we might want to change the out of contact statement for something like engaged so planes and arty might be busy elsewhere, not just refusing to pick up the phone Patrick



JTGEN -> (12/21/2000 11:53:00 PM)

Where did you get the idea of having the lowest responce time for US, not from any historical facts I believe. Probably not quite true but someone said to me in the army that modern US artillery is now where Finnish artillery was in WW 2.



Paul Vebber -> (12/22/2000 12:24:00 AM)

Unfortunatley there is much we would like to change about the way artillery works, but it proved to be a task we felt would cause more problems than it solved. Better artillery routines will have to wait for a new game.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875