|
Panzer Leo -> Re: Artillery R.O.F. (1/16/2003 6:57:28 PM)
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt. Pixel
[B]I would like to see the artillery ROF reduced back to the 7.1 values.
The ammo reload capability was severely modified by this change. I understand that this was an effort to reduce the overwhelming effect of artillery in the game, but other methods could be used to compensate for the supposed imbalance. Reducing initial ammo loadouts night be one way to solve the problem. Alternatively, reducing the ROF to slightly less than the 7.1 values might also help.
Someone also suggested that Artillery Effectivity be reduced to ~60%, but I haven't see the results of that suggestion yet.
Another item I'd like considered is the US .50 cal HMG. This weapon, IMHO, provides the US forces with an unfair advantage. Having a HMG with penetration capability, that fires everytime the main gun fires, just give the US forces too much advantage. The same could be said for the SO 12.7 HMG.
It's one of the reasons that I don't care to play with or against US forces. :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
The artillery will stay as is in H2H. A reduction of effectivity results in poor performence and leaves the arty pretty toothless...and unrealistic. To reduce ammo loads and the ROF isn't an option aswell...it would increase the use of onboard pieces over offboard because of the ability to reload them...due to the low ROF less ammo carriers will be needed...
It is the first time I hear someone asking to take away the only usefull weapon from the US, the .50 cal :D
Before tons of comments fly in here...it was a joke, the US had at least two or three usefull pieces of equipement ;)
I think I modeled the .50 cal pretty realistic and as this is the main criteria for H2H, I see no reason to take it away...except for making some folks very angry ;)
AmmoSgt pointed out, that the whole movement thing is actually something pretty complex in reality, modeled in the game by a more or less simple and classic movement points system...
Next to the limits this simple system sets, one should also consider, that like many other combat results the turn base forces us to abstract a lot of things...
A tank driving at full speed and firing at the end is NOT firing while moving !
It is simply a tank stopping at the end of a high speed run, aquiring target and shooting at it while not moving an inch.
There were tanks, that were faster then others in doing this, because of a good suspension, making a tank stop without much shaking, fast turrets to bring the gun in position and guns easier to stabilize then others, combined with a crew able to do that faster then others...
A Pz III in '41 meets almost every point mentioned and is excellent at this, a T-34 in '41 has problems with the one or other and is pretty poor in this discipline...
WWII tanks were not able to engage targets of the size of an armored vehicle while on the move at any realistic combat range...
If SPWW2 does not allow movement and firing shots after that, it models the turn less abstract, but IMHO also less realistic...a turn is a fluid time period were multiple statuses must be allowed for a vehicle, or other unit type.
That means, it must be possible to move, stop and fire and move again...why should the shots on the stop be so much less accurate compared to stationary shots (less accurate yes, but reasonable and not an almost exclusion of hitting).
The same with infantry assaults after moving in a HT or Jeep...if you moved that close to the tank, there must be two things given, to let that happen:
1. the tank was in whatever way suppressed, as it didn't shot the transport or disembarking troops
2. it was not covered by friendly and unsuppressed troops
I know it looks a bit odd in the VCR replay, if a HT just drives by and your tank explodes, but is it really that unrealistic ?
What is so difficult for a Jeep to approach a tank, that is buttoned down, has to deal with a StuG firing at it next to 20 men making a lot of noise in your tank with small arms hits ? A Bazooka troop drives by, using some cover or is simply very quick, jumps out, takes aim and done !
Why should it almost be impossible to get off a Jeep and engage a target ? What's the difference between sitting in a hole and firing or being a passenger, halting and take a shot ? Not much I think and the amount it matters, should be modeled in the game.
It's the same multiple statuses I mentioned before...
Whether this is realistic or not is a point of view...maybe it can be modeled better, but I have troubles to find how...the reduction of speed seems to be no answer...the assaults stay the same, just a bit less frequent, because you cannot take everything on the map to reach your target...but that's all...C&C on helps a bit again, as often you have to redirect tranports to conduct these assaults, making you pay orders...also the high amount of OPFire counters these attacks...
The main aspects of movement as it is:
- No vehicle is any close to it's max performence in a period of 2-5 min, therefore has time left
- every unit in the game is considered to be able to engage a target after other tasks done in a turn (loading, moving, whatever)
I think if we look at the turn and the movement this way, it doesn't look that unrealistic anymore...
One change in the patch for H2H might help a bit on the assault issue...searching is much harder...it is very tough to really notice every enemy unit around, sometimes even if close by...this will cause much more casualties for the careless speed rushers...the invisible guy covering your tank is the best insurance against HT close assault I can offer...everything else has too much negative effects and reduces realism on other corners...
|
|
|
|
