Attenuation of HE fire (Full Version)

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



Message

LoneWulf63 -> Attenuation of HE fire (8/13/2013 12:04:26 PM)

Yes, I am back on the subject of the attenuation of HE fire, direct or indirect. I don't know about the rest of you, but in all the years that I have been playing war-games, I have never played a game or simulation where the effects of HE fire were attenuated due to range. At the moment I am playing a couple of PBEM scenarios and the effectiveness of our artillery barrages are somewhat comical, spelled frustrating. For instance, several times we have both caught soft targets (infantry, manned guns, soft vehicles) out in the open and subjected them to multiple 'on-target' barrages from indirect fire units. The best results have been either retreated or disrupted with the rare step reduction. Those units should have suffered much more in the way of step reductions. I am going to make the necessary mods to artillery units so that it is more effective and does what it is supposed to do against these soft targets running around in open terrain, and that is hurt them or kill them. No more running around in the open or having a hex stacked to the limit with these soft targets. It should make a player think twice about doing so if his or her opponent has artillery assets and are within range of those assets. If you feel the same, then this mod will be for you. If you don't, then it won't. Nuff said.



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/13/2013 1:24:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger
If you don't, then it won't. Nuff said.


I won't. Why change something that has worked in the game, for so long. Artillery was made more deadly when they changed it in the last version. And, most players cried to high heaven over it. [8|]

Changes that improve the game are fine. Changes that satisfy the desire of individuals over the game are less so.

Remember changes that effect the scenario will also effect results on a ladder in the clubs that do PBEM? If you are using more effective artillery fire, that others don't have, you will have an advantage that they won't?

"Nuff said."

RR



LoneWulf63 -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/13/2013 2:02:12 PM)

RR.

As I said, it is a player's choice to use this mod that I will be working or even download it. Artillery was made more deadly, from what I have read, against armored targets, but I am talking about soft targets. Why change something that has, in your words, "worked for this game, for so long."? Because in some instances, as I outlined above, it does not work. Four instance; you have four infantry platoons running around in a 250 meter clear hex that is hit effectively by a barrage from a large caliber artillery unit, or an entire battalion of those weapons, and little or nothing happens? That is just ridiculous IMHO, and it is only my opinion.

I agree, changes to improve the game are good but changes that make it a bit more realistic are also good. I do use my artillery assets very effectively and still the infantry keeps on coming.

As for ladders, I play to have fun. I am not much interested in being rated on any club ladder. I would never think of using such a mod against someone that did not have it. That would be cheating. I would also include a caveat with the mod that would advise those that use it that they should inform their opponent(s) of its existence and use.

I value your input as you are a very seasoned player. Thank you. Chris.



kool_kat -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/13/2013 5:51:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger

RR.

For instance; you have four infantry platoons running around in a 250 meter clear hex that is hit effectively by a barrage from a large caliber artillery unit, or an entire battalion of those weapons, and little or nothing happens? That is just ridiculous IMHO, and it is only my opinion.


Hey Chris: [8D]

I'm scratching my head over your statement? [&:]

I recently played a rather inexperienced player... who was maneuvering large groups (3-5 platoons together) in open terrain, and I was hitting his stacks with large caliber HE artillery. These stacks were suffering multiple step reductions, retreats, and disruptions - as one would expect. Rarely, did those platoon stacks "dodge" damage from artillery or direct fire too.

So, not sure why one would "increase" the effectiveness of artillery against stacked units in open terrain? [&:] IMO, it's working as intended.




navwarcol -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 2:09:52 AM)

Artillery should not have any reduction in "damage caused" out to its range, provided it is spotted, against soft targets when firing indirect fire. A volley of 105mm shells will do exactly the same damage against targets on the other side of a hill from the firing unit, as against the same targets at its maximum range. Am I to understand that in this game range affects the damage that it does??



kool_kat -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 11:32:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger

As for ladders, I play to have fun. I am not much interested in being rated on any club ladder.


Hey Chris: [8D]

Actually, over at the Blitz, IMO the majority of our players do play for fun! [:)]

Yes, you will find the occasional "cut throat" guy who is all about his ladder rating... but by and large... you will find players looking to have fun and enjoy themselves in gaming!

Also, the real club pluses at the Blitz are the friendships I have made over the years! I have been privileged to have been an active Blitz member since 2006 and have played and made friends with some of the best guys you'll ever want to meet!

I encourage you to check us out! We have a very active CS Forum! [:)]



LoneWulf63 -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 11:40:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest

quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger

RR.

For instance; you have four infantry platoons running around in a 250 meter clear hex that is hit effectively by a barrage from a large caliber artillery unit, or an entire battalion of those weapons, and little or nothing happens? That is just ridiculous IMHO, and it is only my opinion.


Hey Chris: [8D]

I'm scratching my head over your statement? [&:]

I am currently playing a rather inexperienced player... who is maneuvering large groups (3-5 platoons together) in open terrain, and I'm hitting his stacks with large caliber HE artillery. These stacks are suffering multiple step reductions, retreats, and disruptions - as one would expect. Rarely, do these platoon stacks "dodge" damage from artillery or direct fire too.

So, not sure why one would "increase" the effectiveness of artillery against stacked units in open terrain? [&:] IMO, it's working as intended.




What I am referring to is a soft target that is spotted in the open and is hit by a barrage of larger artillery at long to maximum range. I am not talking about the same soft unit or stack hit by artillery at close to medium range. In those instances, yes artillery does its job. HE rounds do not loose their effectiveness at any range as do the kinetic rounds fired by anti-armor capable units.

Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative about this matter. I am just pointing out that artillery fire could be represented a bit more realistically. What about this for a mod? It might be more tolerable for those reluctant to change. Divide the range of any artillery unit into five effectiveness zones; point blank, close, medium, long, maximum. Then divide the maximum HE value by five for each of the five zones.

Chris.



LoneWulf63 -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 11:46:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest


quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger

As for ladders, I play to have fun. I am not much interested in being rated on any club ladder.


Hey Chris: [8D]

Actually, over at the Blitz, IMO the majority of our players do play for fun! [:)]

Yes, you will find the occasional "cut throat" guy who is all about his ladder rating... but by and large... you will find players looking to have fun and enjoy themselves in gaming!

Also, the real club pluses at the Blitz are the friendships I have made over the years! I have been privileged to have been an active Blitz member since 2006 and have played and made friends with some of the best guys you'll ever want to meet!

I encourage you to check us out! We have a very active CS Forum! [:)]



Actually, I am a member of The Blitz (GreyWulf) although I haven't made too many posts there and I should.

I agree that the big plus of a game club is the ability to make good and long standing friendships with other gamers. As you know, I am working with KrazyKat on several Finnish vs. Soviet scenarios and he just released our first, the Svir' River power plant.

Thanks for the invite.

Chris.



kool_kat -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 12:04:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger

Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative about this matter. I am just pointing out that artillery fire could be represented a bit more realistically. What about this for a mod? It might be more tolerable for those reluctant to change. Divide the range of any artillery unit into five effectiveness zones; point blank, close, medium, long, maximum. Then divide the maximum HE value by five for each of the five zones.

Chris.


Hey Chris: [8D]

No worries. [:)]

I'm not trying to be argumentative either. [:)] You helped clarify your earlier statement.

I do know that in the CS artillery tables, there are both hard and soft target values, adjusted by range.

For example, the Russian PP obr. 27 76mm Infantry Gun has a hard target value = 6 at range 1 that decreases to a hard target value = 1 at range 30. Now, it also has a soft target value = 12 at range 1 that decreases to s soft target value = 6 at range 30.

So, based on the above example with the 76mm Infantry Gun, HE fire will be more effective against soft targets out to the gun's maximum range. I think some of the reasoning for decreases in strength at longer ranges is because of the possibility of wind drift?

In any case, IMHO, the original Talon Soft designers took into account both hard and soft targets and the effectiveness of HE fire on both types of targets out to the gun's maximum range.

Other thoughts - One area for improvement with artillery, and this point has been discussed at length here and at the Blitz, is to have separate ammunition supply levels for artillery.



LoneWulf63 -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 12:28:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest


quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger

Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative about this matter. I am just pointing out that artillery fire could be represented a bit more realistically. What about this for a mod? It might be more tolerable for those reluctant to change. Divide the range of any artillery unit into five effectiveness zones; point blank, close, medium, long, maximum. Then divide the maximum HE value by five for each of the five zones.

Chris.


Hey Chris: [8D]

No worries. [:)]

I'm not trying to be argumentative either. [:)] You helped clarify your earlier statement.

I do know that in the CS artillery tables, there are both hard and soft target values, adjusted by range.

For example, the Russian PP obr. 27 76mm Infantry Gun has a hard target value = 6 at range 1 that decreases to a hard target value = 1 at range 30. Now, it also has a soft target value = 12 at range 1 that decreases to s soft target value = 6 at range 30.

So, based on the above example with the 76mm Infantry Gun, HE fire will be more effective against soft targets out to the gun's maximum range. I think some of the reasoning for decreases in strength at longer ranges is because of the possibility of wind drift?

In any case, IMHO, the original Talon Soft designers took into account both hard and soft targets and the effectiveness of HE fire on both types of targets out to the gun's maximum range.

Other thoughts - One area for improvement with artillery, and this point has been discussed at length here and at the Blitz, is to have separate ammunition supply levels for artillery.


Nor I and I am glad you understand my POV. I also recant my earlier idea of splitting up the range of a particular unit into effectiveness zones. It would make the artillery completely impotent.

Here is another example of another common German artillery unit, the leFH 18 105mm howitzer (unit number P01117). I am only listing the unit's HE values.

18 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 16 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 8 8

At its maximum range of 42 hexes (10.5 Km) its HE value has lost more than half of its effectiveness. I could see it loosing maybe a quarter of its effectiveness, but half?

I have heard all sorts of reasons why the original designers of WF, EF II, and RS attenuated HE fire due to range, including the effects of wind (but what if it is a calm day?). Here is how I countered. If you were to drop a 2000 lb. bomb from a B-29 flying at 30,000 ft. and that bomb hit the target, would the bomb be any less effective when it hit the ground than when it left the bomb bay? Nope. Yes, I know that a bomb dropping is a lot different from a shell flying through the air. Now here is what I think the designers were trying to reflect with this range attenuation issue. As the rounds get further and further away from the firing unit, some of those rounds may loose their momentum and fall away from the barrage and not hit the target. However, I did a small calculation once (I think I posted it here), that if a German battery of 150 mm howitzers were to fire a six minute barrage at full ROF, that unit could effectively drop over 4 tons of HE on the target hex. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere in the vicinity of that barrage when it hit.



LoneWulf63 -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 12:33:55 PM)

Don't even get me started on improvements for artillery fire, too many and I am sure that they could not be implemented in the current game or any patch. Just too complicated at this level of warfare.



kool_kat -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 1:00:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger
Here is another example of another common German artillery unit, the leFH 18 105mm howitzer (unit number P01117). I am only listing the unit's HE values.

18 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 16 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 8 8

At its maximum range of 42 hexes (10.5 Km) its HE value has lost more than half of its effectiveness. I could see it loosing maybe a quarter of its effectiveness, but half?



Hey Chris: [8D]

I'm not an artillery or ballistics expert. However, there had to be some kind of reasoning and factoring of different variables behind the CS artillery tables decreasing HE values by range? [&:]

Some variables that come to mind: Nation's artillery doctrines. Use of forward observers. Quality of optical and range view finding equipment. Weather conditions (especially wind, but also rain, snow, haze and other factors like humidity, etc). Use of rolling barrages. Maximum sustained fire versus a more measured barrage. Rifled barrels versus smooth bore. Shell types and quality. Artillery crew experience. Other variables? [&:]




LoneWulf63 -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 1:12:04 PM)

Definitely a complicated affair. I am sure to get a barrage (pun intended) of negative feedback on the statement that I am about to make. IMHO, I feel that the JTCS system (albeit one of the best games ever made) is an intermediate level war-game and I feel that that is how it was meant to be. If it were made to cover all the aspects of 20th century combat, it would be far too much for a novice player to consume, and I am not questioning the intelligence of those new to the game. So that begs this question. Is a new and more advanced tactical level game system (engine) needed? Again, and as I always have said, I will be playing JTCS for many, many years to come. It is one of my all-time favorite war-games. Period.



kool_kat -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 1:36:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger

Definitely a complicated affair. I am sure to get a barrage (pun intended) of negative feedback on the statement that I am about to make. IMHO, I feel that the JTCS system (albeit one of the best games ever made) is an intermediate level war-game and I feel that that is how it was meant to be.


Hey Chris: [8D]

I agree 100%. JTCS is an "abstracted" treatment of platoon and company-sized WW2 tactical combat. I don't think you will get much disagreement with your statements.

Frankly, I'm ok with how JTCS "treats" WW2 tactical combat. As a player, I like the JTCS "abstractions" since I can quickly learn and understand the basics (movement, combat, assault, etc.) and focus more of my gaming on actual tactics and trying to "out think" my opponent. For me, that's the real "fun and enjoyment" of this game system.



LoneWulf63 -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 1:56:20 PM)

And I agree with you 100%. What drew me to WF, EF II, and RS was the fact that you can play it in 2D mode or in 3D mode (I was a big fan of miniature games back in the day). JTCS is one of the all-time best "beer & pretzel" games that was or has ever been published.



Crossroads -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 2:00:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mwest


quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger
Here is another example of another common German artillery unit, the leFH 18 105mm howitzer (unit number P01117). I am only listing the unit's HE values.

18 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 16 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 8 8

At its maximum range of 42 hexes (10.5 Km) its HE value has lost more than half of its effectiveness. I could see it loosing maybe a quarter of its effectiveness, but half?



Hey Chris: [8D]

I'm not an artillery or ballistics expert. However, there had to be some kind of reasoning and factoring of different variables behind the CS artillery tables decreasing HE values by range? [&:]

Some variables that come to mind: Nation's artillery doctrines. Use of forward observers. Quality of optical and range view finding equipment. Weather conditions (especially wind, but also rain, snow, haze and other factors like humidity, etc). Use of rolling barrages. Maximum sustained fire versus a more measured barrage. Rifled barrels versus smooth bore. Shell types and quality. Artillery crew experience. Other variables? [&:]




I am an artillery guy, albeit it's been a while since I've practiced my skills... like 25 years... I served in Navy artillery unit, so as an added bonus we practised against both land targets and moving targets ie. ships with regular artillery pieces. We also practised all these without modern aids, like radars and computers, with methods not much altered since WW II.

I have no idea what was the thinking behind the TS team's arty design. Since I've always treated JTCS as a game of the PB / PL fame and not a simulation I have not spent much time thinking what is realistic and what is not. Overall, I think they got it pretty much spot on.

My pet peeves? Two rounds per six minutes, possibly to different targets, always with the same effect. Now, throwing shells into one target without adjusting the bearings must be more effective right. Secondly, I don't much like the idea for '3 minute barrages' either. A rolling barrage is a different entity of course.

Two hex variation for unspotted indirect fire feels like a lot too. Suggesting missing a target by 500 meters is an insult to any artillery man right? Still, it feels like a proper punishment for not planning or securing the LOS to target hex, so I am not really complaining.

The loss of effectiveness at long range? I don't really get it either. With regards of wind, humidity etc weather effects, they woulf effect the whole barrage, as still all the shells would be similarly effected. Yet, with a long range there would be a bit more scatter. Is it modeled too heavily? Probably, but again for game purposes I am not complaining as it forces the player to move his artillery park together with his infantry assets.

Different supply source for arty is more of a scenario design aid, as artillery tends to be too effective in the game. I would like that.

So, if I would get my three wishes, here they are, in no particular order:

- Different supply for artillery, for scenario design purposes.
- One artillery round per turn instead of two.
- Firing sectors for heavier pieces, say from 90mm upwards. Changing the sector would exhaust the APs. Exceptions for 25 pdrs etc.

All these changes would qualify under a new Extreme Artillery optional rule :)




MrRoadrunner -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 2:09:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger
So that begs this question. Is a new and more advanced tactical level game system (engine) needed? Again, and as I always have said, I will be playing JTCS for many, many years to come. It is one of my all-time favorite war-games.


I will go back to an old statement I made. Avalon Hill ruined Squad Leader for me when they kept "improving" things to make the game more "realistic".
They took an easy to learn and fun to play game and made it a complicated monster. Players spent so much time in the rule books and arguing over minor things that the game became fun for the few.

I then used all the map boards for a WWI flying game, called Wings. Never did play Squad Leader again. The counters and rule books all hit the trash.

I hope this is not what the "team" wants?
The "community" of players is already fractured enough from earlier "improvements" that effected the game in a fundamental way.

And, besides shells not being effective at range, the bombardment does not last into the friendly turn. It should? Should it not?
Some simplification needs to stay in effect. IMO.

RR



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 2:18:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger
If you were to drop a 2000 lb. bomb from a B-29 flying at 30,000 ft. and that bomb hit the target, would the bomb be any less effective when it hit the ground than when it left the bomb bay? Nope. Yes, I know that a bomb dropping is a lot different from a shell flying through the air.


Actually distance/altitude does effect the concentration of the "stick" of bombs when they fall. That was the whole reason behind "smart bombs". And, until recently guns firing a barrage did not have their shells land all in the same place. Even a battery was not that effective. Smart shells and smart artillery weapons are changing that.

A bullet fired from a smooth bore musket will kill as well as one from a rifled modern gun. "If it hits it target." So yes, you are correct in that.

It is hitting the target or massing in the effected area, that is the key? That simply did not happen during the time period of JTCS.

RR



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 2:21:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crossroads
So, if I would get my three wishes, here they are, in no particular order:

- Different supply for artillery, for scenario design purposes.
- One artillery round per turn instead of two.
- Firing sectors for heavier pieces, say from 90mm upwards. Changing the sector would exhaust the APs. Exceptions for 25 pdrs etc.

All these changes would qualify under a new Extreme Artillery optional rule :)


[X(] Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! [sm=fighting0083.gif]

RR



LoneWulf63 -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 2:27:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger
So that begs this question. Is a new and more advanced tactical level game system (engine) needed? Again, and as I always have said, I will be playing JTCS for many, many years to come. It is one of my all-time favorite war-games.


I will go back to an old statement I made. Avalon Hill ruined Squad Leader for me when they kept "improving" things to make the game more "realistic".
They took an easy to learn and fun to play game and made it a complicated monster. Players spent so much time in the rule books and arguing over minor things that the game became fun for the few.

I then used all the map boards for a WWI flying game, called Wings. Never did play Squad Leader again. The counters and rule books all hit the trash.

I hope this is not what the "team" wants?
The "community" of players is already fractured enough from earlier "improvements" that effected the game in a fundamental way.

And, besides shells not being effective at range, the bombardment does not last into the friendly turn. It should? Should it not?
Some simplification needs to stay in effect. IMO.

RR


RR. I could not agree more with you when it comes to the original SL vs. ASL. I was a playtester for some of the expansions for the original SL (Cross of Iron and Crescendo of Doom), both of which made the game almost unplayable. Besides, Don Greenwood was a prime example of a jack-ass. Very hard man to get along with. As for ASL, I didn't throw it in the trash but I did sell all that I had to some guy out west.

I am not talking about remaking the JTCS game, but rather a new platoon level game that has a few more advanced features but not over-the-top like AH did with ASL. Maybe something along the lines of GDW's Command Decision. Probably one of the all-time best platoon-level game rules for miniatures. That I still have a copy of it and Combined Arms, plus numerous newsletters (The Command Post).

Chris.



LoneWulf63 -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 2:31:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger
If you were to drop a 2000 lb. bomb from a B-29 flying at 30,000 ft. and that bomb hit the target, would the bomb be any less effective when it hit the ground than when it left the bomb bay? Nope. Yes, I know that a bomb dropping is a lot different from a shell flying through the air.


Actually distance/altitude does effect the concentration of the "stick" of bombs when they fall. That was the whole reason behind "smart bombs". And, until recently guns firing a barrage did not have their shells land all in the same place. Even a battery was not that effective. Smart shells and smart artillery weapons are changing that.

A bullet fired from a smooth bore musket will kill as well as one from a rifled modern gun. "If it hits it target." So yes, you are correct in that.

It is hitting the target or massing in the effected area, that is the key? That simply did not happen during the time period of JTCS.

RR


Correct. Even the BOMB didn't hit its target mark. I was just saying that if a 2000 pound bomb did hit its intended target that it would have the same explosive power that it had when it was in the bomb-bay. CB



Crossroads -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 2:31:45 PM)

[8D]



kool_kat -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 2:53:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: resinslinger

JTCS is one of the all-time best "beer & pretzel" games that was or has ever been published.




Maybe the all-time "imported beer and pretzels with hot mustard" games ever published? [;)]

But, I think of "beer & pretzel" games to be more on the order of a game like Panzer General... and less so JTCS.



junk2drive -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 3:14:02 PM)

My take on this game abstraction, just because the on screen visual is a strike on a hex, that doesn't mean that the rounds fell in that hex. When the visual is outside the target hex, but in another hex that contains units, do you see better or worse effects? The limitations of computer game coding in the 90s had the designers fudging things with the lower numbers at distance regardless of the visual on your screen. Don't forget all the other rules that effect the numbers that cause damage or not.

My arty never does anything, enemy arty devastates.



LoneWulf63 -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 3:39:46 PM)

When I see an artillery barrage hit a hex that was not targeted, I have seen the results being somewhat reduced than if the rounds had hit the intended target hex. I also forgot, that each player's turn is three minutes, not six. I understand the limitations of what was available to the game designer's back in the 90s as opposed to today. However, I feel that a new game based on platoon-level actions is in order and not necessarily more advanced but less abstract. If such a game were to be designed, I would hope that the designers would also keep the graphics within the reach of every person playing it, not just those with mega-buck Nvidia graphics cards. With my current laptop, I can't even touch games like those in the ArmA series and I just tried the demo for CMFI and the graphics for it were less than desirable. RR put it eloquently by saying that game should be made for the many, not the few. CB.



LoneWulf63 -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 3:43:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

My take on this game abstraction, just because the on screen visual is a strike on a hex, that doesn't mean that the rounds fell in that hex. When the visual is outside the target hex, but in another hex that contains units, do you see better or worse effects? The limitations of computer game coding in the 90s had the designers fudging things with the lower numbers at distance regardless of the visual on your screen. Don't forget all the other rules that effect the numbers that cause damage or not.

My arty never does anything, enemy arty devastates.


Yes, but the HE values can be modified if one wishes to. Warhorse and Jason have been a big help teaching me how to make such mods. Have you ever wondered what the indirect fire number in a unit line in the platoon.oobs represents? I do now, thanks to Warhorse. CB



LoneWulf63 -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 3:44:48 PM)

Whew....did I open a can of worms or what?



MrRoadrunner -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 4:13:25 PM)

Anything that can bring about spirited discussion is not a "can of worms".
If one person "thinks down the hallway of their thought" they will not see the rooms or other hallways on either side of them?
Sometimes we are reminded to remove our blinders. At other times they could be ripped off. [;)]
Neither has happened here ... yet. [8|]

RR



LoneWulf63 -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/14/2013 5:33:41 PM)

RR. You sir, are a very astute man. Even though we may disagree on this issue, I value your input, as I do most from the other players. CB.



junk2drive -> RE: Attenuation of HE fire (8/15/2013 1:59:30 AM)

I have no problem with things being looked at in the games and tweaking if needed. I am stumped sometimes when things don't work as I expect.

You are free to put a nuke in the game for your own use vs the AI for all I care. Just don't complain when your changes are used by the enemy and they get results better than you think they should.

I don't foresee Matrix making a new platoon level game as you describe. Maybe JT's Panzer Battles will be it.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875