RE: The magic of separate artillery (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> The War Room



Message

Curtis Lemay -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/9/2021 4:51:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You totally missed option 3. Selective reading?

quote:

Proposed treats artillery the same regardless of unit it is in.


Didn't miss that.

Regardless, so we are to expend a huge amount of our precious coding capitol to...get the exact same abilities we now have. Designers already have the ability to direct how artillery are to be used via unit icons.



golden delicious -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/9/2021 5:24:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Calibre has everything to do with disentrenchment.


You're off on your own here.

The tests were all about Retreat From Combat. In the very first post, I note that all the units were in a mobile status. You're talking about "disentrenchment" but that's not the question at issue here.



Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/9/2021 7:06:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You totally missed option 3. Selective reading?

quote:

Proposed treats artillery the same regardless of unit it is in.


Didn't miss that.

Regardless, so we are to expend a huge amount of our precious coding capitol to...get the exact same abilities we now have. Designers already have the ability to direct how artillery are to be used via unit icons.


You're right. Instead waste it on something subjective like how good or bad a leader is. [:D]



Curtis Lemay -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/9/2021 7:14:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Calibre has everything to do with disentrenchment.


You're off on your own here.

The tests were all about Retreat From Combat. In the very first post, I note that all the units were in a mobile status. You're talking about "disentrenchment" but that's not the question at issue here.

Oh! Heaven forbid that anyone stray from your original issue!



Curtis Lemay -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/9/2021 7:15:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

You totally missed option 3. Selective reading?

quote:

Proposed treats artillery the same regardless of unit it is in.


Didn't miss that.

Regardless, so we are to expend a huge amount of our precious coding capitol to...get the exact same abilities we now have. Designers already have the ability to direct how artillery are to be used via unit icons.


You're right. Instead waste it on something subjective like how good or bad a leader is. [:D]

Leaders are a brand new feature that currently can only be dreamed about. Not so how artillery is used.



Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/9/2021 10:30:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Not much more than I can say. You'll just insist how you are right and everyone else is wrong. That's your legacy.


This above is a bit harsh and I apologize.

Matters not that leaders are new. Many things are new. It's the old things that are uncovered and persist that are the issue. In any event, no need to discuss it further. You have no interest in changing the way artillery works in non artillery/HQ units. End of story.

BTW, since we all know you are the only person working on this due to Ralphs problems shouldn't you seek out some help? As you implied, coding time is not unlimited.



FaneFlugt -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 12:21:19 AM)

Ehhhh... Interesting read.

So, if a gun above 150 mm is in a unit with an art symbol it is possible to "un"- entrench an enemy unit that is dug in.

If the 150 mm + gun is in an HQ or say inf. Unit it cannot. Am I reading your conclusions correct?



Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 2:54:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt

Ehhhh... Interesting read.

So, if a gun above 150 mm is in a unit with an art symbol it is possible to "un"- entrench an enemy unit that is dug in.

If the 150 mm + gun is in an HQ or say inf. Unit it cannot. Am I reading your conclusions correct?



That's right. The 150mm sIG33 regimental infantry gun, which was particularly good at demolishing trenches, fortifications and bunkers have to be separated out from the regiment to be able to be used in the way the were designed. So with each German regiment you either have to separate out the 2 150mm guns or take all of the divisions guns and lump them in with all the other divisional guns. Lose flexibility, forget history and TOE and do it the Bob way just so the guns work the way they were intended.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 6:56:41 AM)

If I understand the discussion [and I'm not at all sure that I do], the behavior is elegantly explained in the Manual:

Bombardments may knock a defender out of Defend, Entrenched or Fortified status.

Are we looking to expand on this? How do we word this revelation brought to us by the wise apple? Perhaps:

Artillery in Non-Ranged units is limited to Direct Fire only. Bombardment and Indirect fire is limited to Artillery contained in Ranged Icon units.



golden delicious -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 8:03:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

If I understand the discussion [and I'm not at all sure that I do], the behavior is elegantly explained in the Manual:

Bombardments may knock a defender out of Defend, Entrenched or Fortified status.


That's not the point that I was making in the first place; again, look at the original test results: the units were in mobile status, and I'm using low-calibre guns anyway. Even without any status to change, the artillery icon gives a greatly improved chance of causing a Retreat From Combat.



FaneFlugt -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 10:06:45 AM)

Double post.



FaneFlugt -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 10:07:57 AM)

Yes, but then the discussion got sidetracked. Both your point and the embedded/seperated artillery discussion are important.

I see both Lobsters and Curtis lemays points as equally valid. Both are right. But the problem they try to solve is maybe not that important if people are aware of the Mechanic.

I think some people missed that effect an icon can have. I did. And have wasted alot of shells for nothing. (Grrr)

Concerning the point Golden delicious is making. Does it imply that HQs with artillery are actually good front line units that should participate in assaults?





golden delicious -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 11:02:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt

Concerning the point Golden delicious is making. Does it imply that HQs with artillery are actually good front line units that should participate in assaults?


The fact they're adjacent to the defender is sort of immaterial; in the testbed scenario the guns only have a 1 hex range and that's why the unit is where it is. Definitely you should use HQs with artillery for assaults but they should only be as close to the action as dictated by their range.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 11:48:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

If I understand the discussion [and I'm not at all sure that I do], the behavior is elegantly explained in the Manual:

Bombardments may knock a defender out of Defend, Entrenched or Fortified status.


That's not the point that I was making in the first place; again, look at the original test results: the units were in mobile status, and I'm using low-calibre guns anyway. Even without any status to change, the artillery icon gives a greatly improved chance of causing a Retreat From Combat.

That's not the point, that was sarcasm. My point is how do we explain what you have discovered. As Post #72 points out, there is a Game Mechanic involved. As it isn't explained anywhere in 23 years, it is safe to assume that we are making our own definition for a fluke. So again, what is that definition? Is it:

Artillery in Non-Ranged units is limited to Direct Fire only. Bombardment and Indirect fire is limited to Artillery contained in Ranged Icon units.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 11:52:09 AM)

quote:

Definitely you should use HQs with artillery for assaults but they should only be as close to the action as dictated by their range.

However, Ranged Units will either Bombard or Attack depending on the Percentage of Unit Attack Strength attributed to Artillery. What do you make of that?



golden delicious -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 11:59:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

However, Ranged Units will either Bombard or Attack depending on the Percentage of Unit Attack Strength attributed to Artillery. What do you make of that?


Only if they're adjacent to the defender...

Anyway, this is really a design problem. One sees a lot of scenarios where all the corps troops are lumped into the HQ, so it's got some artillery, some engineers, some AA guns- maybe an AT detachment and even armoured vehicles in some cases. This makes the unit into sort of an elite assault unit, which isn't really the desired outcome at all. One would want to treat all these elements separately, as the engineers ought to be off repairing a bridge or digging trenches whilst the artillery is elsewhere providing fire support, and the AT may well be distributed among the subordinate units on the line.

Ideally, an artillery unit will contain little except the guns and perhaps AA. You might want to put some light rifle squads in it to reflect the ability of the personnel to defend themselves if the line is broken and they come under direct attack.



Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 12:50:32 PM)

You can indeed put every artillery piece in a separate unit. It would be a nightmare. All of a unit's organic artillery would be taken out. You would have to determine how much transport to remove, how many light machine guns, how many rifle squads, what they use for FO which in German units would mean armored cars. Personally I'd like to see artillery work the same regardless of what type of unit it's in. That's how the real world works. "Sorry General Patton we can't destroy that bunker because the 155mm Bunker Buster gun is assigned to an engineer unit." He would probably slap someone again. [sm=00000280.gif]

I guess you could say screw it, throw out the TOE and make up your own. That would solve everything. Which is what Bob fairly wants. Screw history, make up our own. The Operational Art of Hearts of Iron. [:D]

So, it will remain as is. End of story. [;)]



FaneFlugt -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 12:55:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt

Concerning the point Golden delicious is making. Does it imply that HQs with artillery are actually good front line units that should participate in assaults?


The fact they're adjacent to the defender is sort of immaterial; in the testbed scenario the guns only have a 1 hex range and that's why the unit is where it is. Definitely you should use HQs with artillery for assaults but they should only be as close to the action as dictated by their range.


Hmmm... Having an HQ behind the front and adding its artillery as "direct fire" to the hex that is being attacked? Isnt that a bit weird? How does that even work? If the HQ was commited to the attack itself I might accept the direct fire thinghy.. but not when the unit is behind the front.

Ill admit that as a old infantryman I am not an expert on artillery. But I would bet that shooting an artillery Shell directly is not that effective and very dangerous for the artillery.

Maybe the term directly dosent really signify "directly" ... ?!? If that makes sense.



Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 1:09:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt

Ill admit that as a old infantryman I am not an expert on artillery. But I would bet that shooting an artillery Shell directly is not that effective and very dangerous for the artillery.

Maybe the term directly dosent really signify "directly" ... ?!? If that makes sense.


Infantry guns are meant for close support like that. In the thick of things. Thus the huge shield, same as an AT gun. It would have infantry support too. So yeah, a 150mm gun a thousand meters or less away shooting at your bunker reducing it to a pile of rubble. The Germans even made a projectile designed specifically to do that very thing, Stielgranate 42.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stielgranate_42

Here, I found a picture. Something like this.


[image]local://upfiles/45799/5C2EDF30E2084F319064FD89A0758091.jpg[/image]



FaneFlugt -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 1:26:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt

Ill admit that as a old infantryman I am not an expert on artillery. But I would bet that shooting an artillery Shell directly is not that effective and very dangerous for the artillery.

Maybe the term directly dosent really signify "directly" ... ?!? If that makes sense.


Infantry guns are meant for close support like that. In the thick of things. Thus the huge shield, same as an AT gun. It would have infantry support too. So yeah, a 150mm gun a thousand meters or less away shooting at your bunker reducing it to a pile of rubble. The Germans even made a projectile designed specifically to do that very thing, Stielgranate 42.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stielgranate_42

Here, I found a picture. Something like this.


[image]local://upfiles/45799/5C2EDF30E2084F319064FD89A0758091.jpg[/image]



Yes ok, but that is one good example of a gun that is designer for direct support. what about regular artillery? I dont see how they could practically be firing away in and among the infantery.

If a scenario was Napoleonic I would accept direct fire from artillery, but in moderne scenarios I get a bit sceptical.



golden delicious -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 1:33:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt


Hmmm... Having an HQ behind the front and adding its artillery as "direct fire" to the hex that is being attacked? Isnt that a bit weird? How does that even work? If the HQ was commited to the attack itself I might accept the direct fire thinghy.. but not when the unit is behind the front.


The HQ icon acts as an artillery icon and so is perfectly effective at range.

quote:

Ill admit that as a old infantryman I am not an expert on artillery. But I would bet that shooting an artillery Shell directly is not that effective and very dangerous for the artillery.

Maybe the term directly dosent really signify "directly" ... ?!? If that makes sense.


Direct vs. Indirect fire just reflects two different ways TOAW deals with artillery fire in combat. If it's direct fire then as far as I can tell it's treated no differently than so many rifles or machine guns. If it's indirect then special rules come in to play, damage is dealt differently and there's a % chance of each defending unit reverting to a "mobile" status.



Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 1:54:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Direct vs. Indirect fire just reflects two different ways TOAW deals with artillery fire in combat. If it's direct fire then as far as I can tell it's treated no differently than so many rifles or machine guns. If it's indirect then special rules come in to play, damage is dealt differently and there's a % chance of each defending unit reverting to a "mobile" status.


Why is it different? Direct fire merely means the gun has a los to the target. It could be 5km away.



Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 2:21:01 PM)

The manual says zero about what type of unit an artillery equipment needs to be in to reduce fortifications. It simply states the size of the shell.

I am constantly amazed how so much effort can be put forth to make this game more closely resemble the real world and how much effort is made to keep this game from resembling the real world.



ericdauriac -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 2:43:12 PM)

Hello,

Sorry for my bad English, but your discussion is exciting. And I want to make two remarks:

- direct artillery suffers losses, not indirect artillery (except counter-battery).
- indirect artillery is ineffective against tanks.

Is that correct?

This last point seems awkward to me.

Regards



Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 2:57:08 PM)

In the modern battlefield indirect artillery is very good at anti tank work. In WW2 it depended on size of shell and luck.
203mm howitzer in direct fire support:


[image]local://upfiles/45799/C87B337874D649E8A5BD6DE30C00CEC3.gif[/image]



Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 3:19:45 PM)

All of this reminds me of when Paul Vebber at Leadeaters vehemently insisted the German 88 could not be used as an AT weapon without first being modified and then it took time to take it off it's carriage before it could be fired. That one got hot.

BTW, notice the guy with binoculars closest to the camera correcting fire.


[image]local://upfiles/45799/1A8A5D0A2AFE431080026B1A305A903A.gif[/image]



FaneFlugt -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 3:23:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Direct vs. Indirect fire just reflects two different ways TOAW deals with artillery fire in combat. If it's direct fire then as far as I can tell it's treated no differently than so many rifles or machine guns. If it's indirect then special rules come in to play, damage is dealt differently and there's a % chance of each defending unit reverting to a "mobile" status.


Why is it different? Direct fire merely means the gun has a los to the target. It could be 5km away.


Ok ok... deep breath... But! an artillery piece in a HQ can ONLY and I Stress ONLY ever fire directly. No matter the circumstances?

If so, then I think I agree with Lobster now. The shell size should apply and not the unit icon. It makes it more consistent and logical. The reason why I dont want to agree with Lobster is that means a ton of scenarios need to be redesigned.



Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 3:33:16 PM)

Long story short...kind of.

Golden Delicious discovered that artillery was more deadly if it was in a HQ or an artillery unit where it could fire indirectly. It was less deadly if it was in any other unit type. Post #1

Bob said indirect fire had something to do with shell weight being used to compute the results when the artillery fired indirectly. Direct fire probably not. Post #13

I had an issue with shells suddenly having no weight when fired directly vs indirectly. Like somehow the physical properties of the shell changed. Whether direct fire or indirect fire it's still the same weapon, the same shell, the same shell weight. It should not, as Golden Delicious said, "magically change" anything.



ericdauriac -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 4:44:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

In the modern battlefield indirect artillery is very good at anti tank work. In WW2 it depended on size of shell and luck.
203mm howitzer in direct fire support:




Ok But I speak for the artillery effect in TOAW. I found that artillery firing indirectly on tanks had no effect?



golden delicious -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 6:24:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Direct vs. Indirect fire just reflects two different ways TOAW deals with artillery fire in combat. If it's direct fire then as far as I can tell it's treated no differently than so many rifles or machine guns. If it's indirect then special rules come in to play, damage is dealt differently and there's a % chance of each defending unit reverting to a "mobile" status.


Why is it different? Direct fire merely means the gun has a los to the target. It could be 5km away.


To know why you'd have to ask Norm- he wrote the code. I'm just telling you that it's so.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375