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


golden delicious -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 6:25:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt


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


No. An HQ unit is treated as an artillery unit by the engine.




golden delicious -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 6:28:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericdauriac


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


Correct- sort of. If you attack a pure armour unit with just artillery it won't knock out any tanks. However I find that artillery support against pure armoured units makes the attack much more effective. This may just be due to the "disentrenching" effect of artillery, which works irrespective of the type of equipment in the unit.




FaneFlugt -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 7:45:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt


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


No. An HQ unit is treated as an artillery unit by the engine.


I can confirm that, Just came back from testing and what you say is correct I could succesfully unentrench a unit with a HQ with guns above 150mm.




Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 9:39:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


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.


Rhetorical question. It shouldn't be different. And like I've said before, could well be something overlooked by Norm and missed in testing. Not the first time TOAW had a glitch that was never realized. None of us can know either way since we are not mind readers. Logic says it should not be different. Bob says it should just because and then comes up with the lame plunging trajectory excuse which, if anyone knows a smidgen about cannons, they don't have and totally ignoring evidence that even at close range artillery destroys trenches, bunkers, pill boxes and all other manner of fortifications.

Anyway, gone over it too many times already so it stays as is and we make up ahistorical trash as we go along. [:D]

I don't recall, can we trace supply by sea yet?




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 11:24:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Bob says it should just because and then comes up with the lame plunging trajectory excuse which, if anyone knows a smidgen about cannons, they don't have and totally ignoring evidence that even at close range artillery destroys trenches, bunkers, pill boxes and all other manner of fortifications.


No plunging trajectory? That'll be a surprise to Issac Newton.

Artillery firing directly is not firing ballistically - the gun is not being elevated. Otherwise, it wouldn't need a line of sight. Without ballistics it can't disentrench. Bunkers and pill boxes are what Fortified Terrain consist of, not entrenchments. You don't "dig in" with a shovel and come up with those types of defenses.

But, keep throwing your fit. It's entertaining.




FaneFlugt -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/10/2021 11:57:24 PM)

Just a comment, and I might have changed my opinion and reverted to keep it as it is.... If HQs icons can "undig" enemy units as they can (tested) and as can artillery icons, then there isnt a problem in my opinion.

Artillery in an inf. unit gives direct support. And sadly cant "undig" units. Because the code says so. Artillery in HQs and art units gives indirect fire, and can undig.

Just a question if you attack a dug in unit, in the same impulse as your HQ fires on a hex. When does the roll for undigging occur?




Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/11/2021 2:26:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Bob says it should just because and then comes up with the lame plunging trajectory excuse which, if anyone knows a smidgen about cannons, they don't have and totally ignoring evidence that even at close range artillery destroys trenches, bunkers, pill boxes and all other manner of fortifications.


No plunging trajectory? That'll be a surprise to Issac Newton.

Artillery firing directly is not firing ballistically - the gun is not being elevated. Otherwise, it wouldn't need a line of sight. Without ballistics it can't disentrench. Bunkers and pill boxes are what Fortified Terrain consist of, not entrenchments. You don't "dig in" with a shovel and come up with those types of defenses.

But, keep throwing your fit. It's entertaining.


Well if quoting history is throwing a fit I'm guilty. If making crap up to make your argument valid? That has Bob all over it. Artillery does not have to fire ballistically to take down fortifications. Let me see your proof of only something fired ballistically being effective vs fortifications. I've given ample proof to the contrary. Let's see yours.

And why do I have to have artillery in a pure artillery unit to make it function as designed? Too many meaningless design constraints. Do it the Bob way or not at all.

Know what Bob. Never mind. You'll forever make up stuff that's nonsensical to make yourself right. Go on with The Operational Art of Bob. I really don't care anymore. I have better things to do. [8D]




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/11/2021 2:38:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Artillery does not have to fire ballistically to take down fortifications. Let me see your proof of only something fired ballistically being effective vs fortifications. I've given ample proof to the contrary. Let's see yours.


As I just said in the last post: Pill Boxes and other above ground concrete structures are Fortified Terrain and are never achieved with "digging in". Entrenchments are defenses created by excavating earth, making them below ground. They obviously are far more vulnerable to plunging shells than horizontal ones.

quote:

And why do I have to have artillery in a pure artillery unit to make it function as designed? Too many meaningless design constraints. Do it the Bob way or not at all.


Here we go! This is the lie:

1. I caused this.
2. My refusal to fix it is out of sheer spite.
3. It's impact on designers is horrific.

Here is the truth:

1. TOAW has worked this way from the get-go. This is how Norm made it. I used it to great benefit in my Soviet Union 1941 scenario 15 years ago.
2. If I code continously for the next 10 years I still won't have finished the tasks that are already on the planning board. Anything added to that list has to be truely justified.
3. Designers have a TRIVIAL workaround: If they want artillery to function ballistically, put it in a ranged unit. If they don't, put it in a non-ranged unit.




Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/11/2021 3:54:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Artillery does not have to fire ballistically to take down fortifications. Let me see your proof of only something fired ballistically being effective vs fortifications. I've given ample proof to the contrary. Let's see yours.


As I just said in the last post: Pill Boxes and other above ground concrete structures are Fortified Terrain and are never achieved with "digging in". Entrenchments are defenses created by excavating earth, making them below ground. They obviously are far more vulnerable to plunging shells than horizontal ones.

quote:

And why do I have to have artillery in a pure artillery unit to make it function as designed? Too many meaningless design constraints. Do it the Bob way or not at all.


Here we go! This is the lie:

1. I caused this.
2. My refusal to fix it is out of sheer spite.
3. It's impact on designers is horrific.

Here is the truth:

1. TOAW has worked this way from the get-go. This is how Norm made it. I used it to great benefit in my Soviet Union 1941 scenario 15 years ago.
2. If I code continously for the next 10 years I still won't have finished the tasks that are already on the planning board. Anything added to that list has to be truely justified.
3. Designers have a TRIVIAL workaround: If they want artillery to function ballistically, put it in a ranged unit. If they don't, put it in a non-ranged unit.


As usual you refuse to change something because of the impact it will have on YOUR scenarios. You do change things to improve YOUR scenarios. The naval changes? To improve your Pacific scenarios. The Leader changes before anything else? To improve your Civil War scenarios. So now you admit this. It's about time. Others have speculated about this. Now you admit it.

Was it your idea to change to just one counter sheet without bothering to ask the community how they felt about it?

Given how erratic Ralph is nothing is trivial concerning anything getting done with this game. Not even a simple patch.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/11/2021 7:39:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

As usual you refuse to change something because of the impact it will have on YOUR scenarios. You do change things to improve YOUR scenarios. The naval changes? To improve your Pacific scenarios. The Leader changes before anything else? To improve your Civil War scenarios. So now you admit this. It's about time. Others have speculated about this. Now you admit it.


More lies. Both the naval and commander improvements were to improve the game in general - which is what they achieved/will achieve. Most of my naval scenarios were designed to demonstrate those new features. Commanders have universal application.

quote:

Was it your idea to change to just one counter sheet without bothering to ask the community how they felt about it?


Nope. Ralph did that all on his lonesome. By the way, my "how to" article on that was posted on the development board 1 1/2 years before launch. No one complained till after launch.

quote:

Given how erratic Ralph is nothing is trivial concerning anything getting done with this game. Not even a simple patch.


Setting whether artillery will be ballistic or direct fire is trivial.




Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/12/2021 5:02:52 AM)

So your Okinawa scenario just jumped into my TOAWIII game all on it's own. Very interesting. Must have been aliens.

Well, I've had about enough fun here. Artillery in a non artillery unit somehow got manned by idiots who forgot how to use it for anything but direct fire regardless of hex scale so could only use it for direct fire. Then it became how it wasn't a trivial thing to make artillery work the same across the board, you know, like it does in the real world. Then on about ballistics regardless of how large the hex scale was.

Nothing about how it affects this:

19.2. Notes On Combat
Resolution
Combat resolution in TOAW Volume I was based
on cumulative mass fire. This is still true of Artillery
fire in Century of Warfare, and later versions,
but Anti-Tank and Anti-Personnel fire are now
handled at the level of individual weapons firing
at individual targets.

So, given 19.2 I guess we may now have a better understanding of why artillery in units with artillery or HQ symbols is more effective. Artillery fires separtely in mass and it fires first, then the other units take part in combat. To get it to function properly every thing from 76mm mortars up would have to be removed from every unit an put into their own unit with an artillery symbol.

Of course we'll never know how much of a difference this makes because artillery will remain as it is even though it's a non trivial effect on the game. I suppose we could make suppositions based on what makes you right.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/12/2021 2:56:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

So your Okinawa scenario just jumped into my TOAWIII game all on it's own. Very interesting. Must have been aliens.


I said most, not all. With 20 scenarios there were bound to be a few with naval aspects.

We have designers making Pacific War scenarios, Sealowe scenarios, ETO scenarios, Med scenarios, etc. Naval improvements are for the benefit of everyone.

And, just for the record, it was Ralph who coded the naval improvements.

quote:

Artillery in a non artillery unit somehow got manned by idiots who forgot how to use it for anything but direct fire ...


Exactly. What the crew can do is just as important as what the gun itself can do. Indirect fire requires much more skill than direct fire - at least in order to hit anything. We have to be able to model shortages of such skilled personnel, since they historically occurred at critical times.




Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/12/2021 3:39:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Exactly. What the crew can do is just as important as what the gun itself can do. Indirect fire requires much more skill than direct fire - at least in order to hit anything. We have to be able to model shortages of such skilled personnel, since they historically occurred at critical times.



You are making immense assumptions. You are saying every nation for all of time had shortages of skilled personnel at all times forever. You are also assuming that at every scale every artillery piece made for all time is right there at the front taking direct fire attacks regardless of size. But hey, go ahead and spin it any way you want. Like I've said, it won't matter you just do what you want anyway. You're the big guy right?




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/12/2021 3:52:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Exactly. What the crew can do is just as important as what the gun itself can do. Indirect fire requires much more skill than direct fire - at least in order to hit anything. We have to be able to model shortages of such skilled personnel, since they historically occurred at critical times.



You are making immense assumptions. You are saying every nation for all of time had shortages of skilled personnel at all times forever. You are also assuming that at every scale every artillery piece made for all time is right there at the front taking direct fire attacks regardless of size. But hey, go ahead and spin it any way you want. Like I've said, it won't matter you just do what you want anyway. You're the big guy right?

No. I've not made any such assumption. Just that some forces do have such shortages some times (and Barbarossa is a pretty big case, for wargamers). When they do, we're lucky that Norm provided a way to model it, and a trivial way for designers to make their choice about it.

And somebody has to be an adult when our precious coding capitol is involved. Clearly, you're not one. Keep throwing your fit.




Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/12/2021 9:13:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Exactly. What the crew can do is just as important as what the gun itself can do. Indirect fire requires much more skill than direct fire - at least in order to hit anything. We have to be able to model shortages of such skilled personnel, since they historically occurred at critical times.



You are making immense assumptions. You are saying every nation for all of time had shortages of skilled personnel at all times forever. You are also assuming that at every scale every artillery piece made for all time is right there at the front taking direct fire attacks regardless of size. But hey, go ahead and spin it any way you want. Like I've said, it won't matter you just do what you want anyway. You're the big guy right?

No. I've not made any such assumption. Just that some forces do have such shortages some times (and Barbarossa is a pretty big case, for wargamers). When they do, we're lucky that Norm provided a way to model it, and a trivial way for designers to make their choice about it.

And somebody has to be an adult when our precious coding capitol is involved. Clearly, you're not one. Keep throwing your fit.


Usually, passively-defending equipment
is significantly shielded from losses in combat.
The theory is that units like Artillery are deployed
in rear areas and generally are out of harm’s way.

Also artillery in a non artillery unit bombards. As for coding time, instead of introducing new bugs how about fixing the old ones?

Furthermore, I'm not the only one who would like to see the game represent real battlefield conditions. Someone named Bob does too. So does that mean you are throwing a fit? [:D]

Difference between me and you is you are the diktator. I don't have the code so I have no control over what gets done, it's all controlled by the diktator.[8|]

Kinda pointless to go one. Go ahead Bob, last word as always. [:D]




DD696 -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/12/2021 10:07:57 PM)

Last word. Maybe I will, but I sincerely doubt it.

Lobster - you consistently pick fights.

Curtis - Well, I'm 74 and still whistling past the graveyard.

Give us a break. Tuck your balls deep into your shorts. Such pettiness is to be expected when a 4th grader is a bully. You fight back anyway you can, but the bully will always be a bully. Lobster, you were a true pain in the ass when you could not recognize that I was not the one you were wetting your pants over a year or so ago. Bob, you always have a holier than you attitude.

Most people want to play wargames that somewhat accurately portray conditions that existed. Others what to explore what could have been on the battlefield if different decisions had been made. Others, get their enjoyment out of pissing and moaning.

All this crap in no way contributes to the enjoyment of the simulation of warfare - unless you live your life thru the eyes of a 4th grade bully.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/13/2021 3:05:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Difference between me and you is you are the diktator. I don't have the code so I have no control over what gets done, it's all controlled by the diktator.[8|]


I am being dictated to by the number of seconds in a minute, the number of minutes in an hour, the number of hours in a day, the number of days in a year, and the number of years I have left.

That is why I have to make those adult decisions about what goes into the coding capitol budget. Separate the diamonds from the garbage. This issue is garbage: It's been like this from the get-go and never even noticed. There is a trivial - and rational - workaround for designers.

You are being a child. Players (including myself) wait years for their wishes to perculate to the top of the coding list - regardless of how desireable those wishes may be. You think you can get your way if you throw a fit. But the number of seconds, etc., stays the same.




jmlima -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/14/2021 8:03:43 PM)


quote:

... Artillery in a non artillery unit somehow got manned by idiots who forgot how to use it for anything but direct fire regardless of hex scale so could only use it for direct fire. ...


It's caused by the non-ballistic angle, derived from the tumbleweed cosine and multiplied by the air quality factor. All things that TOAW is in no way simulating of course.




ericdauriac -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/15/2021 2:02:49 PM)

I want to create a division wide scenario. The Corps artillery will be well in the form of an "artillery" unit and treated as a unit with indirect fire. IF I understood your discussion correctly, the artillery integrated into the divisional unit will be treated as artillery with direct fire. I thought of increasing the strength of the divisional artillery to take into account its loss of effectiveness compared to artillery treated as indirect fire. This bonus would be related to the range of the divisional artillery. What do you think about this?

Regards




golden delicious -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/15/2021 2:21:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ericdauriac

I want to create a division wide scenario. The Corps artillery will be well in the form of an "artillery" unit and treated as a unit with indirect fire. IF I understood your discussion correctly, the artillery integrated into the divisional unit will be treated as artillery with direct fire. I thought of increasing the strength of the divisional artillery to take into account its loss of effectiveness compared to artillery treated as indirect fire. This bonus would be related to the range of the divisional artillery. What do you think about this?


It's an interesting concept. One could run some tests to work out a rough ratio of effectiveness between direct and indirect fire artillery, however you'd still have two problems:
1) in TOAW, only indirect fire will ever have a chance to remove a defending unit's entrenchment status
2) the effectiveness of direct fire equipment depends on whether the attacking unit has a flanking bonus. Indirect firing equipment will have the same effectiveness under all circumstances

I think the best approach would be not to make any special adjustments for this consideration and test the scenario as it stands. If it feels right, then there's no need to make any modifications: there are many scenarios out there (including my own) which work perfectly well without adjusting for this consideration. On the other hand if it feels too difficult to cause defenders to retreat or particularly to break entrenched positions, you'll want to look at moving the artillery into a dedicated unit.

One possibility:
- Split all divisions as per Directive 21, with a combat unit and an artillery unit
- Modify the co-operation settings and unit colours so that the player cannot just arbitrarily send divisional artillery off to to some other sector leaving their parent unit behind. For example, if you have corps-level formations, the divisional artillery unit would have a different icon colour from the combat unit so that it only has "full" co-operation with other units in the formation

This solution would work well for a relatively short scenario where corps assignments are likely to remain fixed, but if the player needs to be able to send divisions individually off to another sector then this would cause problems: two divisions need to be able to make a concerted attack without being penalised for "sharing" their divisional artillery.




Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/15/2021 10:30:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericdauriac

I want to create a division wide scenario. The Corps artillery will be well in the form of an "artillery" unit and treated as a unit with indirect fire. IF I understood your discussion correctly, the artillery integrated into the divisional unit will be treated as artillery with direct fire. I thought of increasing the strength of the divisional artillery to take into account its loss of effectiveness compared to artillery treated as indirect fire. This bonus would be related to the range of the divisional artillery. What do you think about this?

Regards


No, artillery does not have direct fire capability in the game. If you look at the manual you'll see that artillery is not an active defender. As such it is behind the lines, out of harms way. The manual fairly states it that way.

§§ Active Defender Equipment: The equipment
actively contributes to a location’s defense and
is directly exposed to enemy action during
any combat.

13.13. Flanks and Rear
Areas

Most units are assigned a mix of actively defending
equipment (such as Infantry or Tanks)
and passively-defending equipment (such as
Artillery). Usually, passively-defending equipment
is significantly shielded from losses in combat.
The theory is that units like Artillery are deployed
in rear areas and generally are out of harm’s way.

Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.

A unit can be exposed to flanking fire.

In units attacked from any two, or more,
non-adjacent hexes in the same Turn, passivelydefending
equipment (such as Artillery) will
be forced to participate directly in combat.
The
attacks need not be combined. One unit can “pin”
from one direction, while another executes the
“Flanking” Attack. If a unit that attacked earlier
in the Turn is itself later attacked, the original
Attack is considered a “defense” for this purpose.
This means that if a unit attacks to the south, but
is itself later attacked from the north, it will suffer
the Flank Attack penalty. Likewise, a unit that
attacks into two, or more, non-adjacent hexes will
suffer a Flank Attack from the defensive fire of
the defending units. Units that split into sub-units
and attack into two or more non-adjacent hexes
will cause the parent unit (and any subsequently
re-split sub-units) to be subject to Flank Attacks
if the sub-units recombine afterwards on the same
Turn that the sub-unit Attacks are made. Once a
unit has its flank “turned,” all further attacks in that
Turn against it, or by it (in the case of Defensive
Fire against Attacking units), will be a Flank
Attack until it retreats (defenders) or advances
(attackers). Units are not subject to the Flank
Attack penalty immediately after any movement
out of the hex from which they were attacked, or
attacked out of.
The facing of the 3D unit icon graphics on the
map is not significant for this purpose.
Note that, if optioned, “New Flanking Rules”
revises this somewhat. See 3.3.1.

Only artillery units have a non zero artillery strength.

§§ Artillery – This is the unit’s Bombardment
Strength. It includes that portion of the
Anti-Personnel Strength that the unit can
use in Bombardment Missions or in Combat
Support. Typically, only Headquarters, Naval,
Air, and Artillery units will have a non-zero
Artillery Strength, regardless of equipment
assigned.

But...if you look at the TOAW.log with uberdude on you will see that regardless of what type of unit the artillery is in ALL of the artillery is added together giving a mass shell weight for all of the artillery involved. In this instance artillery is any unit with a long range flag. This massed artillery suppresses any entrenchment by a percentage as well as causing casualties if there is enough shell weight.

During the artillery bombardment phase the game program separates out those artillery pieces that are in units with artillery symbols and that are over a certain size. These separated out artillery pieces are then used to calculate whether or not a unit is unentrenched and to what degree. So the program does indeed already have a method to determine weapon size, shell size and what type of unit it is in.

So practically speaking, artillery does not direct fire.
Hopefully this helps you decide what to do with your artillery.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/15/2021 10:44:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
No, artillery does not have direct fire capability in the game. If you look at the manual you'll see that artillery is not an active defender. As such it is behind the lines, out of harms way. The manual fairly states it that way.


AT Guns are also passive defenders and get the same benefits. They are also definitely direct fire equipment.




Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/15/2021 10:59:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
No, artillery does not have direct fire capability in the game. If you look at the manual you'll see that artillery is not an active defender. As such it is behind the lines, out of harms way. The manual fairly states it that way.


AT Guns are also passive defenders and get the same benefits. They are also definitely direct fire equipment.


Quit spinning I'm going to puke. This guy needed help with ARTILLERY. No one said a thing about AT which is taken care of at a different point, after bombardment.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/15/2021 11:06:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
No, artillery does not have direct fire capability in the game. If you look at the manual you'll see that artillery is not an active defender. As such it is behind the lines, out of harms way. The manual fairly states it that way.


AT Guns are also passive defenders and get the same benefits. They are also definitely direct fire equipment.


Quit spinning I'm going to puke. This guy needed help with ARTILLERY. No one said a thing about AT which is taken care of at a different point, after bombardment.

If AT can be passive equipment and direct fire, then Artillery can be passive equipment and direct fire.




Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/15/2021 11:16:40 PM)

OMG [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Maybe artillery bombardment comes before the AT stuff or after the AT stuff. Don't recall for certain.

13.13. Flanks and Rear
Areas
Most units are assigned a mix of actively defending
equipment (such as Infantry or Tanks)
and passively-defending equipment (such as
Artillery). Usually, passively-defending equipment
is significantly shielded from losses in combat.
The theory is that units like Artillery are deployed
in rear areas and generally are out of harm’s way.
Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.

Oops I forgot. Go ahead Bob, last word. Maybe this time something that actually helps the guy instead of harassing people.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/15/2021 11:33:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

OMG [:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

13.13. Flanks and Rear
Areas
Most units are assigned a mix of actively defending
equipment (such as Infantry or Tanks)
and passively-defending equipment (such as
Artillery). Usually, passively-defending equipment
is significantly shielded from losses in combat.
The theory is that units like Artillery are deployed
in rear areas and generally are out of harm’s way.
Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.

Oops I forgot. Go ahead Bob, last word. Maybe this time something that actually helps the guy instead of harassing people.

Which includes all AT guns. Check the file in the manuels folder. Active equipment is the type of equipment that would go "over the top". No towed equipment falls in that category. Being "shielded from losses" doesn't mean miles in the rear. It just means it's not going to be launching or receiving a bayonet charge or similar.

I repeat: If AT guns can be direct fire (and they are) then artillery can as well.




Lobster -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/16/2021 2:12:54 AM)

Talking artillery not AT.

13.13. Flanks and Rear
Areas
Most units are assigned a mix of actively defending
equipment (such as Infantry or Tanks)
and passively-defending equipment (such as
Artillery). Usually, passively-defending equipment
is significantly shielded from losses in combat.
The theory is that units like Artillery are deployed
in rear areas and generally are out of harm’s way.
Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case.

Oops I forgot. Go ahead Bob, last word. Maybe this time something that actually helps the guy instead of harassing people.

Crap sorry, last word was supposed to be yours. Go ahead again. I promise I won't reply to you again. Just imagine me posting 13.13 over and over again. [:D]




Curtis Lemay -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/16/2021 2:25:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Crap sorry, last word was supposed to be yours. Go ahead again. I promise I won't reply to you again. Just imagine me posting 13.13 over and over again. [:D]


You can post 13.13 as many times as you want. It won't change the fact that AT guns are passive equipment - covered by 13.13 - and are direct fire weapons. Which means artillery can be direct fire weapons, too (good thing, since they often were in real life). Whatever Norm meant by 13.13, he clearly meant for all towed equipment to be passive.




ericdauriac -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/16/2021 9:06:25 AM)

I don't know if it's right or bad, but according to the tests I've been able to do, I confirm that the artillery in a division is treated by the software as using direct fire (for example: it suffers losses despite the "passive defender" function, it causes losses to tanks).

So my proposal seems to me valid. I make it based on Askey's studies, and I retain the range as a discriminating parameter.

Regards




golden delicious -> RE: The magic of separate artillery (2/16/2021 9:38:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

You can post 13.13 as many times as you want. It won't change the fact that AT guns are passive equipment - covered by 13.13 - and are direct fire weapons. Which means artillery can be direct fire weapons, too (good thing, since they often were in real life). Whatever Norm meant by 13.13, he clearly meant for all towed equipment to be passive.


I suggest ignoring him.




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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.390625