Adjacent hex damage (Full Version)

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



Message

Paul Goodman -> Adjacent hex damage (7/29/2001 1:08:00 AM)

Heavy caliber direct fire, such as ISU-152 causes an amazing amount of damage in adjacent hexes. I believe it causes more damage in adjacent hexes than to the intended target. Stuff is dying all over the place, including any friendly infantry in the hex with the firing unit, if it is firing at a adjacent hex. I haven't tried it with the GMC 155, but I bet that's really a slaughter. I am now firing at the hex next to my target (if there is a target there). Anyone else notice this? Paul



Warrior -> (7/29/2001 1:11:00 AM)

Yep, war is hell all over.



RockinHarry -> (7/29/2001 2:53:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Goodman: Heavy caliber direct fire, such as ISU-152 causes an amazing amount of damage in adjacent hexes. I believe it causes more damage in adjacent hexes than to the intended target. Stuff is dying all over the place, including any friendly infantry in the hex with the firing unit, if it is firing at a adjacent hex. I haven't tried it with the GMC 155, but I bet that's really a slaughter. I am now firing at the hex next to my target (if there is a target there). Anyone else notice this? Paul
Must agree here, the colateral damage thing is taken too far! Canīt be right that shots near the target hex are more lethal than the shots into the intended target hex itself!? ;) Itīs more the rule than the exception. Same with indirect fire (heavy)artillery and bombs. But I fear we have to live with this til CL. :( _________ Harry



Cona -> (7/29/2001 3:19:00 AM)

This it's easy. If u have 6 adjacent hexes and one target hex and u reduce the damage at adjacent hexes by 50% u still will have 3 times more damage at adjacent hexes as a whole. Saludos a todos, Cona.



Tombstone -> (7/29/2001 6:31:00 AM)

I think they're saying that if you have two infantry squads in adjacent hexes then the one getting hit tends to take less damage than the one in the adjacent hex. I haven't seen anything conclusive throughout my playing to substantiate this, but it sometimes feels like this is true. Tomo



Dedas -> (7/29/2001 6:34:00 AM)

I think they got it right this time...he he (it's a joke, OK?) The "splash damage" system is great, the poor Russian infantry under fire from my 150mm artillery don't agree though!



Khan7 -> (7/29/2001 7:48:00 AM)

Think about it this way: if there is enough shrapnel and hell coming out of an explosive charge to rip people apart 50 -75 yards away, just think what it would to to the poor bastard who's sitting on ground zero. Anyone who knows anything about blast radii knows that damage decreases exponentially as you travel out from ground zero. Goodman makes a very good point.



Paul Goodman -> (7/29/2001 11:27:00 AM)

I just had this happen. Night battle, two hex visibility. Really cool, until a SturmTiger shows up. I have a T-34/85 surrounded by cavalry and infantry. This SturmTiger (310mm howitzer) shoots the T-34 which takes about 4 levels of suppresion but blows up everything else in the county! What a mess? Paul



Lynx -> (7/29/2001 11:40:00 AM)

I'm no expert... I have seen real arty go off, and as I see it, with medium and heavy arty The hexes adjecent aren't under fire so the inf don't hunker down as the ones that are in the target zone that hit the ground once arty comes in. Some realy HV rounds effects two hexes out. Also, the pressure waves going out can rupture ear drums which could be counted as acassualty, or suck the air out of lungs up closer while catching some shrapnel, and the ones in ground zero.. if they have a shadow, they're dead or want to be. Arty is suppose to be murder to inf. I think it's finally gotten close to what my idea of how it would be sort of is. Lynx



Khan7 -> (7/29/2001 4:27:00 PM)

You're still missing the point that if it kills lots of people in adjacent hexes then there really should be absolutely no one left alive in the hex the shell hit. And making vague and important sounding statements like "artillery is hell to infantry" doesn't really mean anything at all..



Lars Remmen -> (7/29/2001 4:59:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Khan7: [Snip] And making vague and important sounding statements like "artillery is hell to infantry" doesn't really mean anything at all..
Hello, We have quite a friendly forum here and I think everyone wants to keep it that way. Calling someones statemen 'vague and important sounding' is not the way to go. If you know something interesting, please share it with the rest of us. Most people here always like to learn a bit more. Nevertheless I agree that splash damage is sometimes a bit too much. I would like a warhead that damages the adjectant hexes to do damage like ...D D .N T N ...N N Instead of ...D D .D T D ...D D Where T=Target hex, D=Splash damage in hex and N=no splash damage in hex. That way we would have a better simulation of a heavy shell landing close to some hexes and further from others. Regards, Lars [ July 29, 2001: Message edited by: Lars Remmen ] [ July 29, 2001: Message edited by: Lars Remmen ]



Belisarius -> (7/29/2001 5:15:00 PM)

Lars, that sounds like a good idea. Would allow for some gambling when designating target hexes for arty. Is it possible with the current SPWAW engine?



Voriax -> (7/29/2001 8:27:00 PM)

Let's consider another thing...your average WW2 artillery shell is contact fused, either with a fast or a slow fuse. In any case the round must hit something, usually ground, before it will explode. And as it takes some time after the impact to the fuse to work the round will dig in to some degree...afaik rather deeply in case of slow fuses. Now won't this direct a large portion of shrapnel and pressure wave upwards? So unless you are within the are the round will crater you'd get a lot of suppression (ears ring..shock..) but not that much of shrapnel? Just a thought... Voriax



11Bravo -> (7/29/2001 8:42:00 PM)

Usually, at just about this point in a post, Paul Vebber will come in with the results of a test battle he set up to generate lots of data to describe what is happening. Maybe someone could beat him to it this time. :) [ July 29, 2001: Message edited by: 11Bravo ]



Lynx -> (7/29/2001 11:19:00 PM)

LOL,No worries posters, I don't get offended by inflamatory comments. The damage from splash is only there with large rounds in almost 90% of the missions I've observed. Don't forget arty going off in trees is murder, IE Hurtgen Forest (not sure of spelling) The splash modeling with most of it shooting forward of the shell hit hex would be accurate from most of the sources I know, but that varies on the range. Mortars have a 360% splash and they are not doing quite well in SPWAW. An 81mm is equiv to a 105How and a 120mm is equiv to a 150How in shell power, but the 120's don't do 150 equiv damage, and the 81's just force coffee breaks. I remember reading mortars caused most of the inf cassualties in the post DDay west. Now I don't get that effect from the SPWAW mortars, but I do get it from some arty, therefore the battle is still possible with the effect of indirect fire being what I would expect, just that the kit doing the pointy work isn't spelled how I'd preffer isn't going to take any of the pleasure oway from playing, at least in my case. This has also been said alot, if you're not happy with the effects, change the settings to suit your desires. Lynx



11Bravo -> (7/29/2001 11:37:00 PM)

I set up a little battle with two VH's guarded by GE infantry squads. The first squad sits ajacent to its hex. The second squad sits on its hex. The two VH's are widely separated from each other. The soviets park some Su-152's about 10 hexes away and plaster the VH's with indirect fire ("Z-key"). Each VH gets clobbered by 10 shots. This gets repeated five times. Let's see what kind of casualties the GE squads take. adjacent: 3,1,4,2,1 on top: 3,5,3,4,2 Usually the unit taking the pounding suffered more casualties. But the results are pretty close, clearly splash damage is quite strong. If more than 1 unit was adjacent to the VH, the total casualties caused by splash damage would exceed those caused by units at ground zero. This could cause the perception that splash damage is more powerful. This test could be improved and expanded in several ways...Compare Z-key fire to F-key (direct) fire on a spotted unit. Also, look for effect on suppression for each unit. [ July 29, 2001: Message edited by: 11Bravo ]



Belisarius -> (7/30/2001 2:21:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Voriax: Let's consider another thing...your average WW2 artillery shell is contact fused, either with a fast or a slow fuse. In any case the round must hit something, usually ground, before it will explode. --snip---
Err I might be totally off here, but time fused arty was not that uncommon... OK, so it doesn't have much to do with the issue of damage in adjacent hexes...nor do I have hard facts to back it up with at the moment. :rolleyes: Another thing: At least the Gerries used shells with an extra warhead in the nose, causing the shell to leap back up in the air and explode at 10-20 m. That would certainly be devastating to infantry caught in the open, no matter if they're in the target hex or adjacent?



Khan7 -> (7/30/2001 5:00:00 AM)

First of all-- if what I said is considered inflammatory, then perhaps I have come to the wrong forum. Where I come from that kind of talk is considered genial, lol. Don't be such wusses! ;-) But anyway-- what someone really needs to do is go do some research and find actual blast radius data for various types of shells, only then can we really talk about all of this. I still stand by my assertion that the intensity of a blast and the damage it does decreases precipitously and exponentially as you travel out from ground zero, therefore if a unit 50yards away is taking 3 casualties, as Bravo's tests suggest, then the squad in the target hex should in truth be totally wiped out. Here's some more analysis of Bravo's results: Av. Damage to Target Unit: 3.4 men Av. Damage to Adjacent Unit: 2.2 men Target Dam./Adj. Dam.: 1.55 (about half again as much) Expected Casualties with 1 target unit and 2 adjacent units: 3.4 in target, 4.4 from adjacent. Expected Casualties with 1 target unit and 6 adjacent units: 3.4 in target, 13.2 from adjacent. We can further look at it in this way: Damage factor on ground zero-- 3.4; Damage factor at 50 yards-- 2.2; the damage factor is reduced, but not nearly by any exponential factor as you would expect to see. So you're left with two choices-- Adjust it to something like Targ.: 9, Adj.:2.2; or, to something like Targ.: 3.4, Adj.: 0.6. I don't have enough information to tell which would be better, but both would be consistent with what you would expect for a blast radius. The current model is ridiculous, and I personally think that it is likely to have a significant detrimental effect on gameplay (though this is always debatable). Anyway, it would be helpful if anyone was able to come by any real world data on blast radii for these shells, but you can already clearly see that the model in SPWAW is screwed up in one way or another.



Tombstone -> (7/30/2001 6:12:00 AM)

Khan, just cause force falls off exponentially doesn't mean kills fall off exponentially. Guys who hit the dirt as a result of knowing a round is incoming nearby have a GIGANTIC increase in the percent chance of survival... the shrapnel that flies around is the primary killer, so if we were to base the calculation on chance of getting hit by shrapnel we can easily calculate in prone or standing as a significant factor determining kills. Under that model we can assume that some number of guys in any squad are going to hit the ground early (modified upward based on experience) and that they are more likely to survive than anyone who's standing. The radius of the actual force of the blast that is deadly is quite small, and although your assertion is absolutely correct it's just not the primary factor in determining kills. The way it's modeled currently is just fine I think, certainly not WAY outta range... and definitely the best it's been in the series. Tomo



Truckeye -> (7/30/2001 6:18:00 AM)

ok, heres one for you. as a newer player of w@w i had my 1st missing involving fuel/ammo dumps. when they blew up, only the units in the hex were effected. i would think THIS event above a 155mm round would cause damage/suppression to adjacent hexes. can anyone explain that one?



Khan7 -> (7/30/2001 6:41:00 AM)

You might have a very good point Tombstone, if only falling shells were silent weapons. You assert that only the people within a 25 yard radius of where the shell actually hits are going to hear it coming. Now perhaps I'm wrong, but from what I've read and heard shells are LOUD, especially if we're talking about the large-bore shells that cause splash damage. You would have to be pretty durned deaf not to be very, very aware of it if you were just 50 yards away from the hit zone. If we want to get really realistic we could say that probably anyone within 100 yards will hit the deck. So we must assume that all people within the endangered hexes will react nearly the same the imminent shell hit. And I would think that we can correlate shrapnel density/effectiveness to distance from ground zero just like we would blast radius, thereby yielding the same precipitous and exponential decline as you travel out. Therefore my point still stands. So I don't know-- perhaps a large-bore shell hit should wipe out nearly everything in the target hex.. perhaps it should do less damage in adjacent hexes.. but the current model is wacked.



Lynx -> (7/30/2001 11:54:00 AM)

It must be whacked Khan7. None of the possible alternatives offered to your hypothesis seem to satisfy ---, so no doubt you're right. I'm all for playing with a whacked simulation as long as everyone else is. Lynx



Mike Wood -> (7/30/2001 12:37:00 PM)

Hello... When we modeled the high explosives system, we assumed that the round does not always land in the exact center of the hex or even in the portion of the hex which contains the target. In the case of smaller caliber ordinance, when this occurs, no casualties are produced. In the case of larger caliber ordinance, casualties in the target hex and adjacent hexes can still be produced, because of the size of the explosion. Within our system it is quite possible to kill no one in the target hex at all, and yet destroy a squad in the adjacent hex. In this case, the round landed near the edge of the hex and micro-terrain protected the unit in the target hex. Hope this helps to understand our logic... Michael Wood



Tombstone -> (7/30/2001 2:24:00 PM)

I agree that everyone is going to hear it and anyone who knows they're supposed to is gonna hit the dirt. I disagree that we get an exponential difference from target to adjacent at that point. Blast fills space as it expands, shrapnel does not. Although the actual density of shrapnel decreases I don't think that you would get an exponential reduction in shrapnel casualties as you get further from ground zero except at extremely close ranges... and at that range guys are probable casualties anyways. My whole point is that the lower number of kills that currently occur is suffw.mant and reasonable. Tomo



Possum -> (7/30/2001 2:42:00 PM)

Hello All. For the effects of artillery in WWII, see this websight. http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/ Also, IIRC, pretty much all artillery shells in WWII (inc mortars) were fired at supersonic velocities, so a soldier would only hear the shells that had passed over him. (because the incoming shells are travelling faster than the sound they make.)



panda124c -> (7/30/2001 7:21:00 PM)

Most of this discussion is based on shrapnel damage. There is a second part to a large shell exploding, that is the concussion effect. Since the casaulties do not repesent only kill soldiers but also soldiers that are unable to continue to fight due to other reasons. I don't find the large shell damage to be to far out of line. Consussion effects include, busted ear drums, and disorentation. I just love those direct fire 150+mm guns. So much for my two cents. :D



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (7/31/2001 12:07:00 AM)

Have to agree with Kahn to some extent. I find myself picking ARTY knowing full well its because it has that effect on adjacent hexes. But is it realistic when measured against other weapons? No expert on mortars here, but the comment of them supposedly being more effective sounds familiar though. I only use mortars for smoke because they never seem to kill anything. Somehow that doesnt savvy with what might have been the case. My current game is enjoying a wealth of British 8 inch artillery, and I sure like the fact I dont have to aim it to well (kills anything near the impact hex just fine). But I only use it cause I know it does what it does with little aiming needed. But still, something about it doing more damage outside of where it goes kaboom sounds wrong eh. I just wish mortars were more than just a mild nuisance. I dont even care when my guys get mortared. Nothing ever happens from it. If the computer cant hurt me with them, I sure dont expect mine to do much either. I tend to relegate them to nothing more than smoke duty at best. Oh and just my 2 cents on the "civility on here" Hmmmm seen a great deal worse thats for sure elsewhere than at Matrix. I dont think the comment warranted an attack on it myself Lars. Heaven knows I have seen quite a lot of brief flippant remarks here on the forum. I sometimes think some of the posts are nothing better than "ohhh YEAH! says you" grade retorts at best (but heck its not like they are offensive). I dont think Khan was wrong or going to far for putting down the comment for it not saying anything.



Lars Remmen -> (7/31/2001 12:32:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1: [Snip] Oh and just my 2 cents on the "civility on here" Hmmmm seen a great deal worse thats for sure elsewhere than at Matrix. I dont think the comment warranted an attack on it myself Lars. Heaven knows I have seen quite a lot of brief flippant remarks here on the forum. I sometimes think some of the posts are nothing better than "ohhh YEAH! says you" grade retorts at best (but heck its not like they are offensive). I dont think Khan was wrong or going to far for putting down the comment for it not saying anything.
Hello, I don't really think pointing out, in a polite manner I think, that this is a friendly board to someone new here constitutes an attack. Actually I think it would be unfair to the newcomers not to point it out. Also remember that a lot of different nationalities come to this board, and something quite normal in one country can be very offending in another. But back to artillery. I find myself being hammered by mortars quite often and I take a fair number of casualties. I think the big mistake is in the pricing. Mortars are VERY expensive for their kiling power whereas heavy artillery is almost ridicoulous cheap. Regards, Lars



Paul Goodman -> (7/31/2001 5:27:00 AM)

11Bravo: That was an interesting test. I would like to see it repeated with direct fire to see if there is a difference. I think that the biggest diffence is that we are alway shooting at a single target. I would like to see a test run with one more unit in the impact hex and two or three adjacent units. The most recent example from an actual game. I advanced a cavalry unit one hex and a FJ squad was revealed in a fortified hex adjacent to the cavalry unit and two more FJ in a fortified hex immediately behind the single unit. The immediate FJ was routed (from 12mm artillery); I did not note the condition of the other two, but none of them fired on the cavalry unit. I had an ISU-152 in the same hex that the cavalry unit was originally in. All of these units were now direct fire targets for the ISU-152. Having recently wised up, I cleverly moved the cavalry unit back before opening fire with the 152. I fired at the closest FJ unit. This unit took no casualties, but the two units behind each took one casualty and bugged out sideways from the fortified hex (i.e., they were still adjacent to my target hex). I fired again into the target hex. All hell broke loose. I got one casualty on the target unit which bugged out. The other two units each took two casualties and dispersed. The target unit was finished by the cavalry unit. It seems reasonable that, because with direct fire you are actually targeting a unit, it may act different from area fire. Paul



john g -> (7/31/2001 6:53:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Khan7: Think about it this way: if there is enough shrapnel and hell coming out of an explosive charge to rip people apart 50 -75 yards away, just think what it would to to the poor bastard who's sitting on ground zero. Anyone who knows anything about blast radii knows that damage decreases exponentially as you travel out from ground zero. Goodman makes a very good point.
More or less true for ground bursts, if the shell came down near verticle, like a mortar round. If it is an airburst, very little shrapnel goes straight down, most is tossed at an angle creating something like a cone. thanks, John.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.125