|
AmmoSgt -> (11/9/2001 1:04:00 PM)
|
I think the major problem with onboard Howitzers and the like ..also rocket launchers .. is the minimum range issues for fring indirect ..the game doesn't seem to have a minimum range for indirect fire weapons ..which means 155mm Hows on board could technically be used to fire indirect at a target just the other side of a hill 100 meters ( 2 hexes ) away ..not that i am advocating any changes in SPWAW ..but i hope issues like this are being looked at for CL/CA ... Direct fire .. yes SP's like M-12's and Hummels ect Direct fire at the ranges possible on a SPWAW map , but could they indirect fire at under a kilometer?? .. I don't think so?? but i don't have the tables available ..in a similar problem only reversed, 88's are only direct fire in the game , when in fact they had indirect fire capabilities ... yes the Brits and their 25 lbrs and US 105mm How and Possibly other Hows had a Direct fire capability ..but i am sure they had a minimum range of some significant distance that would make some indirect fire problematical if they were in fact onboard , given the size of the map .. these considerations would probably drastically effect multiple rocket launchers deployed on board .. some more than others ..and some would probably not have direct fire capabilities at all .. wulfraums did have direct fire capability but certainly not at 2 or even 4 hexes due to the physical arrangement on the launcher .. either rocket engines blasting back thru the other rounds or the rounds colideing with rounds in front of them ect ...( i think the front two could fire if the rear rockets weren't loaded .. Caliope's look like they could easily direct fire .but i don't know if they actually did for example ..
On a similar note .. since the game does handle complex angles in shell impact for , for example , armor penetration, perhaps some thought to the vertical axis that is possible with some guns could be looked at in direct fire , havng limits on firing at targets that are either lower or higher that exceed the combined angles of gun depresion or elevation and ground angle .. especially when hull down . again perhaps not in SPWAW but perhaps in CL/CA
When you consider minimum ranges for indirect fire alot of the desire to have arty onboard as an indirect fire weapon may disappear due to the lack of practical usefullness ..
As to the Ammo trucks ..they are an abstraction as it is, since in some armies individual Hows would have addition vechicles ( such as the US Army having usually 2 addition vehicles per gun, sometimes specialized Arty Ammo tracks sometimes simple 2 1/2 ton trucks for example ) supplying the guns .. other armies other arrangements ( consider a 155mm single gun needing 1 Duece and a half to carry maybe 60 rounds ) to see how abstracted the ammo truck actually is ..and yet to make it a point target that forces totally unrealistic deployment of arty into hexagonal clumps seems not to raise any questions ..
Better Modeling of the weapons characteristics and some adjustment of the span or range of supply of abstracted Ammo Trucks to allow for appropiate distances and arangement of guns might help things , or better a Towed How and adjacent fixed ammo dump, purchased as a combined unit , giving the option of two hexes of targets , either the gun that can be knocked out , or the ammo supply for the gun that can be knocked out with possible colateral damage .. could better model and subsequently detract from the desirability of having large caliber arty onboard on a map only 5 km in total depth ...
Perhaps having 155mm, and perhaps, depending on what firing tables say, maybe even 105 mm class Howitzers restricted to direct fire if onboard might be more realistic .. likewise the reverse for weapons like the SP 75mm Hows like on some Amtrac's and the M8 Scott SP 75mm that are currently restricted to direct fire and that actually had a rather close/short minimum range for indirect fire,could be allowed to indirect fire ...
This certainly would make Mortars ..especially the small infantry type mortars seem more useful and valuable and place them in a different perspective vis a vis the game..
If, as folks seemed to be insisting, that multiple mortars do not in fact do mulitple damage, and as i am suggesting Hows and arty type guns are doing what they in fact they never could do .. then somebody should be looking at these apparent functional mismodeling of what in fact are key weapons in the game ..and if not in SPWAW perhaps in CL/CA, in my humble opinion
|
|
|
|
![]("wink.gif")
)
- gave Elite Recon -status to all scouts and to FOs and FO vehicles which didn't have it for some reason.
- created unarmed bunker that has carry capacity of about 160 (enough room for 1 - 1½ platoon). I gave enough armor to withstand arty. Men get out if one shoots at it directly, but they stay inside even if being hit with indirect weapons. I find these very useful in defensive battles.
- made German equipment in Czech OOB available (must buy from Czech purchase screen)
- made Train available in the Norway OOB ![]("biggrin.gif")
![]("smile.gif")
![]("confused.gif")
I think that is not fair speak about "fantastic" use of mortars without speaking about "fantastic" use of Artillery batteries. ![]("eek.gif")
Test it yourself and you'll see, that a mortarx3 will not cause the same suppression and damage three mortarx1 will do.
I don't know, where the problem is, but it exists. A mortarx3 (like the Russian one) costs three times more, but cannot even come close to the damage dealt by three mortarx1 (like the U.S. mortar) firing at the same hex.