Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 7/18/2000 2:11:00 PM

Scipio Africanus

Posts: 76
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Somerville, Ma, USA
Status: offline

Well the 150mm gun is huge, but you're also getting lucky. I'm currently in a PBEM game of regimental proportions. From what I can tell, my opponent has a number of 120mm mortars, 2 Brumbars (150mm), and several 81mm mortars. I have seven 4.2 inch mortars, 4 81mm mortars, 2 60mm mortars, 6 M7 105mm SP howitzers. we're 6 or 7 turns into the fight, I have suffered 4 or 5 direct fire casualties, 0 indirect fire casualties. My opponent has suffered 0 direct fire casualties and perhaps 10-12 indirect casualties on a platoon of motorcyclists that decided it best to whizz around in open ground early in the fight. No casualties have been suffered by any infantry in a "defend" stance, even from concentrated fire- Further, I've had troops moving quickly in the woods accept no casualties from multiple 150mm hits. Did I mention that the artillery vs. soft targets is set at 250% Did I also mention that most of my 4.2 mortars are depleted of ammo, that means I have fired off several hundred rounds of large caliber HE. These results actually look about right to me- the motorcyclists screwed up and suffered, but man I wish I could kill that tough 105mm recoilless rifle on the hill (which is well dug in). But, this is with 250% vs soft targets. Despite a map made up of at least 70% open ground, my infantry regiment is succeeding in its attacking maneuvers, despite a great deal of high quality enemy artillery. I'm having to be careful (yet I have an engineer company moving forward fast on the left wing), but the artillery is far from decimating my ranks (as I said, under heavy fire, much of it on target, my regiment has taken 5 casualties and is moving forward well). ------------------ Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

_____________________________

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 31

- 7/18/2000 2:53:00 PM

Arralen

Posts: 827
Joined: 5/21/2000
Status: offline

Point is - I often catch AI-Inf. in the open, moving rel. fast. Despite of scoring hits with direct fire, there are 2 casualties at best with 75..90mm guns. Best MG43 hit I've seen in such a situation is 5 (!) casualties, and regular score is around 2 casualties . And even worse - even after beeing shot at (and not hit due to very low to-hit chances) the units still show as "moving", not "pinned" or the like - and the AI really moves them on - so one couldn't speak of low casualties because the tropps are "going to the ground". And if the cal. is under 50 mm, it's a waste of time to shoot HE at Inf., and the rapid-fire 20..40mm AA guns, which where used against Inf. effectivly, aren't of much worth either. So IMHO the direct fire effectivness should be boosted again - and if it's, as Paul said, not a matter of OOB-values, the programmers should put this on the wishlist for v3.0 . Arralen

_____________________________

AMD FX-4300
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Seagate Barracuda SATA III 1TB
Windows 8.1

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 32

- 7/18/2000 2:55:00 PM

Arralen

Posts: 827
Joined: 5/21/2000
Status: offline

AMD FX-4300
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Seagate Barracuda SATA III 1TB
Windows 8.1

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 33

- 7/18/2000 10:35:00 PM

amatteucci

Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline

Speaking about HE effectiveness in the game one must also remember that what has to be modified is also the relative effectiveness of the various HE shells. Now the HE rating for artillery shells is more or less proportional to the calibre. A short analysis of data will show that, for example, a 122mm HE-frag round has a TNT filler that weights about one half of the 152mm one. This should suggest that the increase of explosive power is linked (logically) to the projectile volume (since 122^3/152^3 is about 1/2), so it's proportional to the cube of the calibre. Obviously one should also wonder whether the killing power in game terms is linearly growing with the actual amount of TNT delivered. This is a tricky issue but IMHO power dependence should be no less than D^(3/2). Regards, Amedeo P.S. The effectiveness of direct fire HE weapons should be really increased. The red Army decided not to go on with the T-34-57 (or the IS-100), in spite of their exceptional AT performances, because they felt that a 76mm (122mm) HE round had a far more devasing impact than a 57mm (100mm) one. And BTW this suggests also that the killing power of an HE projectile goes not linearly vs its diameter.

_____________________________

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 34

- 7/18/2000 11:45:00 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Very good points we are looking into ways to improve this, but want to keep the game from becming an artillery shoot - off (like many though SP3 easily became). This is much a game issue as a realism issue.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 35

- 7/19/2000 1:59:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

I may be lucky, but then I'm being lucky all the time. I'm using the defaults, and I get a really good result. Infantry that's entrenched takes very few losses, infantry out in the open take a few and get suppressed to all hell, and direct fire HE causes casualties once in a while. 75mm direct fire he shouldn't be anywhere near the effectiveness of a machine gun. What is can do is shoot a heck of a lot farther. It would be wierd if you could get 5 kills with a single 75mm shell. (unless it was a human sardine tin) 150mm on the other hand... heh. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 36

- 7/21/2000 1:09:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

good arguments both sides. Great debate! though it looks like the majority favors a greater HE effect. Related question....i'm looking for opinions on the secondary weapons that are given to IG/AT guns and MG units. Part of the frustration over the Artillery/HE issue is that even at long range these bolt action weapons (some have a SMG) seem to be more effective than the gun/MG itself!! I have another concern however...obviously these weapons were meant for self defence when the gun was either inoperative or supressed, or perhaps when the crew was boogying out of a hotspot. But during operation of the gun/MG would not the crew be too busy to fire this weapon?

_____________________________

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 37

- 7/21/2000 2:40:00 AM

Elvis

Posts: 86
Joined: 6/20/2000
From: Clarion, PA
Status: offline

I'm under the impression that secondary weapon use by gun crews is a bit over done, at least from an offensive standpoint. Secondary weapon use by crews should be limited to defensive use only, not the "AT gun fires/secondary weapon fires" scheme that is in place now. Here's my rationale behind this, taken from 10 years experience in the artillery branch. Although this applies to a modern weapon system, it can be applied to the majority of crew served weapons, regardless of time period. The M224 60mm mortar currently used by U.S. Army has a crew of 3 (section chief, gunner, ammo bearer). Of the 3, only the section chief carries a rifle; the gunner and ammo bearer have pistols. During a fire mission, the crew has the following responsibilities: section chief - compute firing data, maintain communications. gunner - set tube elevation/deflection. ammo bearer - index rounds, load weapon. This is the short list of tasks that are involved in a typical shoot, for a complete list check out FM 7-90 Tactical Employment of Mortars. It should also be noted that mortar crews are expected to be able to fire 20 rounds per minute (sustained)- this equals a round out of the tube every three seconds. What does this boil down to? The crew can either fire the mortar or fire their personal weapons, not both at the same time. This principle would apply whether you are crewing a mortar, anti-tank gun, or howitzer. As a member of a gun crew, you have a specific task to perform. Engaging targets with a rifle or pistol is not one of them, that's what grunts are for. ------------------ alea iacta est [email]sooperduk@hotmail.com[/email]

_____________________________

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -- George Orwell

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 38

- 7/21/2000 6:52:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

Supposedly tanks have to make a quality check to fire their non-primary weapons. I think the same mechanism could be used to make crewed weapons fire less frequently or not at all. It could be the choice of the player then. Cause if you've got a 50mm AT gun with a squad of infantry at 3 hexes you'd probably rather take out the rifles at that point... Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 39

- 7/21/2000 10:54:00 AM

victorhauser

Posts: 318
Joined: 5/29/2000
From: austin, texas
Status: offline

Having read all of the above for the first time tonight I can see several perspectives, all of which seem valid (from their perspective). I don't want to see artillery dominate the game like it did in SP3. I like the way MGs decimate soft targets. I would like to see greater suppression from Direct-Fire HE. I prefer leaving crew "secondary" weapons alone for now until higher-priority issues are resolved. I am MOST concerned that the points cost of units that use Direct-Fire HE as their primary weapon be adjusted to reflect their "game effectiveness". That is, I believe that the price of such units is currently too high and should be lowered in proportion to how useful they are in the game (as opposed to how useful they were "historically"). To me, it all comes down to a question of game cost-effectiveness, and right now those units are not very cost effective in SPWAW. Thus, if the price of such units were lowered, we wouldn't be debating this issue as much. It all comes down to unit prices in the end. As a glaring example, the Stg IIIb armed with only a 75/L24 costs 40 points, and the Pz IVD armed with a 75/L24 and 2 MGs costs 42 points. Regardless of the increased armor of the Stg IIIb, nobody will buy it because its offensive power is too limited. However, if the overall suppressive capability of HE was increased and the cost of the Stg IIIb was lowered, then more people might start using it in the game. As it stands now, I will buy the Pz IVD every time and ignore the Stg IIIb. In the end, it all comes down to making the unit prices useful from the perspective of game cost-effectiveness. [This message has been edited by victorhauser (edited July 21, 2000).]

_____________________________

VAH

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 40

- 7/21/2000 3:44:00 PM

Joe

Posts: 20
Joined: 6/28/2000
From: OULU,-,Finland
Status: offline

I think that the game is very well balanced now. I must say that I agree with victor all the way, except unit costs are something I haven't thought so much.

_____________________________

- Joe

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 41

- 7/21/2000 7:10:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

I still feel that HE fire needs to be more lethal in the direct mode, however as a first step i'd heartily support an increased suppression effect. Right now a CS type unit can plug away at a soft target and barely dent it in terms of suppression. Being able to pin down a unit thats creeping up on you until other units can be brought in to deal with it would help in the realism dept vs the virtual null effect now experienced.

_____________________________

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 42

- 7/21/2000 10:46:00 PM

amatteucci

Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline

A quick note about casualties caused by artillery crew individual weapon: According to a lot of veteran's accounts (you may find some on the RMZ web library) it was clear that, at least for what concernes AT guns and, probably, infanrty support guns, only a couple of soldiers were directly behind the gun (gunner & loader), the rest of the crew was dispersed around, waiting in cover with rifles and hand grenades ready. So it's not so unrealistic to have them fire their weapons in addition to the main gun (although this could be a problem with field howitzers and other indirect fire weapons). Best regards, Amedeo P.S. I agree that indirect fire artillery should not be the god of the game, but I do think that HE effectiveness of DIRECT fire weapons is not currently well modelled. And I think that it's possible to increase its effect without overpowering indirect fire.

_____________________________

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 43

- 7/21/2000 11:09:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

i can see one problem though as it relates to the game mechanics (as opposed to real life) Said gun crew with rifles would not waste shots on an AFV since it would only increase the chances that the position would be exposed. Even with the current lackluster direct fire HE, once an AT gun position is found in SP, its life expectancy can usually be expressed in sub-turn increments. a human player of course would be smart enough to turn off the secondary weapon to maximize the position's chances of remaining undetected after firing a couple rounds of AT, but the AI makes no such distinction.

_____________________________

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 44

- 7/22/2000 1:18:00 AM

GLK

Posts: 8
Joined: 6/14/2000
From: Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Status: offline

I'd like to put my two cent in for increasing the effectiveness of ARTY and tank main guns firing HE, particularly against infantry, especially non-dugin infantry. As things are, tanks are at an unrealistic disadvantage against infantry. The realistic result who be more suppression vice high casualties. As for comments that some have made about not wanting an ARTY dominated game, well, it is realistic that if ARTY is available, it will tend to dominate. I guess that's why they call it 'King of Battle.' That is also why artillery has caused the vast majority of casualties in every modern war (80% +).

_____________________________

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 45

- 7/22/2000 1:40:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

I don't know about others, but I've killed heinous numbers of infantrymen with tanks... However, it was primarily with their MG's.. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 46

- 7/22/2000 1:41:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

good point on the Artillery question. thats why it was always so expensive using the orig SP. One could never get a decent amount when generating a battle, only the premade scenerios allowed one to get it. SP-II onward changed that by allowing battle points to be adjusted. If one one does'nt want artillery to be over-domineering they should either restrict the # of batteries purchased or focus on meeting and/or advance-delay missions. The AI ususally does'nt buy too much arty for those missions. TCP/IP will certainly improve the situation. Players can hash out and set artificial limits beforehand (i.e. no more than two batteries, no more than 1 platoon of Tigers per Panzer batalion purchsed etc)

_____________________________

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 47

- 7/22/2000 6:52:00 AM

johnfmonahan

Posts: 82
Joined: 6/11/2000
From: Waterford WI, USA
Status: offline

HE is just not very effective, either in direct or indirect fire. I belive this is a game balence issue (Bill ?). I think that the solution is to make all HE much more effective and drastically limit the flexibility of non US arty.

_____________________________

When in doubt, go on line.

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 48

- 7/22/2000 12:29:00 AM

hhsohn

Posts: 60
Joined: 7/21/2000
From: Walnut, California, USA
Status: offline

I don't know if someone's already suggested this already, but isn't the effect of HE supposed to be magnified in an enclosed environment like inside of a building? I don't know how it can be coded in SP, but in some Close Combat mods, this is modeled by increased stunning effects to infantry in the building. Can some one confirm this?

_____________________________

(in reply to Arralen)

Post #: 49