Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire

 
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] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/14/2008 7:02:22 PM   
Arkady


Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline 		Well, maybe more explanation will be fine, did you keep static tank units visible to enemy ?
Sorry to say but it is not god strategy..use shoot and scoot instead if you are defending, or keep your tanks moving...

of course in previous version you could use 'gamey' tactic with superior german tanks drawing enemy fire and thus protect other units, now you need adopt to more realistic warfare


_____________________________


(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 31
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/14/2008 10:58:34 PM   
scottintacoma

 

Posts: 192
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline 		I am in the 3rd scenerio of a Barborossa North DCG. I am running a German Armor Battalion, IIIF, IIIG, IVE. Here are the Atillery vs tanks stats.

Mortars, Russian Casuallties 0
German Casuallties 0

Artillery, Russian Causualties 3
German Causualties 2 IIIGs and 1 IVE

Seems very even to me.

Scott in tacoma




(in reply to Arkady)
Post #: 32
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/15/2008 1:02:38 AM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline 		I use the scoot and shoot...i do not stay stationary! it doesnt matter. For a test...i played an engagement of the west front. In "Road to Germany". I watched in horror as a US 60mm mortar, killed 2 tigers in a one shot salvo!!!!!!!!! It's freakin ridiculous!!!! opportunity fire no less!!!!!!!!!

I am afraid there is nothing that can change my opinion that indirect artillery fire is far to strong against tanks, and this needs to be addressed post haste! I am not a happy camper.

(in reply to scottintacoma)
Post #: 33
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/15/2008 2:38:13 AM   
XLVIIIPzKorp


Posts: 224
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline 		I feel your pain pal. I'm playing Earl's "Cauldron of Fire" and during my opponents last artillery shoot (first in 1.03) I lost more Elefants to artillery than I had lost to all direct fire in the preceding 14 turns. How's that for an eye-opener!

I posted this on Jason's 1.03 thread and apparently there is some "reconsidering" going on with these turns of events.

I suggest that we return to the old %'s for kill/disable while increasing the chance for AFV disruptions due to artillery. This would give artillery the increased capability to break up armor attacks (as it historically had) while not turning the guns into guided AT rounds. Think about it; increased disruptions would break up attacks since the AFV's would no longer be able to advance towards enemy positions. And really isn't that the effect we'd like to see?, commanders have to button up, drivers are hesitant to advance into all that smoke and HE, units lose their cohesion and the attack bogs down. Seems simple to me, just increase the incidence of vehicle disruption and I think both sides of the argument would be happy.

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 34
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/15/2008 12:12:22 PM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline 		I am all for disruptions....as I stated before I could live with that. So we are in agreement here! As it stands now...the kill ratio vs tanks is way over the top. And it something I cannot justify in my own mind. So I hope this gets changed very very soon.

(in reply to XLVIIIPzKorp)
Post #: 35
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/15/2008 9:08:52 PM   
Arkady


Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline 		well, you must be really unlucky or something strange in oin the move...
I tried two scenarios when AI shelled me with 82mm and 120mm mortars, my infantry suffered in the open but no hit to my tanks (30+) results in tank destroyed/dasabled

Your AI is very gifted that it is able to target indirect fire to your moving unit...


_____________________________


(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 36
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/15/2008 9:18:03 PM   
willy g

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: USA
Status: offline 		I have had the same problems with Arty fire falling on moving tanks, and I try to vary it between turns, i.e. one turn I will move 1-2 hexes away, next turn I will shoot once and move 3-5 hexes, and sometimes I dont move to test their ridiculous aim, and here are my figures for my last DCG scenario, 14 turns, regiment size (5 tank formations on the front line approx. 3 platoons/formation)

number of times artillery hit tanks - 37
number of tanks lost to artillery - 12, 5 Pz IVD, 1 Pz IIID, 6 Pz IIA/IB mix

(in reply to Arkady)
Post #: 37
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/15/2008 9:33:06 PM   
Arkady


Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline 		all this issues with overkill are from DCG ? maybe there is a point ?

because I play only stand-alone scenarios and tank kill ratio by artillery seem fair to me ...


_____________________________


(in reply to willy g)
Post #: 38
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/15/2008 11:37:54 PM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline 		ahhhh...perhaps therein lies your answer. I play only DCG's...and I am telling you, indirect artillery fire is too powerful. You get hit with a barrage....say goodbye to your tanks...its as simple as that.

(in reply to Arkady)
Post #: 39
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/16/2008 12:11:45 AM   
marcbarker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline 		Bravo Borst...60mm mortar better then a 75mm Pak40 ...they get the same results

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 40
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/16/2008 2:12:40 AM   
willy g

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: USA
Status: offline 		I also only play DCGs, and I get hit pretty hard, even against polish mortars, and my above mentioned example, was with full advantage, 12 tanks lost to artillery, FULL ADVANTAGE, thats ridiculous, my infantry didnt get hit that bad.

(in reply to marcbarker)
Post #: 41
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/16/2008 3:21:38 AM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline 		hmmmm..interesting...I will confess I never tried the full setting advantage...I think I am going to do another test with full advantage to my side and will report what I have discovered. Thanks for the idea.

(in reply to willy g)
Post #: 42
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/16/2008 4:07:42 AM   
scottintacoma

 

Posts: 192
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline 		I only Play DCG's as well. So far in the 1st 5 battles of a Barbarossa North, as a German Armor Battalion, Normal setting, No advantage, I have lost 3 tanks to artillery. Rusian losses are 4 tanks and 1 armored car.

I dont see a problem with the Artillery fire.

Scott in tAcoma


(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 43
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/16/2008 10:15:38 AM   
PaladinSix

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/7/2006
Status: offline 		Not to jump on the bandwagon, but I think I have to agree with Borst50 on this issue. We can debate whether or not 2% or 5% or whatever is the correct odds for indirect artillery vs. armor, but that misses the more basic point.

A tank that is "killed" during a scenario by IF fire (or any other means) is not necessarily a burning wreck. It is simply out of commission for the duration of the scenario and possibly longer. In the context of a single mission, having a track blown off is essentially the same thing as a total kill. Either way, that tank is not useful anymore during the mission.

But....here's the problem. Many people (myself included) do not play the single-mission scenarios. We play campaign games. And in the course of a large campaign game (like the DCG Road to Germany), those "disabled" tanks are effectively the same as "killed" tanks, because there is no mechanism to repair or refit armor in between missions.

Yes, I know, there are replacement points, but those are designed and calculated to model the larger supply and reinforcement picture, rather than a unit's inherent ability to repair minor damage to its own equipment. I'm not arguing for a regimental motor pool unit, but perhaps some recognition of the concept that not all "kills" are total is in order.

Otherwise, we're stuck with a situation in which individual scenarios may be well-balanced and properly designed, but dont' fit together into a more comprehensive yet still accurate picture of an actual campaign.

Personally, this sort of thing makes the longer DCGs very difficult to enjoy, which for me removes a great deal of the utility of the entire game.

PaladinSix

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 44
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/16/2008 2:39:43 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		I could also adjust the amount of reinforcements in a DCG to compensate?

Jason Petho

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to PaladinSix)
Post #: 45
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/16/2008 3:55:00 PM   
PaladinSix

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

I could also adjust the amount of reinforcements in a DCG to compensate?

Jason Petho


That would go a long way towards addressing the difficulties inherent in the game engine vs. campaign setup. Personally, a 3-5% loss rate from IF fire (on armor) doesn't seem all that extreme, if one assumes that a portion of those "losses" are only temporarily disabled and could return to action in a few days. Tanks throwing a track, or losing a road wheel, or simply a wounded and/or demoralized crew would be common results of indirect fire which shouldn't eliminate the tank itself permanently.

So, I'd rather see more robust reinforcements for DCGs, rather than simply a reduction in the effectiveness of indirect fire. That way the single-mission scenarios still require a suitable degree of skill to compensate for the risk, and the campaign games retain their playability.

Of course, there are two obvious problems with that approach (from your perspective):

1) I don't know what the limitations of the game engine are, so there might be programming difficulties associated with any fix, which I am not competent to discuss.
2) No matter what you do, the history of these forums demonstrates that not everyone will be happy about it. This, alas, is another area in which I can not be very helpful. I'm sure you're more than familiar with the firestorm effect of even minor changes to the code.

PaladinSix

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 46
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/16/2008 10:34:42 PM   
Arkady


Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline 		I made quick test for artillery (mortars) versus tank effectivness

6 x 82mm Mortar  (4SP each)
100%ammo - 12 salvos each turn

target - PzIIIN, open terrain with unpaved road (only 1 platoon on hex)

8 hex distance for artillery, LOS only by forward observer

fired 240 salvos
9 tanks disabled total

kill ratio 3.75%


_____________________________


(in reply to PaladinSix)
Post #: 47
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/16/2008 11:24:21 PM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline 		Yes, that would go along way to readjusting the balance, but there is also the rproblem or a morale decrease from the influx of new replacements on tank units, but we can give it a shot and see what happens.

(in reply to PaladinSix)
Post #: 48
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/16/2008 11:32:09 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Borst50

Yes, that would go along way to readjusting the balance, but there is also the rproblem or a morale decrease from the influx of new replacements on tank units, but we can give it a shot and see what happens.


I will incorporate this then for the 1.03 UPDATE patch when it is available.

Double the reinforcements, or?

Jason Petho


_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 49
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/16/2008 11:50:28 PM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline 		I was under the impression that "disabled" tanks did come back for the next engagement....but in the cases i have observed from my own losses, they are permenantly destroyed. if all tanks were to be disabled, and actually did return to combat with the next battle, that would eliminate massive replacements points needed to cover the losses, and keep the morale reasonably intact.


Failing that...perhaps it is possible just to have tanks disrupted with no kills.....that way an artillery barrage can still effectively brake up a concerted armor attack, but the attacker doesnt suffer debilitating losses in return, or in the case of defending tanks, they cant pick off enemy tanks so well from range, allowing the attacker to come closer and actually creaTE loses via tank v tank combat...as opposed to the defender just taking artillery losses.

I would also suggest leaving the results of artillery fire against infantry and trucks, etc alone. I found they worked very well.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 50
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/17/2008 12:04:04 AM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		As an interm solution, is increasing the reinforcements OK?

Jason Petho

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 51
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/17/2008 12:32:29 AM   
bigmilt

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 8/17/2004
Status: offline 		Let me first say I am not playing the current game only played the Talonsoft original. But am having a good time reading this thread. A gentleman I work
with is an ex tank platoon commander (during vietnam) that was stationed at Fort Knox. I asked him about the indirect fire issues and point blank he said
it would be a one in a million shot for a 81mm shooting he to disable a wwii german tiger or panther. Howitzer fire of 105 or above he was very wary of
due to direct blast effect to drive and track damage/ or shell hole opening up in front of tank going at speed could have a really good change of throwing
a track. So it looks like you may have overdone it with the mortars but might be ok with the howitzers. I will be be buying this game in the next couple of weeks unfortunatly have to paint the house first.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 52
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/17/2008 12:35:05 AM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline 		Sure! I'm easy....and cheap too. This will work for me...I am not so sure for anyone else, but I can live with it. I know there are other out there having similar problems. So we can try it and see what happens. I apprecaite the effort you are making.

you have my vote for Emperor!

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 53
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/17/2008 9:44:11 AM   
PaladinSix

 

Posts: 79
Joined: 1/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

As an interm solution, is increasing the reinforcements OK?

Jason Petho


That certainly works for me, although doubling the reinforcement points seems a bit excessive. Perhaps a 50% increase?

PaladinSix

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 54
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/17/2008 10:29:39 AM   
marcbarker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline 		All Hail the Holy J, We have found the Grail, Yes my brothers we have a solution! Great Yob Jason. Another Thought, Can you distinguish on 81mm firing indirect or direct fire 0% effect on Hvy Armor, Effects on Armored Inf Vehicles, Light Armor. Can you adjust the effectiveness of the rounds by class and not necessarily by type?

(in reply to PaladinSix)
Post #: 55
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/17/2008 4:46:22 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: barker

All Hail the Holy J, We have found the Grail, Yes my brothers we have a solution! Great Yob Jason. Another Thought, Can you distinguish on 81mm firing indirect or direct fire 0% effect on Hvy Armor, Effects on Armored Inf Vehicles, Light Armor. Can you adjust the effectiveness of the rounds by class and not necessarily by type?


Logically, yes. Although I have no idea how much work that is in the code. Maybe that is a long term solution, but beyond my abilities.

The reinforcement thing I can adjust and include in the next 1.03 patch. The suggestion above might have to wait until the next major update.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to marcbarker)
Post #: 56
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/17/2008 4:53:31 PM   
marcbarker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline 		THANKS FOR THE QUICK RESPONSE

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 57
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

7.703