LoneWulf63
Posts: 905
Joined: 10/21/2011
From: Columbia, South Carolina
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mwest
quote:
ORIGINAL: resinslinger
Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative about this matter. I am just pointing out that artillery fire could be represented a bit more realistically. What about this for a mod? It might be more tolerable for those reluctant to change. Divide the range of any artillery unit into five effectiveness zones; point blank, close, medium, long, maximum. Then divide the maximum HE value by five for each of the five zones.
Chris.
Hey Chris: 
No worries. 
I'm not trying to be argumentative either. You helped clarify your earlier statement.
I do know that in the CS artillery tables, there are both hard and soft target values, adjusted by range.
For example, the Russian PP obr. 27 76mm Infantry Gun has a hard target value = 6 at range 1 that decreases to a hard target value = 1 at range 30. Now, it also has a soft target value = 12 at range 1 that decreases to s soft target value = 6 at range 30.
So, based on the above example with the 76mm Infantry Gun, HE fire will be more effective against soft targets out to the gun's maximum range. I think some of the reasoning for decreases in strength at longer ranges is because of the possibility of wind drift?
In any case, IMHO, the original Talon Soft designers took into account both hard and soft targets and the effectiveness of HE fire on both types of targets out to the gun's maximum range.
Other thoughts - One area for improvement with artillery, and this point has been discussed at length here and at the Blitz, is to have separate ammunition supply levels for artillery.
Nor I and I am glad you understand my POV. I also recant my earlier idea of splitting up the range of a particular unit into effectiveness zones. It would make the artillery completely impotent.
Here is another example of another common German artillery unit, the leFH 18 105mm howitzer (unit number P01117). I am only listing the unit's HE values.
18 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 16 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 8 8
At its maximum range of 42 hexes (10.5 Km) its HE value has lost more than half of its effectiveness. I could see it loosing maybe a quarter of its effectiveness, but half?
I have heard all sorts of reasons why the original designers of WF, EF II, and RS attenuated HE fire due to range, including the effects of wind (but what if it is a calm day?). Here is how I countered. If you were to drop a 2000 lb. bomb from a B-29 flying at 30,000 ft. and that bomb hit the target, would the bomb be any less effective when it hit the ground than when it left the bomb bay? Nope. Yes, I know that a bomb dropping is a lot different from a shell flying through the air. Now here is what I think the designers were trying to reflect with this range attenuation issue. As the rounds get further and further away from the firing unit, some of those rounds may loose their momentum and fall away from the barrage and not hit the target. However, I did a small calculation once (I think I posted it here), that if a German battery of 150 mm howitzers were to fire a six minute barrage at full ROF, that unit could effectively drop over 4 tons of HE on the target hex. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere in the vicinity of that barrage when it hit.
_____________________________
In loving memory of my wife, Rebecca. 5/2/52 to 7/13/2014. I miss you sweetheart.
|
Printable Version
Attenuation of HE fire - 
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! 
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