RE: The magic of separate artillery

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: The magic of separate artillery

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> The War Room >> RE: The magic of separate artillery

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/16/2021 1:36:01 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericdauriac

I don't know if it's right or bad, but according to the tests I've been able to do, I confirm that the artillery in a division is treated by the software as using direct fire (for example: it suffers losses despite the "passive defender" function, it causes losses to tanks).

So my proposal seems to me valid. I make it based on Askey's studies, and I retain the range as a discriminating parameter.

Regards

Whether or not artillery in a non artillery unit uses direct fire or not is of no consequence in combat resolution. Artillery regardless of the type of unit it is in is all lumped together in one composite unit of bombardment. Range is not taken into consideration for that bombardment total unless it's buried somewhere in the code where us mortal users cannot see it.

Units can be exposed to flanking attacks exposing passively defending units to attack. Read 3.3.1 and 13.13 for explanations. If I recall correctly artillery in a non artillery unit does not suffer from counter battery fire. Can't recall for certain. Artillery in an artillery unit can be exposed to counter battery fire under certain circumstances. So yes, passively defending equipment can and will take losses. That's why you lose horse teams and trucks neither of which are using direct fire against an opposing unit unless I'm mistaken.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I�m not sure about the universe-Einstein

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn�t come back?
A: A stick.

(in reply to ericdauriac)

Post #: 121

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/16/2021 3:32:41 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Whether or not artillery in a non artillery unit uses direct fire or not is of no consequence in combat resolution.

On the face of it that's a pretty bold assertion.

What's clear is that artillery in a non-artillery unit is much less effective. It would seem that's because the game is using a different set of mechanics for these guns, whatever you want to call it.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 122

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/16/2021 4:18:32 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

I do agree, artillery does some inexplicable things that do not mimic real life. BTW, do the math on the following examples.

Not bold at all. It's supported by Uberdude. All artillery is lumped together. After running several combats there does seem to be a bit of randomness concerning shell weight. It's sometimes a bit less, not by much but a bit.:

Non artillery unit attacking by itself. (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)

ARTCombat:257 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 5%.

Artillery unit attacking by itself. (20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:1086 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 10%.

Non artillery and artillery units attacking together. (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)+(20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:2230 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 14%.

Non artillery attacking with artillery acting as a cooperative support artillery unit (1/2 strength applied). (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)+(20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:1237 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 11%.

< Message edited by Lobster -- 2/16/2021 4:20:50 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 123

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/16/2021 4:36:37 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

It makes me wonder if an artillery unit firing with a non artillery unit adds the effect of an FO and increases the effectiveness of the artillery unit.

_____________________________

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 124

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/16/2021 5:39:24 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I do agree, artillery does some inexplicable things that do not mimic real life. BTW, do the math on the following examples.

Not bold at all. It's supported by Uberdude. All artillery is lumped together. After running several combats there does seem to be a bit of randomness concerning shell weight. It's sometimes a bit less, not by much but a bit.:

Non artillery unit attacking by itself. (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)

ARTCombat:257 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 5%.

Artillery unit attacking by itself. (20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:1086 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 10%.

Non artillery and artillery units attacking together. (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)+(20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:2230 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 14%.

Non artillery attacking with artillery acting as a cooperative support artillery unit (1/2 strength applied). (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)+(20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:1237 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 11%.

The above is all about reducing entrenchment. My test results show artillery causing units in mobile status to retreat- that's much more likely with an artillery icon.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 2/16/2021 5:41:09 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 125

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/16/2021 5:40:49 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

It makes me wonder if an artillery unit firing with a non artillery unit adds the effect of an FO and increases the effectiveness of the artillery unit.

It's a very well established fact that artillery is much more effective when supporting an attacking unit than when conducting a "pure bombardment", but this is subject to meeting the threshold for "attacks very weakly" in TOAW, so a tiny attacking unit will be ignored and the attack treated as a bombardment anyway.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Lobster)

Post #: 126

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/16/2021 6:15:08 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

Explain to me why 257+1086=2230. Why 257+(1086/2)=1237.

_____________________________

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 127

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/18/2021 8:32:16 PM

governato

Posts: 1079
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
What's clear is that artillery in a non-artillery unit is much less effective. It would seem that's because the game is using a different set of mechanics for these guns, whatever you want to call it.

To the original topic: Have we made progress in understanding why having artillery separate in a `bombardment' unit is more effective to cause retreats even when the defending units are in the open and in mobile posture?

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 128

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/18/2021 9:42:37 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

I thought it was more ordinance delivered to the target as demonstrated by the increased amount of shell weight. I think the only one who can give you a definitive answer is Bob because he has access to the program's code. In other words...

Other's mileage will vary.

_____________________________

(in reply to governato)

Post #: 129

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 2/19/2021 8:21:00 AM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

To the original topic: Have we made progress in understanding why having artillery separate in a `bombardment' unit is more effective to cause retreats even when the defending units are in the open and in mobile posture?

I have a vague intention of returning back to the original test and seeing what the loss levels are like on the defending unit. If the defender takes higher losses then naturally that would cause more retreats. If not then something is specifically happening in the Retreat From Combat calculation- but I think it's higher losses.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to governato)

Post #: 130

RE: The magic of separate artillery - 3/1/2021 4:34:07 PM

Lobster

Posts: 5104
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericdauriac

I don't know if it's right or bad, but according to the tests I've been able to do, I confirm that the artillery in a division is treated by the software as using direct fire (for example: it suffers losses despite the "passive defender" function, it causes losses to tanks).

So my proposal seems to me valid. I make it based on Askey's studies, and I retain the range as a discriminating parameter.

Regards

Wow, totally missed this one. Found it in my Spam folder. Why you would drag Nigel's name in mystifies me. You are obviously under the delusion that this covers just the summer/fall/winter of 1941. It does not. This is for artillery of ALL armies of ALL nations for ALL of time.

Scenario designers should have some control of how it works. No, not by making even more units than they already have to.

In any event Bob has total control of how this game is designed so I'm just blowing hot air. Gotta go turn on the air conditioner. Getting hot in here and it's only February.

_____________________________

(in reply to ericdauriac)

Post #: 131