Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Historical Arty Delay

 
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 >> Historical Arty Delay Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Historical Arty Delay - 10/28/2003 2:51:35 AM   
K62


Posts: 666
Joined: 6/7/2002
From: DC
Status: offline
This is an offshoot of the accuracy vs playability poll. Since the duration of a turn is supposed to be 5 minutes, the US should get a minimum arty delay of 1.0, the Brits 1.5 and everybody else 4.0 and 5.0. Do you guys think that would be an improvement in the game?

_____________________________

"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak"
John Adams
Post #: 1
- 10/28/2003 3:05:47 AM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline
Opens a can of worms...and the delays aren't that big. For example, finnish arty during Winter war had delays around 5-8 minutes, 2-4 minutes if the battery was already firing and the new target was relatively close to the previous target. Those longer times apply if the whole gun ( incl. carriage) had to be swung into new direction. And...you'd need several turn long arty barrages. *if* you'd have certain areas under bombardment one or more turns then I'd go with longer delays, but for now think the current system is fine. Especially as you can wish all you want but you won't get those longer delays :) Wait for CL Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to K62)
Post #: 2
- 10/28/2003 3:40:39 AM   
AmmoSgt

 

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline
My Understanding is that a SPWAW game turn is about 2 minutes give or take some random time .
There were basically two artillery call/ response models in WW2 , with National variances based primarily on Communications ability and Doctrinal priorities.
The US Artillery System developed by General Charles Somerall in the 1930's known usually as TOT or Time on Target and the British STONK system. Both were similar and much faster than what the rest of the world was using giving a rounds on target time of about 2 minutes or less , The US system allowed more batteries to fire and have shells arrive at the same time and was slighty more accurate, The British systemm was just as fast but could not handle as many batteries and usually required some adjustment after intial impact to be as accurate as the US System .. The US had a generious supply of small portable dry cell battery radios and a redundant radio/ landline network that was very relaible and usually working even when other radio nets were down. The Brits had to rely on larger radio sets vehicle mounted using wet cells, and it did not have the redundancy built in. So basically a 1 turn response time.
All other nations basically used the same system that was used in WW1 with the addition of radios to the WW1 land line communications networks .. the actual method of ploting artillery fires was little changed and resulted in about a 10-12 minute response time and National Doctines resulted in a reluctance to call in out of command Artillery , so 4 or 5 turns sounds about right.
Radio net relability differed depending on the use of AM or FM sets on the Artillery net and intial accuracy was greatly dependant on the training and abilities of the Forward observers.
The US trained Platoon leaders as FO's ( as well as Company Commaders and Independant FO's from the Arty Batteries ) and equiped them with portable radios and the US system was easier to implement. The Brits had both Company level commanders and independant FO's and a fairly usable system and had vehicle mounted Radios to support them. Germany had a capability similar to Britian as far as Company level and Independant FO's but had less radio capability insofar as usually vehicle mounted artillery net radios were scarce in non motorized Units. This means that Arty batteries would have to send one or more of their very scarce FO's up to support a unit , and then that battery could not support any other units that did not have an FO from that Battery. The Russian reportedly had a real hard time training enough FO's at the company level , especially early in the war , and had a changing doctrine as the war progressed as to exactly what level of command commanded what Arty , Mostly worked out by 1944 with a very centralized system.
IMHO and given the above info a delay of 1 for the US British and 4 or 5 turns for all others would help with realism . Another improvement that would help would be that Platoon "O" units other then US not be allowed to call Arty other than British and German Motorized Recon, unless it is a platoon weapon. Truth be told Brixa's, Japanese Knee mortars, German and Russian 50mm were basically line of sight high angle direct fire grenade launchers more than they were Mortars ( you can argue the point about the Russian 50mm , but they simply did not have the observer support for true indirect fire on a regular basis). US 60mm Mortars had the sights, the range, the grid maps, the training and the Inf Platoons had the communication and training to actually use them as true indirect fire weapons.

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to K62)
Post #: 3
- 10/31/2003 10:48:58 AM   
Kevin E. Duguay

 

Posts: 1044
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Goldsboro, North Carolina
Status: offline
I voted for the "Historical". But from my own research I know that American and 42 ish British and also Finnish artillery could fire quickly in almost any situation. German and Russian artillery(in the later years of the war) on the offence could be well plotted and devistating. The Germans though did have a problem with defensive artillery plotting. They just could not react fast enough. Their plotting methods were slow compared to the American, and later British methods. (the British adopted the American method which was almost the same as the Finnish method of plotting). So because of useing a map grid a US comander could get in an artillery strike in 2 to 4 minutes, a German comander could sometimes wait for up to 12 to 20 minutes unless the area to be hit was pre registered.

Need more beer! Coffee! or both! have to go!! ;) ;)

KED

_____________________________

KED

(in reply to K62)
Post #: 4
RE: - 2/7/2004 1:14:47 AM   
FNG


Posts: 514
Joined: 1/3/2002
From: Devizes, UK
Status: offline
Having been reading The Guns of Normandy and The Guns of Victory by George Blackburn (a Canadian arty officer who spent a lot of time FOOing), his first hand accounts of the speed and (usual) accuracy of the massed British/Canadian artillery imply that they were certainly a cut above what the Germans had in the field at the time (July '44 on), at least in terms of response time. He recounts German POWs wanting to see the semi-automatic 25-lbers they must be using to dump that amount of ordnance in such a short space of time.

_____________________________

FNG
Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.

(in reply to Kevin E. Duguay)
Post #: 5
RE: RE: - 2/7/2004 5:11:27 AM   
Igor

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 12/11/2000
Status: offline
It's difficult to really model the American and British experience with fire control; because it wasn't really a neat mechanical matter of guns, tactics, and flight times.

The problem with just looking at the American technical ability to deliver fire is that this overlooks the politics of fire control. Historically, control of the guns having been assigned, whoever had them tended to refuse outright to fire missions not requested by their own FOs (they might, after all, need them themselves at some point). This could be worked around by going up the chain; but that added a lot of time.

Case in point, the Audy Murphy story. He had no technical right to call in fire (not being a divisional FO), and certainly had no guns assigned to him. Had the divisional commander not been on the net at that moment, then the request would have been refused, he would have been killed, and the Germans would have continued on their way. Since permission was instantly forthcoming, he got elite FO response times from an entire battalion of 105s. But how do we model this? Random availability and response times for non-FO units requesting non-organic fire support?

As for the British Stonk; yes, it could deliver a heck of a lot of fire (especially since, unlike the Americans, they tended to assume the FO knew what he was doing when he asked for every gun in range). But again, how do we model the random availability of batteries not even in the same corps as the requesting FO? This could make a divisional FO worth a vast number of points on the off chance he could whistle up 200 tubes on a 1.2 turn delay.

Just in passing, the Time of Target barrage was *never* responsive. It required massive amounts of coordination and calculation to determine just when to fire each tube to get to the target(s) simultaneously; and there was just no way a pre-computerized field artillery branch could do that in real time. The dawn barrage of July 4, 1944 was a typical example; after massive calculations, all of the targets were struck simultaneously.

If you want to use one, then create an MRL unit firing large aircraft bombs with very limited ammo and a high ROF, and insert it into a scenario as a pre-game bombardment weapon. As a special treat, a late war American option would be to do the same with large bore cluster munitions instead of bombs (with the HE armor penetration set to 2); this would be a TOT barrage with proximity fuzed rounds. Murder on infantry, not too dangerous to anything with top armor, and no awkward craters.

(in reply to FNG)
Post #: 6
RE: RE: - 2/7/2004 1:21:15 PM   
Frank W.

 

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline
i vote for beefing up the british arty.

at least in H2H the americans are quite good
modelled because they have more ammo and
slightly cheaper prices than germans.

_____________________________


(in reply to Igor)
Post #: 7
Real vs game time. - 2/7/2004 6:41:32 PM   
plloyd


Posts: 179
Joined: 8/8/2001
From: Colorado, USA
Status: offline
I think it would be best if the delays were not tweeked too much. This is because, like with most tactical games, SP:WaW compresses the action. Battles which took all day all are over in less than an hour, in game terms. We often have entire companies virtually wiped out in under 15 minutes game time. This happens because a lot goes on every turn. Thus the battle becomes compressed. Many of you reading this are thinking, "But Peter, a lot can happen in 2 minutes!". That would be quite correct, it is equally true that a lot does not happen every 2 minutes, indeed a lot does not happen in most "2 minutes", and that is where the compression comes in. Stretching the lag time for artillery would prevent it from keeping up with events in the game.

< Message edited by plloyd -- 2/7/2004 9:02:31 PM >


_____________________________

If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.

(in reply to Frank W.)
Post #: 8
RE: Real vs game time. - 2/10/2004 10:25:08 PM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
Guys, the OOB Team is going to experiment with altering the ROFs for quick-firing artillery, such as the famous French 75. I've always felt that offboard 75s are practically useless, since they're so often out of contact. We'll test this idea out--I hope it offers a workable solution, and makes them worthwhile purchasing.

_____________________________


(in reply to plloyd)
Post #: 9
RE: Real vs game time. - 2/10/2004 10:47:16 PM   
Jim1954

 

Posts: 1393
Joined: 5/15/2002
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Good answer, and congrats on your newly gained position of lofty esteem.



_____________________________


Jim1954
KMC/T

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 10
RE: Real vs game time. - 2/11/2004 2:33:25 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
If you guys want to help test this, here's the altered test ROFs, adjusted per ammo loadout:
Rounds / ROF
25 3
30 4
50 6
70 8
80 10

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 2/10/2004 8:34:38 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Jim1954)
Post #: 11
RE: Real vs game time. - 2/11/2004 5:47:48 PM   
plloyd


Posts: 179
Joined: 8/8/2001
From: Colorado, USA
Status: offline
Actually I am not so new. I have playing SP:WaW since v2.3, and I started with the Tanks & SP1. I have seen the difference in "time effects" between Squad Leader and (am I really this old?) Tracktics vs. Command Decision and SP3. Those same diffences are appicable here.

I have been on the forums for about 2 years now. I started as Lost Soldier (hence the avatar), but that was 2 or 3 crashes ago. All in all, it is nice to be appeciated. Glad you liked it.

_____________________________

If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 12
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Historical Arty Delay Page: [1]
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

1.156