Atillery Indirect Fire - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Campaign Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: Atillery Indirect Fire (/showthread.php?tid=54365)

Atillery Indirect Fire - Gordons HQ - 01-16-2010 Can someone tell me why artillery is more effective the closer you move it towards the enemy. I've often wondered over this point as a shell when landing surely would have the same explosive value whatever it's range. The only thing I can come up with here is there would be less chance of the shells being affected with things like being blown off course by the wind. Perhaps also other things like wear to the barrel of the guns. I don't fully understand this though because if the fire is observed then the artillery fire will hit the plotted 250m hex, it's only if unobserved it usually misses. Any thoughts on this anyone. Cheers, Gordon RE: Atillery Indirect Fire - Jim von Krieg - 01-17-2010 Howdy Gordon, I think it is a function of accuracy... Artillery is generally more accurate the closer it is to the target... there is less environmental impact (wind & weather) on the round as it goes down range when it is closer to the target... Less drift... Regards, Jim RE: Atillery Indirect Fire - junk2drive - 01-17-2010 What he is saying though, is that once it hits a hex, it hits a hex. I think it is because this is a game. Part of the gameplay is to get you to move your units closer or suffer poor results from distance, within the limits of the game engine. RE: Atillery Indirect Fire - Montana Grizz - 01-17-2010 Jim's explanation is totally understandable and makes sense. However, according to a little experiment I conducted, there was no drift at two separate distances as long as the subject hex was spotted. I shot 8 times at a distance of both 17 hexes and 27 hexes. The artillery hit each targeted hex 8 out of 8 times, but with two separate damage values? I can appreciate the idea of closer being more accurate, but in my little test it made no difference as long as the hexes were spotted, but the effect of damage was different. I don't consider this a significant glitch in the game and don't care if it is ever addressed in a subsequent update, but it does support Gordon's observation. Pat RE: Atillery Indirect Fire - Jim von Krieg - 01-17-2010 Pat, I'm talking about what occurs inside the hex... Drift within the hex is notional... but it is a factor in effectiveness of the attack... In a hex 250 m in size, an artillery barrage can be more concentrated or scattered just based on accuracy within the hex... Just because I hit the hex doesn't necessarily mean I hit the targeted unit... Don't think of the arty attack as just the explosive weight of the round, but the accuracy and concentration as well... It is the designer's thoughts on a whole host of factors in artillery effects during game play... I don't necessarily agree with the arty routine as it currently exists, just adding some commentary as to what I think is the reasoning behind it... Regards, Jim RE: Atillery Indirect Fire - Montana Grizz - 01-17-2010 Makes sense to me Jim. I have not problem with the reasoning behind the process nor the results. Give me a hug, Pat RE: Atillery Indirect Fire - Jim von Krieg - 01-17-2010 :group: RE: Atillery Indirect Fire - K K Rossokolski - 01-17-2010 This interesting point illustrates one of the many valid arguments AGAINST the attempt to make CS a game involving important aspects of sea warfare....the "bathtub navy". The issue is a complex, multi-faceted one, but in major aspects, naval gunfire ship-to-ship involving armoured units...battleships for example...may well be more effective at long range, because a shell past its zenith will descend at an increasing angle to the horizontal. Battleship armour was generally distributed mostly with the thickest horizontally disposed about the ship's vitals.....side armour abreast the command, machinery and weapon spaces, with much thinner horizontal (deck) armour. The classic example were the battlecruiser losses at Jutland in 1916, and the death of HMS Hood in 1941 when hit at long range (about 10 nm) by the German Bismarck. One or more steeply descending shells penetrated her relatively weak deck armour to set off a magazine. Her thick side armour was useless. The longest range hit against a moving target is believed to be that of HMS Warspite against the Regia Marina's Giulio Cesare in 1940....13 nautical miles. RE: Atillery Indirect Fire - Gordons HQ - 01-18-2010 Thanks all as I understand this now The destructive power of the shell remains the same no matter what. Shells in flight are subject to a number of variables like the wind factor mentioned. The further away from the target the guns are the longer the shells are in flight the more they are subject to these variables. So in the 250m hex the obsreved shells may fall further away from the target the further away these guns are due to these variables Therefore the destructive power of the shells is reduced the further away they fall from the target. By bringing the guns closer the shell would spend less time in the flight and would hopefully land on or closer to the target thereby causing more destruction to the target. Moving the guns of course can be fraught with danger and the pros and cons of such a move would have to be studied to see if it is worth the risk. I hope this helps anyone who like me was not too sure on the reasoning behind moving indirect Artillery closer to the targets. Cheers Gordon