Disabled Armor-Indirect by the Map-and more about Gardening Later

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Don't think this is a relevant statement relative to the problem...

Really? It was in direct respose to a comment DC made, so yes it was relevant. Also there is no problem with indirect fire IMHO.

One does not worry about indirect in this manner...it is indirect.

What? You are joking right?

Charging at the enemy relates more to direct fire.

Your take on this is very interesting. You may wish to try a scenario like "First Clash at Carpiquet" to see which has more effect on troops advancing on an enemy.

You may actually be better served to "charge" at the enemy in this regard.

This would only apply when facing an opponent who has no clue how to place artillery.

Indirect only hurts you when it hits you, it is much more likely to do so, when you stay in one place to shoot...:chin:

True indirect fire only hurts if it hits and true again that a stationary target is easier to hit than a moving one, however indirect fire is far more devestating that direct fire as it affects all units in a hex where as direct fire affects but a single unit.

The issue here is the nature of indirect fire and its results.
My point here, and Dan's assertion to it, is that a result on indirect that is plotted and planned into spotted terrain should get more credit and have more effect than indirect that is thrown "by map" into unspotted terrain, and happens to land on a target (hex).

I agree 100% and the game already takes this into account.

Let me explain how I believe the game engine works. When you fire indirectly at a hex containing armor two seperate things happen.

1: The total attacking strength of the indirect fire is compared to the defensive strength of each unit in the target (or wherever the fire lands) hex. The resulting odds are in a behind the scences table of possible results. The possible results are: No Effect, Disrupted, Retreated, Reduced X (X being a number), Reduce X Retreaded, Disrupted Retreated and Reduced X Disrupted Retreated (I think that all of them).

Unspotted indirect fire has its attack strength reduced ( I think by 50%). So your want for unspotted indirect being less effective is already in place.

2:Seperately from the above (see 1) each vehicle has 4% chance of losing 1 SP due to random chance if artillery hits its hex. This disabled result represent anything from damaged gun sights to a crew member wounded to a bailout. The exact nature of the disabled is unknown as it is outside of the game scale (for a good game that does detail this see Combat Missions or Steel Panthers).

The disabled tank is not destroyed (that happens in 1 above), but it is no longer usable for combat in the game.

Why the designation of disabled is beyond me. Maybe Jason can answer that.

The fact is when a 105MM battery drops into a hex it does not matter whether it is spotted fire or not for the purpose of a random disable. It is a fixed random chance.

We do agree on the concept of "landing on a hex" and the result thereof.

I think so yes.

I just think the application is wrong.

And I think it is correct.

My point here is that a hex represents a large piece of terrain. Your likelihood of actually hitting what is located in it by indirect fire is much better if you can see what you are shooting at...do you dispute this?

No I don't please refer to 1.

I would like to see indirect by map and its results on armor be mitigated in the same manner that indirect by map and its results on infantry are mitigated.

It already is again please see 1.

Currently you receive the same "roll" on the same table regardless of whether you see what you hit or you don't. The likelihood of disable is thus the same.

This is where you are incorrect. It is not a combat results table. It is not based on the odds of attack verses defense. It is a staight 4% chance.

Essentially you need to spot infantry to maximize artillery on indirect, you do not however, currently need to spot armor to maximize its effect.

Again you are incorrect. Please refer to the explanation 1 above. Spotted and unspotted artillery works the exact same way verses armor as it does infantry.

It is a "glitch" in the game.

Nope no glitch at all. It is designed that way. It was that way back in 1996 with the original EF and has remained unchanged for these 13 years. Did you believe it to be a glitch when the disable percent was 2%?

It does not reflect any sort of reality, unless you believe that artillery spotting is a waste of time.

Actually it does reflect reality as it takes into account the differeces between spotted and unspotted indirect fire and takes into account taht random chance of misfortune when artillery shells start randomly falling all around you.

Remember that in reality you do not need a direct hit to disable a tank while you generally do need a direct hit to destroy one. The game simulates this very well indeed.

Thanx!

Hawk