Artillery Spotting & Changes

[Herr Straße Laufer]

IMO it is flawed and needs to be fixed.
Most importantly Artillery needs a separate ammo level. (old scenarios could stay at their original default level)

Artillery could use an optional spotting system, to achieve more realistic fire results. (not necessarily to add realism by more micro management) An abstracted spotting system is allright with me.

Both proposed changes will only apply to new scenarios. So there won't really be a problem with the old ones.

As a designer I know how many tricks you have to build in the scn to make artillery at least somewhat realistic. Some players perhaps fail to recognize which of these design methods are used and then might think the current system is OK.
I think a designer can ask for new optional rules if he and the developer think that will improve the game. If they are right, people will play and keep playing the new scenarios. If the designers and developers where wrong the new scns won't be played. It is as simple as that.
So from my point of view, one would have to know more about scenario designing than me to convince me that arty doesn't need to be changed. These people hardly exist and as far as they do, they agree with me as far as I know.

That such a change should be an educated, meaningful one, speaks for itself. I have trust that this will be case.
Huib

:chin:

RR

[Kool Kat]

IMO it is flawed and needs to be fixed.
Most importantly Artillery needs a separate ammo level. (old scenarios could stay at their original default level)

Artillery could use an optional spotting system, to achieve more realistic fire results. (not necessarily to add realism by more micro management) An abstracted spotting system is allright with me.

Both proposed changes will only apply to new scenarios. So there won't really be a problem with the old ones.

As a designer I know how many tricks you have to build in the scn to make artillery at least somewhat realistic. Some players perhaps fail to recognize which of these design methods are used and then might think the current system is OK.
I think a designer can ask for new optional rules if he and the developer think that will improve the game. If they are right, people will play and keep playing the new scenarios. If the designers and developers where wrong the new scns won't be played. It is as simple as that.
So from my point of view, one would have to know more about scenario designing than me to convince me that arty doesn't need to be changed. These people hardly exist and as far as they do, they agree with me as far as I know.

That such a change should be an educated, meaningful one, speaks for itself. I have trust that this will be case.
Huib

Wow! It is this type of reply that really turns me off to the Blitz forums.

Have at it Huib.

Make any proposed artillery changes optional... and we will all be happy as clams I guess. End of discussion? :rolleyes:

Enough of this "debate."

Forget these forums - I'll just get back to playing JTCS!

Thanks for the "push" Huib! :smoke:

[FM WarB]

RR
I'm not sure if you read the original suggestion thread. I advocate something that reduces which units in LOS can spot for WHICH arty, based on chain of command. Click on your arty, know if it has a spotter, and shoot spotted if you can, or by the map, if not.
Input from experts and researchers is certainly desired. As an optional rule, scenario and oob designers could develop the best approach.

...Volcanos in Italy or the Pacific????....Great idea!!!!...:kill:

Warren

[Von Luck]

Ok the game cant be totally realistic due to certain perameters.But im with Ed on this one if you want to change it try and keep it as realistic as possible within the game engine code etc.Lets face it the more we (or should i say programers listen)the longer this fine game will last.Granted people tweaking the game to our benifit cant do everything but at least listen to some of the probs if you cant do what we ask fine if you can then please fix it to keep us all happy.Not bad after 12 drinks.Ok ive had my say dont shoot me for being honest.13 drinks now.

[Glint]

'It would have been better to give a link for the whole thread.'

'So you are going to dismiss his comment because you found something you do not like? How about understanding his words?'

'And, if everyone voted for "wego" or volcanoes would that make it right?
If the 34 to 8 "change it now" votes were from artillery experts in modern combat or historians of the use of Artillery in WWII, I'd say you have may have an argument?'

'Wow! It is this type of reply that really turns me off to the Blitz forums.'

As said in previous posts, when will a subject get discussed without the constant digs and 'goal-scoring' ? If 'everyone' voted for anything, then surely the majority should be heard, that's democracy?

Peter

[Jason Petho]

If 'everyone' voted for anything, then surely the majority should be heard, that's democracy?

Feel free to vote!

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2003404

Jason Petho

[Hawk Kriegsman]

If 'everyone' voted for anything, then surely the majority should be heard, that's democracy?

You do understand that democracy is somewhat flawed correct?

Need proof?

I gave us :censored: as president! :whis:

Thanx!

Hawk

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Oh and for the record I do agree that the current artillery method is somewhat flawed.

I would like to see what options are being dicussed before commenting out of hand.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Herr Straße Laufer]

As said in previous posts, when will a subject get discussed without the constant digs and 'goal-scoring' ? If 'everyone' voted for anything, then surely the majority should be heard, that's democracy?
Peter

I cannot tell if you are playing or keeping score.
There was simply nothing wrong with my questions and comments.
What is wrong is your constant clamoring to attack me and not enter into the discussion of the topic at hand?

This is another in a line of outright attacks against a member and not a discussion of the post topic.
When are you going to stop?

I want a well thought out change to artillery spotting that reflects both the tactics and doctrines of the individual nationalities, that fits within the parameters of the game. Not one that changes the game and is not a reflection of "real", but one that is a change based on what someone believes should be the way the game is played.

You take simple statements and/or questions and attach your more nefarious thoughts to them?
Lighten up.

RR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

RR
I'm not sure if you read the original suggestion thread. I advocate something that reduces which units in LOS can spot for WHICH arty, based on chain of command. Click on your arty, know if it has a spotter, and shoot spotted if you can, or by the map, if not.
Input from experts and researchers is certainly desired. As an optional rule, scenario and oob designers could develop the best approach.

...Volcanos in Italy or the Pacific????....Great idea!!!!...:kill:

Warren

Warren,
I started this thread? I've read the Matrix forum thread.
Where I agreed with timshin42 was in his comment that the designer/developers of the game take a step back and look at the whole picture concerning artillery and how it fits within the scale and parameters of the game itself.
Until those thoughts are reflected upon and answered by the design team the change to artillery spotting should be put on the back burner and brought back after full vetting, whether they are an option or not.
I have limited confidence in some on the design team. And, one scenario designer in particular who seems more intent on making the game into his image of reality and historically based reality.

If volcanoes are around the corner I want my Tesla death ray to counter the extra powerful opt fire. ;)

RR