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

[Crossroads]

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).

We do agree on the concept of "landing on a hex" and the result thereof. I just think the application is wrong.

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?

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. 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.

Essentially you need to spot infantry to maximize artillery on indirect, you do not however, currently need to spot armor to maximize its effect. It is a "glitch" in the game. It does not reflect any sort of reality, unless you believe that artillery spotting is a waste of time.

This is an interesting discussion, many good points made for and against :)

The point I would like to add to this thread is that spotted and unspotted are not arty terms as such, they relate to the game engine. An arty battery would be more concerned whether a target is (pre-)plotted or not.

In a case where the target is preplotted, the battery, or a number of batteries for that matter, can quickly adjust their tubes accordingly.

In case where FO has spotted a live target, the battery plotting team or plotter (sorry, I do not know what the term is in English but that is what I mostly did when I did my service) need to quickly calculate the proper bearings for the guys at the guns, before they can fire away. That takes maybe a minute or two of manual work, so within the six minute turn time it is definitively doable.

As for the unspotted shelling towards likely target areas, it is often likely that both the attacking and defending sides have preplotted a number of target areas and communicated that to artillery before the action begins. It is also likely that many if not most of the commanding officers are aware of these preplotted targets and can radio in arty support. Strong engine sounds from behind the hill: call in arty to shell a certain crossroads (no pun ;) ) or road area or village hex!

As for the 250m hex side. Arty fire is often targeted towards smaller areas, a typical generic target would more likely be a 100x100m target area. As for the abstraction within the game: a hex containing a road - certainly the 100x100 area would be around the road, and equally likely the soft or hard targets would be advanding within 50 meters of the road, if not in the road itself.

Therefore a shell is a shell and once it lands on the top of your head it will do the job. I am not particularly happy that unspotted indirect fire has a modifier. It can easily be abstracted that it was a preplotted likely target, and when you count in the surprise effect of the target becoming aware of the shelling only once the explosions start, I could live without the modifier. I can live with it as well.

As for the hard targets, it was already mentioned that the tank crews were highly trained individual professionals. If a shrapnel seriously wounds the leader, catches the driver taking a leak or gunner making tea, the particular tank would be out of action until they receive replacements. Therefore, strength points should be lost in the game.

I agree disruption would be a good way to model a tank platoon under heavy shelling, A full platoon becoming disabled is a tough roll of dice, but within the few hours of battle it can happen, I guess. Especially when a bit of imagination is again used. Leading officer died. One tank received a broken track. Rest of the guys lost the elan. Tough luck...

Overall. I am quite happy how artillery is modified and IMHO it does not need any serious tweaks. Even the capability to call and concentrate arty very flexibly in six minute turns was possible at the time. Towards the end of war, Finns for example ( EDIT: often->at times ) at times used one minute barrages that hit the target just before a counter attack started. It aimed for a surprise element, and at times had five to-ten arty battalions i.e. tens and tens of guns joining in for maximum effect. These were co-ordinated by a named arty officer, responsible for that particular section.

Of course, now I am talking about various artillery doctrines of various countries that evolved over the time of WWII. But what I am saying is that what we have at the moment is pretty accurate, and certainly feels right.

Just my 0.02, of course

[Herr Straße Laufer]

"In my opinion you could not be more wrong. Being able to charge straight at the enemy with your armor with no fear of enemy artilley dumbs down the game. Now if you are facing a foe with quality artillery you have to think."-Hawk

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

One does not worry about indirect in this manner...it is indirect.
Charging at the enemy relates more to direct fire. You may actually be better served to "charge" at the enemy in this regard. 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:

I've read many times of indirect artillery being called in upon advancing tanks. Maybe Hawk read the same books I did? ;)
I think that his point was both relative and relevant to the discussion.

The issue here is the nature of indirect fire and its results.

Yup, that has been the discussion since the changes in version 1.03/1.04 where some are of the opinion that they "like it" and some that they "do not like it".

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?

A hex is 250meters. If "x" amount of artillery falls within that area "y" numbers of units will be effected based on the density and artillery fire tables?
You can do the research and figure out what effectiveness each type of artillery would have upon an area that size.
But, yes, a spotted hex will give the opportunity of directing the fire more toward the enemy precise positions within the hex.

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. 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 may be due to "not thinking something through"?

Essentially you need to spot infantry to maximize artillery on indirect, you do not however, currently need to spot armor to maximize its effect. It is a "glitch" in the game. It does not reflect any sort of reality, unless you believe that artillery spotting is a waste of time.

I'm sure that no one here would think that artillery spotting is a "waste of time". Nor, would I think that anyone playing would think that "fire by map" into unspotted areas is a waste of time either. And, reality in a simulation "game" can become counterproductive? There are a few more tactically adept games that model "reality" on a more "real" level.
The balance is in the juxtiposition of simulation and game?

The Matrix team is active and involved. I am sure that they will think this through and update it with the new package upgrade. :smoke:



RR

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Just my 0.02, of course

You posted right before me.
And, your pennys are shinier than mine! ;)



RR

[Crossroads]

And, your pennys are shinier than mine! ;)



RR

Must be a dollar vs euro thing, I am sure :cheeky:

[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

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Strong engine sounds from behind the hill: call in arty to shell a certain crossroads (no pun ;) ) or road area or village hex!

LOL!!

I have found shelling a cetain crossroads (pun intended) :rolleyes: very difficult at the moment. :smoke:

I agree disruption would be a good way to model a tank platoon under heavy shelling,

It does do that already.

A full platoon becoming disabled is a tough roll of dice, but within the few hours of battle it can happen, I guess.

Not a whole platoon gets disabled, just 1 SP gets knocked out.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Mike Abberton]

Actually since all indirect fire, spotted or not, is essentially unaimed and random, a moving tank is just as easy to hit or miss as a stationary one is, as long as it is in the area where the artillery is falling.

The only advantage moving might give you is spending less time in the target area if you can get out of it before the barrage stops. The disadvantage to moving, especially at high speed, is that you're probably more likely to drive into shell craters or into large debris thrown up by the barrage, either of which could probably throw a track (i.e. a disable results).

From everything I have read, tankers avoided artillery fire whenever feasible, so they at least thought that they were vulnerable.

So, for the record, I am fine with the indirect fire vs arty rules as they are now, with the possible exception of a lower disable percentage for small caliber arty/small mortars.

Mike

[Hawk Kriegsman]

So, for the record, I am fine with the indirect fire vs arty rules as they are now, with the possible exception of a lower disable percentage for small caliber arty/small mortars.

I agree 100% with this.

Ideally you could have the % change based on calibur of the gun firing on a hex. There probably should be a difference between a 60mm and a 155mm Long Tom.

But also open topped vehicles should be more vulnerable to artillery fire than closed topped.

However this may be difficult to model so I can live with a 4% across the board.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Scud]

Hey guys, interesting thread and I apologize for the interuption. I just want to post a gentle reminder to keep things civil. Seems like whenever we get into a discussion regarding opinions rather than facts, things get a little heated. You're all entitled to your own opinions and to disagree with someone else's, just remember to do so with politeness and courtesy, or keep your feelings to yourself and don't post. And yes, I know you know, I just want to make sure.

Thanks,
Dave

[Crossroads]

A full platoon becoming disabled is a tough roll of dice, but within the few hours of battle it can happen, I guess.

Not a whole platoon gets disabled, just 1 SP gets knocked out.

I seem to recall a tank platoon of mine receiving a disabled roll and consequently spending the rest of the game stuck in that particular hex (ie.a SP loss and a fixed status) ???