82mm MTRS - Bogadukhov

[GerryM]

Hello All:

Playing the Bogadukhov scenario and I had problems with these German mortars.

1) They usually had no effect against infantry in the Clear. I though there should be some effect.

2) Sometimes I couldn't fire as there was no spotter for them? How do you know which units can spot for which mortars?

Thanks,

Gerry

[ComradeP]

The initial mortar units are too small to do damage in most cases.

The aufklaerung mortar units can't be combined due to the way their OOB is constructed (they're organic parts of recon companies) but the regular battalion mortar units can be combined into 8 gun units.

You can view indirect fire spotters for a selected indirect fire unit by pressing B.

[19 Delta]

The initial mortar units are too small to do damage in most cases.

82mm motors rounds have about a 40m blast radius ..... I have to agree with Bogadukhov there be effect on everything in a 250m hex expecially in open ground

[ComradeP]

Due to the way gun units are represented in the game, they're a lot weaker than their historical counterparts. Artillery is not what causes most casualties.

I meant that the unit itself is too small to do much when broken down or unable to combine. They're usually 2, 3 or 4 gun units, which means 20, 30 or 40 men worth of firepower. Combine them to a 8 gun/80 men unit and they will at least do something.

The McNamara ratings for guns and vehicles might make sense based on their calibre and relative effectiveness, but in game terms they're weak compared to infantry.

The 82mm's have the same SA rating as motorized PzG units, but they can only fire twice and they're smaller. That means they cause fewer losses.

Furthermore, artillery fire is modified by unit size in some way. That means fire values against small units will be low.

I just ran a test with an 8 gun mortar unit and an 80 men PzG unit (weakened 96 men unit, the infantry casualty fire modifier was 93%, so it fired like a 89 men unit) firing at a ~30 men AT Rifle platoon. The mortar fire value was 8. The PzG fire value was 61.

[19 Delta]

Agreed, harassment fire is indeed the historical role. 

Your explanation of the math and how artty is modeled makes perfect sense , even if combat resolutions are not relative to historical effectiveness in every particular situation.

[Strela]

This is an interesting thread and worthy of deeper discussion.

The PzB code was created from PzC code. This has resulted in approximations used at an operational level filtering down to the tactical PzB level. Treating indirect and direct fire as one and the same is an example of that.

Should there be some change here? Realism vs playability are the main considerations. Ultimately are players going to find any change to say the artillery code significant and relevant over the length of a scenario?

Some examples;

If the vast majority of casualties are caused by artillery should we up it's lethality and dampen down direct fire? This can be done either through the current multiplier for artillery in the PDT file or via a code change. If direct fire is reduced to reflect a more correct ratio, how will players feel about seeing more 'No Effect' results from direct fire? If we only increase artillery lethality and leave direct fire as is, what does this do when the increased losses are factored in, making units less effective, quicker.

If artillery is separate should it go through a different combat calculation/PDT? For example, should forest/orchards etc actually be +ve modifiers vs -ve modifiers to represent the fact that air burst etc are particularly lethal in trees due to the increased shrapnel effect of splintered trees?

Should mortars and artillery have different effects due to the mortars ability to use plunging fire?

Should artillery spotting be more restrictive as an offset to any increased ability to use it - to prevent it being used all over the board?

This is just some examples that quickly come to mind and ultimately we need to decide will they add to the overall simulation.

My personal take is that artillery should probably be more effective than it currently is. The quickest and easiest way to do this is to up the multiplier in the PDT file. The important thing would be to decide what is an appropriate end result for balancing. For example using ComradeP's example, should 8 x 81mm mortars have the equivalent killing power of an 80 man company, or is it some percentage of that? Ultimately that is one of the biggest considerations and something we can run through our testing suite here.

David

[Xaver]

First i think the problem in Tiller games with casualties is not separate total casualty (dead or heavy wounded that need evatuated to a hospital, prisoners...) from non total casualty (light wounded, and soldiers from dispersed units...), in the end only are 1 type of casualy on his games and needs represent all type of them.

For me this force to much orientate game to "kills" and how is made OOB prevent use more disband units when are simple rushed by enemy BUT that could be used later even in same day to reinforce other units that are still in combat... or even appear add-hoc formations... to win many times you need kill enemy over crack their morale and leave him dispersed without need you circle him and assault to dead.

The point is, to be usefull an unit in game, it needs be capable to deal damage to enemy and this means kills... BUT arty has to another value that is increase fatigue and help made units less effective in time.

I dont have problems with arty, i think is ok at is now BUT maybe it needs help more to fatigue units and made them less effective instead need kill enemy, here mortars could work on this role, as now mantein low casualty rate BUT being more a fatigue unit that help soft enemy for land units... the idea is simulate the casualties that mortars deal with fatigue that is something you simple cant avoid unless you have enough troops to cicle them in first line.

Other weapon that need improvements is the infantry gun, they are a bit useless and more a problem than a help, they are a little like cavalry in Nap titles, something you need hide to dont lose points.

Another point is you cant stockpiled ammo for mortar units or infantry guns.

Lets see if new game introduce something on this area because the battles covered have OOBs with a lot of nimble support units and i am curious to see if they have impact in game or are simple free points counters

[ComradeP]

There are a number of separate, but related, things to consider.

First, casualties per hit relative to unit size. Currently, those are (very) low for gun and many vehicle units compared to infantry direct fire from units with at least a halfway decent SA value.

Early war tanks are equally incapable of causing sufficient losses to stop an infantry push as most gun units are. To use the Hannut scenario as an example: the French tanks are incapable of stopping an infantry assault wave.

Due to the low casualties they cause, I often don't use small gun units at all but just park them somewhere safe. They might also end up getting interdicted when moving to the frontline. As Xaver mentioned, they tend to be "free points" for the attacker as they can't cause more losses than their own value in points.

The very detailed OOB in PzC and PB has a significant effect on both unit performance and playability when you consider how the mechanics work. The playability argument is fairly simple: in a full PzC campaign game, there might be up to a few hundred German regimental AT and infantry gun units that can't be combined into a larger unit.

That means a few hundred extra clicks each turn, which is cumbersome. As a result, I end up not using particularly the AT guns, as the benefits of keeping them at the front are not worth the clicking. Infantry gun units tend to have regimental spotters, which you can work around by keeping a battalion of each regiment close. At least you can stack the infantry guns per division without going over the road movement size limit, which helps.

In PB, those same small units are there, but their relatively speaking larger size compared to the average individual unit size of (combined) platoons makes them more useful. Still, I don't use infantry guns much.

Then the unit performance part, which ties into the initial discussion. As a simplified explanation: mathematically speaking, combined gun/vehicle units perform better than the performance of the sum of their parts if they would be firing individually. As terrain and quality fire modifiers are percentage based, higher fire values have a more notable increase or decrease.

Lower fire values are more likely to drop below the casualty causing threshold, which is why you see all those No Effect results from small gun/vehicle units.

That is also why even high performance units, like Tigers, don't perform well in small numbers. See the Franz' excellent adventure scenario for Kursk as an example.

Second, there's casualties over time. This is one area where artillery can theoretically outperform infantry units, particularly if infantry SA values are mediocre. As an example: American defensive artillery fire, aided by an indirect fire bonus for defensive fire, tends to hit like a ton of bricks compared to a single infantry salvo.

This is also why I was somewhat concerned about balancing off-map artillery firing in support, which it wasn't capable of doing until a recent patch.

In longer scenarios, direct fire elements normally have enough time to cross most of the map and might, in fact, have enough time to nearly clear the map like in some full day Kursk and Normandy scenarios. However, in a scenario with a fairly large amount of artillery and a low number of on-map units, like Bois du Homme - Quarry Hill for Normandy, artillery can be a real killer.

When it comes to changing the casualty causing balance in favour of indirect fire units (or any gun/vehicle units), treading lightly and making sure the system isn't broken in the process will require prolonged testing. Both the PzC and PB system feature lethal battles with high casualties, and scenarios are balanced towards that. Making the system less lethal would be welcome, but as I said: everything would need to be done in small steps.

Personally, I'd prefer experimenting with global changes and/or parameter data values over changes to the effect of artillery in certain terrain types or for certain unit types as a starting point for changing the system.

[Strela]

Personally, I'd prefer experimenting with global changes and/or parameter data values over changes to the effect of artillery in certain terrain types or for certain unit types as a starting point for changing the system.

I also have a preference to manage this via a parameter data value. A good starting point would be to change the way the Indirect Fire Modifier worked. From the manual;

Indirect Fire Modifier

A modifier applies when a unit fires Indirect Fire during the opposing turn.
This modifier depends on the side of the firing unit and its value is determined by the Indirect Mod Parameter Data values. For example, if the Allied Indirect Mod value is 50%, then whenever a Russian artillery unit fires Indirect Fire during the Axis turn, the fire value of that unit is only 50% of its normal value. Indirect Fire during the unit’s turn is not affected. If the Indirect Mod value for a side is 100%, then there is no change to the fire value.

Currently this only effects the defensive fire phase for the non-phasing player. I would make it a blanket change which would allow all indirect fire to be scaled up or down as necessary. A value for example of 200% would double the final combat value.

We will have a think about this, taking into consideration ComradeP's commentary regarding casualties. Also keep in mind the higher fatigue factor will also impact units durability.

David

[ComradeP]

As noted before, days featuring 30+ turns with good visibility make fatigue recovery more challenging than in PzC, which means fatigue gain is something that would be helpful to track when changing the number of casualties.

The good to excellent visibility is another important complex part: it gives units (particularly infantry units) with longer ranged weapons clear advantages and allows artillery spotters to identify targets a considerable distance away. That in turn means improving artillery firepower could have a quick and immediate effect on casualties in a way that spirals out of control over several turns.

It will be interesting to see how visibility influences the battlefield situation in relatively featureless terrain like the desert.

I guess I'd ideally like to see fewer direct fire losses from infantry, more losses from light artillery and mortars (heavy artillery's good enough I'd say) but with further restrictions in place for artillery usage against the same target, and more lethal gun/vehicle units.