Matthew_Ridgeway

Just curious as to the Urgency of this thread. The CM artillery model isn’t too bad. It’s both elegant and simple. In its present form it is reasonably realistic without drowning the player in the nitty gritty of indirect fire. If anything it already allows the player way more control than is probably justifiable. I disagree that additional control is warranted. Let's take an example of when most guys would like to have a fire mission. You are advancing and a pesky AT gun or infantry squad is in a building or dug in along a tree line. WWII maps and those of today have a scale of 1 meter = 50,000 meters. A 1,000-meter by 1,000-meter grid square is thus represented by only 2.5 cm by 2.5 cm area on an FO’s map. On these maps the village you are attacking is a few black dots that denote the village and individual building representation is in most cases an impossibility. Your FO, if he sees the target, swags a grid to the mission and calls for fire. The battalion fire direction center processes the mission (again, do you have priority of fire or is A Company over on your left the main effort?) Once the CFF is processed, it goes to a battery or the battalion. An adjusting round is fired (time of flight about 30 seconds to one minute). Repeat this process until the round gets within 50 meters of the target -- if you are lucky, but that's the standard. A fire for effect mission then is fired with, say, a battery 3 rounds, or 12 rounds in WWII. Elapsed time, anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes IF YOU AND THE GUNS ARE REALLY GOOD, and has satisfied all of the other requirements (good grid, FO with radio, priority of fire, etc). Having said that, danger close for 105mm is (as I recall) about 300 meters, for 155 it is 400 meters. This should give you an idea of the probable error that can occur in indirect fire. I recall reading pre-registered fires used by the British in WWI would walk barrages in front of advancing infantry by about 100 meters. However this was shrapnel type ordnance and was being delivered by 18-pounders (75mm-80mm…something like that). While that is not to say that fire missions closer to friendlies cannot be done, it requires some extra care for the artillerymen, FOs, and ground units in contact. Applied to the game, the fact that "what one sees, we all see" makes the use of FA in the game even more tricky to model. How does the sniper observer in contact talk with the FO? If the FO cannot see the target or get a reliable grid coordinate, then calling for fire is indeed much more of a challenge. On board mortars need a little tweaking in that they should be allowed some form on indirect fire capability. Presently the game is a bit odd and in many cases really pushes the player into using these weapons primarily in a direct fire mode. But this is another story.

Speaking of fruitless discourse how about we throw this particular thread into the ring. I see candidate USer continues to lobby for votes in the upcoming village dolt election. LeWIs: Can I offer you a piece of free advice? It may save you a great deal of hard work. You’re the only candidate running for village simpleton. I see you’re also in need of a lecture on plunging fire. It would seem the concept is beyond the expertise of a "static engineer" like yourself. Poor ol’ LeWIS. He wants so much to be thought of as an expert on small arms. It’s really sort of sad you know.

UsEr: REPEAT: Is this a hard concept for you matty? Does every thread you get into turn into fruitless discourses? Insofar as I typically only post to threads to which you insist upon regularly placing your “shredded” feet into your large mouth, I can honestly say that the threads I post to typically end up in “fruitless discourses”. In spite of your – ahem – first hand knowledge of the subject at hand, if you will cease and desist from posting on this thread I’m sure it will rapidly return to a “fruitful discourse”. However, I suspect you will carry on in your usual mode, and continue to misconstrue, misrepresent, miscomprehend, and vehemently pursue the forums honorary title of village simpleton. At Ease “Static Engineer” LeWIs. Do carry on with your static engineering duties.

Thanks for the clarification. I figured from the way you were spouting off about the combat merits of various weapons that perhaps you thought you actually knew something about them.

UsEr: I served with combat vets ( ) They discussed their experiences. So the information you are presenting is pretty much second or third hand information. “I heard this one guy talking about his brother who fought in Vietnam and he said….” Your discourse on the subject at hand is anecdotal at best. Mumbo jumbo. But you are certainly entitled to your – uhmm -- opinion.

UsER: Since it was a engineering unit, we had a static mission, we only went on long marches infrequently. You mean “We went on long marches infrequently”? Or We infrequently went on long marches? Or how about: Long marches were infrequent for my unit. USeR: Guys feet would be torn to shreds. whaaa…you were in the 82nd Airborne? uSer: I am making a point that being in the service is not the same as combat and that weapons appreciation would hinge on going against other weapons. If you haven’t been in combat how would you really know?

The history of battle, a commander’s experience, and the wisdom of military philosophers all confirm the direct correlation between training and victory in war. Successful combat units train as they intend to fight and fight as they were trained. Modern Armies base their future success on the battlefield on this philosophy. ----------------------- Good tactics depend upon sound technical skills. These are the techniques and procedures which enable us to move, shoot, and communicate. We achieve technical competence through training. We build skills through repetition. Training also instills confidence in weapons and equipment. It develops the specialized skills essential to functioning in combat. ------------------------------ The purpose of all training is to develop forces that can win in combat. Training is the key to combat effectiveness and therefore is the main effort of a peacetime military. ----------------------- “The definition of military training is success in battle. In my opinion, that is the only objective of military training. It wouldn’t make any sense to have a military organization on the backs of the American taxpayers with any other definition. I’ve believed that ever since I’ve been a Marine.” LtGen Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller ---------------------------- “You are either in contact, moving to contact, or training!“ LTC ”Chips“ Catalone, USMC

USeR: ”I wouldnt be caught dead firing anything british though.” RonS: In addition to the M119/L119 the US purchased, were you aware that the M68 105mm/51cal tank gun mounted in the M48A5, the M60A1 and -A3, and in the M1/IPM1 was a British design, aka the L7? ========= US Army was also trying to squeeze 100 or so Sherman Fireflys out of the British toward the latter period of the campaign in Northwest Europe. Throw in the US Army employed the British 4.5 inch howitzer as well. But than I think we have had a disscusion on the 4.5” before. UsEr: “The US also issued german ATG to towed tank destroyer units. These werent just ad hoc but issued equipment that was supplied with ammo and carried on the TOE.” Type of equipment issued? Units issued to? Numbers issued? Oh and how about a non-internet based reference please.

Get a job USeR.

After painfully reading through USeR’s and Slapdragon’s discourse I was struck by the correlation this thread has to Alice and Wonderland and the disjointed conversations between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The daughter loves this story. Tweedledum and Tweedledee Agreed to have a battle! For Tweedledum said Tweedledee Had spoiled his nice new rattle. Just then flew down a monstrous crow, As black as a tar-barrel! Which frightened both the heroes so, They quite forgot their quarrel.' `I know what you're thinking about,' said Tweedledum; `but it isn't so, nohow.' `Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'

I think you guys have been spendin' a wee bit to much time at the local Sci-Fi convention. Take your Klingon garb off now and reinsert yourself into reality.

uhhh..huh huh...uhhhh...got any Metalica? uhhh...what did you juss say?

Scipio: Perfection is in the eyes of the beholder. One man’s trash is another’s treasure. Insert favorite cliché here_____________. I guess I would recommend picking up a field manual on artillery gunnery or mortar gunnery so you can better articulate what the beef is you have with CM artillery. I am not saying CMbO artillery\FO is perfect, but as yet, I also see little validity in the points you are attempting to make regarding an error in CmBO.

Scipio: First Artillery, now mines? Your certainly determined to find some earth shattering flaw in CM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why i the AI so stupid I have tried time and time again to make a battle where the AI has a chance. To no avaial the AI always chooses a route to self destruction. If it is not doing a suicide charge toward the flag it is doing some other suicide strategy. Once it starts a strategy it doesn't deviate. The programmer should make the game somewhat more challenging for the private gamer and design the AI with enough intellegence so scenarios can be tested. The current AI is useless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why is it that people who can't be bothered with proof reading their thread title -- let alone their actual post -- always come off sounding so stupid. [ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Matthew_Ridgeway ]