Rick Posted June 28, 1999 Share Posted June 28, 1999 I've been following the Arty thread carefully and it has led me to a couple of questions of my own. Is real life artillery more or less effective than it is in most games? Will artillery be more or less effective in CM? After playing SP, West Front and others I kind of wondered how anyone figured artillery was the worth the cost. The only way I've gotten much value out of it is to bombard extremely close to my assaulting troops, so that the enemy is suppressed where I am attacking. Problem here seems to be the friendly fire casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhet Posted June 28, 1999 Share Posted June 28, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is real life artillery more or less effective than it is in most games?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rick, it depends upon many things. Mostly on time period and which game. In Napoleonic times cannon balls were used a bowling balls to break legs and the like. It was used to demoralize and break up enemy formations more so than kill people. Modern Artillary (like in the Gulf War) is Deadly with MLRS and Howitzer launched, seeking, anti-tank mines no one is safe. That is why counter battery fire and air superiority is so important nowadays. In all of the wars between the two I mentioned, Artilliary becomes increasingly more effective. From what I have heard the Arty in CM is Modeled very well. The Naval guns are a standout in lethality though. Both in CM and real life. The concussion shock wave of a large caliber Naval gun can kill a man alone! I have the two games you mentioned (I have not played either in over a year though) and in my opinion the modeling of Arty is on the light side (from memory - mostly in the demoralizing aspect). Arty has a very high demoralizing effect on infantry. This is why the term "shell shocked" was coined in WWI. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the enemy is suppressed where I am attacking<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are using Arty correctly this is why there was such a huge opening bombardment in operation Barbarossa and why the allies developed the advancing barrage. I will also add that Arty is excellent for breaking up attacks as well. If you are taking friendly fire casulties you need to call for the Arty from further away though. This probably has more to do with the deficiencies of those two games (which forces you to call it in to close so it remains effective) rather than an error in your tactics. ------------------ Rhet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted June 28, 1999 Share Posted June 28, 1999 In CLOSING WITH THE ENEMY Doubler writes (based on US Army data), that mortar fire in Normandy accounted for roughly 75 percent of casualties among US Troops. Certainly, the bocage maze helped the Germans and all, but I would imagine that artillery (especially the big stuff) is very deadly in reality and toned down in most games. However, artillery fire on prepared defensive positions seems to be much less effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 28, 1999 Share Posted June 28, 1999 "In CLOSING WITH THE ENEMY Doubler writes (based on US Army data), that mortar fire in Normandy accounted for roughly 75 percent of casualties among US Troops. Certainly, the bocage maze helped the Germans and all," This may be due to the fact that in bocage, low-angle fire is less effective (because of the obstructions of the multi-meter high hedges) and so mortar fire is judged to be more effective, and used in higher preponderance. However, I agree with the general conclusion; I've read that the #1 killer on WW2 battlefields was arty, folloed by MG fire. DjB ------------------ A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion. remove the caps letters in my address to email me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 28, 1999 Author Share Posted June 28, 1999 Ok, sounds like my assumptions were right. I always assumed that these games did not suppress infantry enough from artillery fire, showed the artillery as less accurate than it was, and showed Naval Artillery as much less powerful than it really was. I mean what's up with a bunker taking a direct hit from a 16in naval gun and continues to fight. I read that in Vietnam they used the New Jersey's guns to make helicopter landing fields, because one exploding shell would completely flatten enough terrain for a few helicopters to land. Doesn't sound to me like anything could survive a direct hit. The mortar fire in SP and other games really seems like a joke. I also read that mortars were responsible for a great many casualties in WWII. In most games though, it does close to nothing. I'll have to admit though that sometimes the AI's arty in SP seems pretty effective. Last night I played the opening scenario to the Germany 1980 campaign in SPII, the AI's artillery hurt me pretty bad. Then again, they had to use so many batteries to do what they did. I almost feel like a traitor playing the inferior SP, but CM isn't available to us yet. I predict that, assuming it is as good as everyone is saying, I won't continue to play any other game that deals with remotely the same topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 28, 1999 Share Posted June 28, 1999 There seems to be two reasons why artillery in SP is so poor (and we TOTALLY agree that it is very poor). The first is that you have to plot a hex for the guns to fire at. This doesn't sound bad, but the IGO-UGO system is unrealistic and it is very hard to predict where units will be. So unless you are firing at a fixed location, hitting something is damned near impossible. While it was hard to do this, it wasn't nearlly as hard as SP makes it. The second thing is that we guess lethality was tuned way down for play balancing. A 320mm Nebelwerfer, 8in Howitzer, or naval gun is going to take out large quantities of units with only one or two hits. We decided that instead of making the big stuff less than it should be that we would relly on scenario designers using them when realistic. All the figures we have show that around 60-75% of casualties were caused by some form of artillery in WWII. In SP I would say tanks are the big infantry killer whlie artillery does nothing, which is just wrong. However, it is consistant with the poor infantry modeling in that game. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted June 29, 1999 Share Posted June 29, 1999 I always figured that the 60%-80% figure of casualties caused by artillery was due to the fact that artillery is rather good at causing slight wounds with shrapnel, but not as good as a charging tank followed up with infantry at finishing people off. Otherwise you get the impression that WW2 battles were decided primarily by the arty. Also, many of those casualties were probably inflicted outside of an actual battle, so they don't have the tactical value that a direct fire kill would have. Anyone wanna comfirm or deny all this? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 29, 1999 Share Posted June 29, 1999 Rhet said: "I mean what's up with a bunker taking a direct hit from a 16in naval gun and continues to fight." That actually happened. I've seen numerous pix of Normandy strongpoints with salad-bowl-sized concaves in the ferroconcrete from direct hits by naval AP. Happened a lot in Pacific too. On Tarawa the Navy shelled and bombed for like 2 or 3 days (the Marines asked for 6 or 7 days, but were judged too cautious) and the Japanese weathered it pretty well, shot hell out of the jarheads. These bunkers were designed specifically to withstand the heaviest that could be thrown at it (don't have to worry about mobility or anything nagging like that and so often survived what seems like overwhelming force. DjB ------------------ A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion. remove the caps letters in my address to email me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhet Posted June 29, 1999 Share Posted June 29, 1999 Hey!...What the... Doug, check your quote...I did not say that. I believe that was Mr. Rick. I have seen pictures of the Fortifications at Normandy as well as read a few accounts of these direct hits. Three meters of reinforced concrete is a tough nut to crack for just about any gun! The guys in those fortifications were in no shape to take up fighting immediately after though. I bet they were bleeding from the ears and nose at a minimum. The sound and concussion of the impact plays hell with eardrums and small blood vessels. ------------------ Rhet [This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 06-29-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 29, 1999 Author Share Posted June 29, 1999 Here I thought those bunkers were still in use only because they didn't get hit. I guess if you've seen photos with the scarring of an actual hit, that proves my thought wrong. Regarding how SP lowered the effectiveness of some arty so as not to have one weapon system wiping out too much of the enemy. Did anyone read in the SPII manual how they left out certain units because of this problem? I remember reading that they left out B52 carpet bombing, like the US used in Desert Storm, for this reasoning. I was really shocked when I read that they almost left out MLRS. Did I put the L and R in the right order? I'm always afraid that I got that one wrong. Just got back from my first night back to work after a long vacation. Ooooh, I feel bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 29, 1999 Share Posted June 29, 1999 D'OH! I can't even get names straight when they're on a frickin web page! DjB ------------------ A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion. remove the caps letters in my address to email me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 29, 1999 Author Share Posted June 29, 1999 I didn't mind the name mixup. It tells me that the other day when you said welcome back Rhet, you were talking to me. My trip was great, got great photos of Siberian Tigers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 29, 1999 Share Posted June 29, 1999 Siberian Tigers? Oh, those were the PzVIs that Stalin sent East for hard labor, weren't they I think I have to sympathize with SPII a bit here. Like them, CM is leaving some of the heavy stuff out. Even though SPII is higher up in scale, something like a B-52 carpet bombing is as inappropriate as a B-17 carpet bombing is to CM. However, it seems that they had to dumb down the stuff they DID include. Even if they didn't, the system of artillery is flawed and doesn't work well. I always though mortars were a waste of time, but in fact they were crucial. CM bears that out. Getting hit by an 81mm volley sucks. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 30, 1999 Share Posted June 30, 1999 BTS said: "Even if they didn't, the system of artillery is flawed and doesn't work well. I always though mortars were a waste of time, but in fact they were crucial. CM bears that out. Getting hit by an 81mm volley sucks." I THOUGHT CC3's presentation of mortars was off. They never seemed as deadly as my history reading said they were supposed to be. I have fired dozens of rounds at enemy infantry right out in the open, and observed what looked like hits right next to a pixel-person, and gotten no effect. DjB ------------------ A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion. remove the caps letters in my address to email me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 30, 1999 Author Share Posted June 30, 1999 So I am to take it then that Mortars are more effective in CM than SP? Another thing I want to know; I know that to include carpet bombing would be pretty stupid, but will the effects of carpet bombing which might've taken place only a couple hours before the battle be simulated be accounted for in scenario design? I remember SP scenarios where the background said the enemy units had been carpet bombed earlier in the day in their defensive positions, yet they appeared to be at full strength. I'm not sure if that was accurate or not for WWII, but I heard that carpet bombing casualties were pretty darn high in Desert Storm. I would think that an accurate scenario simulating this situation would have you running up against demoralized platoons with maybe 1/3 of their men dead. By the way I am a wildlife photographer. The Tiger was cat named Pattie, she is a wildlife model at the Triple D Game Farm. I do take some military hardware photographs in addition to the wildlife. Earlier I put a post on here about an F4U-4 shot I put on my web page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lokesa Posted June 30, 1999 Share Posted June 30, 1999 I could be wrong here but I think Steve was refering to a mortar barrage rather than individual shots as in the CC series. BTW do we have individual mortar teams under our control and if so can we issue group orders to them and have them act together? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 30, 1999 Share Posted June 30, 1999 Actually Lokesa, I was talking about each individual shot Each artillery/mortar round in CM is tracked individually, unlike SP's roll the dice and see if you hit. In CM the shell lands where it lands, the blast radius is calculated, and anybody within it has a chance of getting hit. The chance depends on things like range, cover, current action, quantity of sharpnel, etc. A barrage is just a bunch of individual shots, so it is nothing special mechanics wise. You can coordinate artillery by simply making sure they are all order to shoot around the same time. Each FO has a countdown so you know exactly how long it is going to take. This is probably a little unrealistic, so there will be nothing done to make this more coordinated. Rick, carpet bombing can be simulated by the scenario designer. Buildings can start out damaged, fires can already be burning, and units can start understrength. We don't allow headcount reduction of Squads/Teams, so the designer simply deletes a squad and team here and there to simulate losses. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-30-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted June 30, 1999 Share Posted June 30, 1999 Hi guys. A quick question on Arty. i notice you stated that they fall straight down. Is it possible for a unit to 'hide' behind a cliff or a large hill from it? Just curious, it is something that would obviously not happen very often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 30, 1999 Author Share Posted June 30, 1999 Hope that scenario designers take such things into account when approprtiate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 30, 1999 Share Posted June 30, 1999 You are correct. In very extreme and odd cases an artillery round could land unrealistically close to a cliff wall. For this to happen you would need 5 elements all at the same time: 1. A very steep cliff (these are rare) 2. A unit at the base of the cliff, right up against it. For tactical reasons, this is not likely to happen. 3. An artillery round coming in aimed at or near the cliff face. 4. Luck for the round to hit the base of the cliff. 5. Luck for it to hit the unit. Since #1 is not likely to be in many games, and all others have to be just right, we see little need to special case this. I'm sure you thought that would be the answer Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted July 1, 1999 Share Posted July 1, 1999 Hehe, yup, that is about what I thought Steve, I was just curious Its one of those rare cases, so much so that programming time I guess is much better spent elsewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts