Engine 5 Wishlist

[Bulletpoint]

9 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The relationship between shell size and effectiveness is non-linear. For example, British 140mm has 6.8x more HE filler than 88mm (5.4 kg and .8 kg respectively) but is only about 2.5x as lethal.

Thanks, yes I know there's a kind of square law with regards to amount of energy and damage caused. I think I remember reading that the rule of thumb is that to double the damage from an explosion, you need to square the amount of energy released.

Still, even for a hand grenade, it seems odd to me to watch it go off right next to a pixeltrooper and cause no damage. For the hand grenade, I can explain it away by assuming that it fell into a hole in the ground or there was a big tree stump betweeen the guy and the explosion, saving him from fragments, but the bigger the shell, the harder I find it to imagine reasons for why the guy wasn't vaporised.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Bulletpoint

[A Canadian Cat]

16 hours ago, RMM said:

I supremely hope that's not the case; otherwise, what's the point of plotting preparatory arty before the first turn of the battle!

What he concludes is 100 percent incorrect. Preparatory fire can be effective and cause casualties.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

24 minutes ago, IanL said:

Preparatory fire can be effective and cause casualties.

That may be the understatement of the century!  I've been advised to put 'health warnings' on some of my scenarios where the AI lets loose with a full scale and sustained barrage!  I've levelled whole city blocks and killed every last living thing in them! 

[Artkin]

22 hours ago, IanL said:

What he concludes is 100 percent incorrect. Preparatory fire can be effective and cause casualties.

Not if you hide your troops! My personal secret.

[BornGinger]

 

When I take a look at towns and cities in my copy of Final Blitzkrieg I often feel that they seem unfinished. There are quite a few things that could be added to the scenario editor which would help to make cities, towns and villages look better. One small thing that I think could make a great change would be to add pedestrian walks to the editor. It is possible to use for example cobbled stone tiles for the streets and other tiles to serve as pedestrian walks. But that method still doesn't make the streets look the part.

[chuckdyke]

On 11/6/2021 at 3:23 AM, IanL said:

What he concludes is 100 percent incorrect. Preparatory fire can be effective and cause casualties.

I gave one example Campaign Hammers Flank play on Iron. I plotted where I know an MG42 position was in a Foxhole. Completely unaffected by 30 Katyusha barrage which went all over the place by the way but some exploded nearby. One of my own troops was injured on the other side of the river. Preplanned barrage from now on have a delay and I will confirm first there is an enemy presence. I still have my doubts but I have no problems with it as hypothetically they can have shelter. Easy to test if you do testers mode and no doubt it will be effective. TBH I have my doubts when you play the AI on Iron. 

[Artkin]

smh lol. foxholes are just OP sometimes. 

Unless we pretend theyre legit 5 foot deep foxholes.

Edited November 7, 2021 by Artkin

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Preplanned barrage from now on have a delay and I will confirm first there is an enemy presence.

Often a very good strategy.  One can set an arty target for an FO that is not in its LOS and move the FO so that when the barrage order is about to implement the FO does have LOS to the desired target.  It's then easy to retarget. 

Am pretty sure that in CM, adjusting a preplanned barrage seems to be quite quick and ends up just as accurate as the original preplanned mission.  Much more accurate than a brand new arty target.

It's one of those "tricks" that one can exploit in the game that is not like RL.

Edited November 7, 2021 by Erwin

[chuckdyke]

11 minutes ago, Erwin said:

It's one of those "tricks" that one can exploit in the game that is not like RL.

It was mentioned in the trials of Nuremberg. The Luftwaffe bombed Rotterdam because the pilots didn't see the flares of the German ground forces. It was rejected because the function of a flare is to confirm a mission and not to cancel it. It is something which we could apply to artillery missions too. I thought it is a good idea so I use it myself in CM. It is the C of METT-TC . C stands for civilians and this tactic ensures that we target military targets only. Civilians play a minor role if any at all in CM games but to make sure we target a worthwhile military target is part of it. In a preplanned mission there is no need to send the FO out. A patrol can check and hypothetically signals by shooting a flare. You need the FO only if you adjust a mission he can cancel his mission anytime. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by chuckdyke

[Erwin]

30 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

You need the FO only if you adjust a mission he can cancel his mission anytime. 

Was simply suggesting that a good tactic is to have a preplanned barrage set by a spotter (anywhere) with a delay purely so that the spotter can move into position with LOS to another confirmed target and retarget. 

In that instance it seems that the new barrage will arrive much quicker than an FO starting a brand new arty call would, and at the same time be as accurate as the preplanned barrage would be - ie retargeting a preplanned barrage is more accurate than a brand new arty call.

[Redwolf]

All things considered it will be better to make preplanned barrages in v5 immutable (no adjust, no cancel).

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Why?  Pre-planned barrges were quite complex by the mid-40s (ie: tne period of the current games).....The ability to adjust a preplanned barrage is the best way to simulate a rolling barrage.

Edited November 7, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Ultradave]

7 hours ago, Erwin said:

Was simply suggesting that a good tactic is to have a preplanned barrage set by a spotter (anywhere) with a delay purely so that the spotter can move into position with LOS to another confirmed target and retarget. 

In that instance it seems that the new barrage will arrive much quicker than an FO starting a brand new arty call would, and at the same time be as accurate as the preplanned barrage would be - ie retargeting a preplanned barrage is more accurate than a brand new arty call.

This is because except in an emergency (which can by a fleeting high value target), they will go through the adjust fire sequence to zero in on a target before FFE.

Preplanned fires are accurate because the firing battery has time to carefully calculate the firing data, and the preplanned fire is usually on a readily identifiable terrain features, such as a treeline, or say the edge of a town, or the far side of a stream - all things where grid coordinates are able to be pretty accurately determined. So adjusting a preplanned fire is also pretty accurate, because you've already got good accurate firing data for a preplanned FFE, and then assuming your FO is competent (and they tend to be), when he provides a shift, as long as it isn't a huge one, your new firing data should also be pretty accurate.

For an on call fire mission, using maps and slide rules for firing data, there are usually two map plotters and they check each other, and the "computer" (the guy with the firing stick slide rules), is alone but checked by the NCOIC. The Fire Direction Officer checks everyone, but usually not to more detail than that the data sounds ballpark correct and the most important function, that it is safe in regards to friendly troops.

The issue with a huge shift is the FOs ability to estimate that distance, unless he shifts to an easily mapped location. But that may not always be true, depending on where the target is, or where he expects it to be in a couple or few minutes. Targets of opportunity don't always cooperate and line themselves up with map features

Taking all this, an accurate shift from a preplanned FFE is pretty reasonable, assuming you have an FO in position to send the data.

Dave

Dave

[chuckdyke]

4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Pre-planned barrges were quite complex by the mid-40s

Exactly and up to the player how to use the game, as any HQ can call in at least mortar fire. This can also be used as a communication channel. Somehow any HQ can contact hypothetically their FDC. We don't depend solely on radios in the game. The tentative contacts just don't get passed with the optimal efficiency. 

[Erwin]

Interesting, Dave.  Thanks for the clarification.

[Ultradave]

I should have added that the same explanation goes with TRPs too. TRPs are pre-plotted, the firing data for the guns is already calculated and checked. It's a pre-planned mission that just  hasn't been fired yet. So all that same logic of adjusting off a TRP works the same. They are plotted on likely enemy locations, or places you want to deny the enemy. Usually these are readily identifiable on the map. If you know the coordinates accurately, the fire should be accurate, because the calculated data is highly accurate.

It's very common for an FO to call a fire mission that is a FFE, shift from TRP X, say, and provide the shift distances. The battery just needs the FOs direction to the target so they know what L400, D200 means to the FO, as seldom is the FO on the same axis as battery to target.

Dave

Edited November 8, 2021 by Ultradave

[Erwin]

In the game it's good to know that there is a RL rationale why it's faster and more accurate to adjust a preplanned mission compared to a brand new fire request. 

In the game, one needs a large area in LOS to ensure the spotter sees the spotting rounds.  But, I noticed that when adjusting a preplanned barrage, even very poor LOS doesn't deteriorate the accurac, and the first shells seem to arrive on target.

[RMM]

On 11/5/2021 at 2:23 PM, IanL said:

What he concludes is 100 percent incorrect. Preparatory fire can be effective and cause casualties.

Good to hear, coz that would, otherwise, be more than a bit ridiculous; although he was referring to playing against the AI, and @chuckdyke did say he'd done a test where troops were unaffected by arty that was not actually sighted (ie. preparatory bombardment). so... ?

Edited November 8, 2021 by RMM

[RMM]

On 11/7/2021 at 9:37 AM, Redwolf said:

All things considered it will be better to make preplanned barrages in v5 immutable (no adjust, no cancel).

Wouldn't agree. As @Sgt.Squarehead points out, they were/are certainly adjustable in RL.

[RMM]

On 11/7/2021 at 6:10 AM, chuckdyke said:

I gave one example Campaign Hammers Flank play on Iron. I plotted where I know an MG42 position was in a Foxhole. Completely unaffected by 30 Katyusha barrage which went all over the place by the way but some exploded nearby. One of my own troops was injured on the other side of the river. Preplanned barrage from now on have a delay and I will confirm first there is an enemy presence. I still have my doubts but I have no problems with it as hypothetically they can have shelter. Easy to test if you do testers mode and no doubt it will be effective. TBH I have my doubts when you play the AI on Iron. 

So, I'm left, still confused. Are we saying that a pre-planned barrage will not have any affect against AI truppen unless there's an observer with LoS to it?

[RMM]

Another suggestion along  the lines of arty issues:

Shouldn't a mortar's direct HQ be able to have an almost immediate response (ie. at most a minute) to an OBA request is the mortar is actually in their LoS? It seems bizarre that a company's mortar section should have no faster reaction time to a request from their immediate HQ that is in sight, or at least in speech-contact than the Company's actual HQ that has to go through that mortar's HQ for access?

[A Canadian Cat]

13 minutes ago, RMM said:

So, I'm left, still confused. Are we saying that a pre-planned barrage will not have any affect against AI truppen unless there's an observer with LoS to it?

Don't be confused. The AI does *NOT* have any special protection. If someone has tests that show otherwise lets see them. Such claims have to be near the top of the ridiculous pile of BS made on here.

[Redwolf]

9 minutes ago, RMM said:

Another suggestion along  the lines of arty issues:

Shouldn't a mortar's direct HQ be able to have an almost immediate response (ie. at most a minute) to an OBA request is the mortar is actually in their LoS? It seems bizarre that a company's mortar section should have no faster reaction time to a request from their immediate HQ that is in sight, or at least in speech-contact than the Company's actual HQ that has to go through that mortar's HQ for access?

Yes. Instead of LOS we could also use the in-command link, which we already have.

[Artkin]

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

1 hour ago, RMM said:

Another suggestion along  the lines of arty issues:

Shouldn't a mortar's direct HQ be able to have an almost immediate response (ie. at most a minute) to an OBA request is the mortar is actually in their LoS? It seems bizarre that a company's mortar section should have no faster reaction time to a request from their immediate HQ that is in sight, or at least in speech-contact than the Company's actual HQ that has to go through that mortar's HQ for access?

This used to be so in the CMx1 games and I really miss it, if the on-board mortar were in C2 with a HQ unit they could call in direct fire from the on-map mortar as long as the HQ had LOS. In fact the tutorial for CMAK had you do that very thing: drive a HQ and mortar up to a ridge, set the mortar up behind the ridge, HQ peeks over the top and mortar fires direct to knock out an AT gun if memory serves.

MMM