Dr. Brian Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 We all know the benefits of reverse slope. However, is it modeled with respect to artillery fire? If I have units on the reverse slope of a hill opposite the enemy's friendly board edge , will the rounds be more likely to fall short or over shoot? Likewise, even being on top of a crest, we all know artillery is more likely to less damage due to rounds falling short or long (thereby, landing at the base of the hill/mountain doing less damage). It doesn't seem to model this. Am I right? Thanks in advance. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 I would say not because I imagine (from reading the memoire's of a FOO) that this was included in the calculations. They had some pretty good topographical maps and if they could factor in changes of air temperature at dif. altitudes I am sure they could adjust for a mission falling slightly short or long on a slope This is to say that no, CM doesn't model that. Although going by my recent battle with Nijis where half a dozen 150mm shells fell in a line 100m short of his lines (ON MY MEN!) something is going on *sniff sniff* PeterNZ ------------------ - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf - Der Kessel scenario design group Combat Vision movies [This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 03-20-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 My impression is that CM arty drops vertically out of the sky, so this isn't really modeled. I think mortars are launched vertically that matter, as I've never really had a problem putting them right behind buildings. I don't have any concrete info on this (I haven't done a search, but I don't remember a thread on it...) but I'd concur that it doesn't seem to be modeled. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 The arty rounds come in from straight down. So they land in a consistent pattern regardless of slope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted March 20, 2001 Author Share Posted March 20, 2001 Originally posted by Dirtweasle: The arty rounds come in from straight down. So they land in a consistent pattern regardless of slope. That's what I was afraid of. Do you think there are plans to modify the artillery model, so that it is a truer representation of "real life?" ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londoner Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 Hmmm a good point, hope this will be fixed in CM2... ------------------ In military operations timing is everything. Wellington 1800. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-00 Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 In my career as an artillery officer (15 years) Of all the things (and the list is long) that need to be changed to correctly model artillery in CM this is not one of them. Howitzers can fire either high or low angle. Mortars only fire high angle. Therefore, hiding behind a hill won't protect units. Fire Direction Centers can account for differences in Vertical Interval between target and shooter in seconds. Now if the unit his hiding on the reverse side of a cliff (literally)it may accrue some protection. Guns are a little different. If the hill is big enough (and it has to be big) some masking will occur. If however, the firing unit is far enough away from the target (angle of fire significant) the benefit will be slight. BTW the howitzer was designed to overcome this weakness in the "gun envelope" There is one obvious benefit from a reverse slope. That is the difficulty of directly observing the target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike the bike Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 It's certainly modelled for direct fire - shooting with HE at a squad on a crest often results in the shot disappearing off the board edge!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted March 21, 2001 Author Share Posted March 21, 2001 Originally posted by X-00: Fire Direction Centers can account for differences in Vertical Interval between target and shooter in seconds. Did your 15 your career span the years 1944-1945? Basically, the changes in Fire Control have drastically improved, to correct for fire. The mathematics and general equations have not changed, but, communication and control have, allowing for corrections in "seconds." What are your thoughts on this aspect? ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! [This message has been edited by Dr. Brian (edited 03-21-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurricane Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 Yes, you just can´t say you have a long fix list and not post it here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-00 Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 Did my career include WWII. No. As for the the correction for Vertical Interval (VI). It was applied in WWII in seconds. Today it takes nano-seconds. In a WWII Fire Direction Center there is a soldier called a Vertical Control Operator (VCO). One of his responsibilities for determining and applying the correction for VI. The VCO has a TFT (Tabular Firing Manual) and a TFT slide rule to help him. Today a computer takes care of it. When the computer breaks down or is damaged today's artillerymen revert to the manual fire direction drill much like his WWII predecessors. As for the long list of fixes for artillery in the game. (1) Allied cost versus German cost for off-board artillery. Why is German artillery cheaper? That is totally counter factual. See later post for round cost anaylsis. (2) Sheaf: (a)Both the normal and target wide are basically a converged sheaf. An open sheaf (all guns firing the same deflection)was the standard form of delivery (b)It's east-west orientation should be rotated 90 degrees to reflect (a) above. © Guns are usually placed 50-100m apart in a Lazy W. Using an open sheaf the rounds would fall on a frontage of basically 150m-300m with a depth of 50-100m (depends on the probable error in range). (3) C2. Similar to onboard indirect fire, if an allied leader has C2 over an FO that leader should be able to adjust fire. Additionally, in order to increase the importance of Company Commanders if a Company commander can see a target regardless of C2 with a CO he should be able to adjust fire. (4) Target Shift Time. The 100m adjust radius (the green line) is arbitrary and frankly shows no understanding of how fire direction is conducted. To a Fire Direction Center it doesn't matter if the correction is 50m or 500. For example say an artillery Battery is 5000m from the target and is directed to shift the gun-target line 50m left or right. The deflection correction would be 10 mils (less than a degree)for a 500m correction it would be 100 mils (about 6 degrees). The FDC and the Gun-line can apply these corrections in seconds. Today and then. 5. TRPs. In General, and particularly for the Americans are too expensive. 5. Effects. The effectiveness of an artillery "barrage" significanly decreases after the first "salvo". The Joint Munitions Effects Manual (JMEMs), a classified document, reflects this. Soldiers under artillery fire are very good at finding effective cover after the first "surprise". Veteran soldiers are very good at finding cover. If they weren't they wouldn't be veterans. Additionally, foxholes provides much better cover than is reflected in CM. There are other issues concerning artillery in the game but this post is too long already. And frankly, I don't think BTS is listening anyway. They're too busy on CM2. [This message has been edited by X-00 (edited 03-21-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 Very interesting X-OO. I learned a great deal. As far as the cost of German arty is concerned I think it is cheaper than Allied arty because it takes longer to arrive and there are fewer rounds available compared to Allied arty. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 X-00 wrote: (1) Allied cost versus German cost for off-board artillery. Why is German artillery cheaper? Less ammo. In CM, the point values are assigned by effect, not by rarity. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 there would have to be a TREMENDOUS slope to have the effect Chesty Puller wants to see modeled. Like, the kind of slope you will hardly ever see in a CMBO map (unless you have somebody eat mushrooms while fumbling with the mapmaker)...those comparably gentle slopes we see everyday in our battles won't create those reverse slope effects to any noticeable degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted March 22, 2001 Off-board artillery could be remodelled to come in at 70 degree angle instead of 90, though it would seem kinda pointless. Dispersion patterns seem to already be modelled for shells coming from a certain direction. On-board artillery? The closest thing I've seen to reverse slope bombardment were come overshoots from a low-velocity 75mm pack howitzer fired at long range. With this gun you get big looping trajectories and if it misses the ridgeline, it'll fall somewhere on the reverse slope (though you can't actually target there.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted March 22, 2001 Originally posted by X-00: And frankly, I don't think BTS is listening anyway. There too busy on CM2. They would not change it for CMBO, but I would be very surprised if they were not looking at changes in the arty model for CM2. Why not post the rest of your suggestions? Or email them to madmatt? ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X-00 Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted March 22, 2001 tss sorry to say you're incorrect. German cost per round/blast point is cheaper. 81mm US 200 rounds/99 cost German 150/71 105 US 100 rounds/215 cost German 60/113 150/55 US 35 rounds/208 German 35/182 Therefore cost per round are 81 US .495 German .473 05 US 2.15 German 1.88 50/55 US 5.94 German 5.2 I'm not going to extend it to cost per blast point perhaps some one else will. Additionally, I believe the 60 round limit for 05 for the germans is atually an advantage. For 226 points they can buy 2 observers with 120 rounds. This allows for massing of fires (two batteries firing on one target at the same time) and greater flexibility (firing at two targets at the same time). I understand BTS professed stand that they do unit costing on "capability" only. But I think others have proven that they have made mistakes (SMG and not including PFs (particularily late war ones)) in German pricing. As for the advantage of Allied artillery being quicker at bringing steel on target that should be a freebee (just like the PF). Another alternative would be for each allied battery with 3-4 TRPs free of charge. Perhaps then the SMG rush will be balanced. [This message has been edited by X-00 (edited 03-21-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager 7 Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted March 22, 2001 X-OO, Great to see a fellow arty guy. Greetings from Ft. Sill. I attempted to explain some of these questions a few months ago but must say you have done a better job. I agree with your statements. The adjustment penalty for moving the rounds outside the 100 meter radius is a big issue for me. As a competent FO can call the adjustment in seconds and as you said the FDC can make their data adjustment also in seconds. There should be no additional time penalty for adjusting rounds once the fire mission has begun. Now, if the FO is suppressed and can't continue or loses his LOS to the target he should be penalized something if not having to reinitiate a call for fire all together. Cheers, ------------------ When the situation is obscure....attack! CGen. Heinz Guderian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted March 22, 2001 As for the long list of fixes for artillery in the game. (1) Allied cost versus German cost for off-board artillery. Why is German artillery cheaper? That is totally counter factual. (2) Sheaf: (a)Both the normal and target wide are basically a converged sheaf. An open sheaf (all guns firing the same deflection) (b)It's east-west orientation should be rotated 90 degrees to reflect (a) above. © Guns are usually placed 50-100m apart in a Lazy W. Using an open sheaf the rounds would fall on a frontage of basically 150m-300m with a depth of 50-100m (depends on the probable error in range). (3) C2. Similar to onboard indirect fire, if an allied leader has C2 over an FO that leader should be able to adjust fire. Additionally, in order to increase the importance of Company Commanders if a Company commander can see a target regardless of C2 he should be able to adjust fire. (4) Target Shift Time. The 100m adjust radius (the green line) is arbitrary and frankly shows no understanding of how fire direction is conducted. To a Fire Direction it doesn't matter if the correction is 50m or 500. For example say an artillery Battery is 5000m from the target and is directed to shift the gun-target line 50m left or right. The deflection correction would be 10 mils (less than a degree)for a 500m correction it would be 100 mils (about 6 degrees). In the FDC and on the Gun-line can apply these corrections take seconds. Today and then. 5. TRPs. In General, and particularly for the Americans are too expensive. 6. Effects. The effectiveness of an artillery "barrage" significanly decreases after the first "salvo". The Joint Munitions Effects Manual (JMEMs), a classified document, reflects this. Soldiers under artillery fire are very good at finding effective cover after the first "surprise". Additionally, foxholes provide much more cover than is reflected in CM. I think BTS are more aware of the limitations of arty in the game than you think. I agree that there are many of these. The current model is certainly much better due to input from this forum than that originally proposed. I definitely concur with yours and I could add: 7. If the target is out of los the pattern is wide. This should not be the case. The pattern density should be the same. 8. Control of arty. The FO has an ahistorical lack of control: "Battery, 5 rounds, Fire!" 9. Behaviour under arty. You allude to this in your point 6 but I would extend it even further. British WW2 studies clearly show that even slight undulations and unevenness in the terrain can dramatically reduce arty effectiveness. This is why VT is so effective. (a) Finding cover immediately should be modelled. ( Troop experience should affect response to arty. Veteran or better troops may even "anticipate" the barrage. Especially when a spotting round lands nearby! © Arty should cause the accumulation of suppression and move to broken or panicked states just as for other fire. But this should not cause troops to stand up and run around in the middle of a barrage. It's silly, it's annoying, it's unrealistic and it can greatly increase the effectiveness of arty. BTS may be justifiably hesitant to implement some of these changes since they will increase arty effectiveness greatly so maybe changes to behaviour under arty fire will ameliorate this somewhat. ------------------ "Stand to your glasses steady, This world is a world of lies, Here's a toast to the dead already, And here's to the next man to die." -hymn of the "Double Reds" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted March 22, 2001 Originally posted by X-00: tss sorry to say you're incorrect. You both are tss is incorrect if he meant to say German arty is cheaper because of the lower number of rounds. You are incorrect if you just look at the points/blast value. All Germany arty has longer call-time than Allied arty (e.g. 81mm FOO German usually 2min, US usually 1 min; 105mm German usually 3min, US 1-2min) That is a significant Allied advantage that is worth the slight extra cost in rounds. It is also historical, reflecting better C&C, and lesser vulnerability to CBF for the Allies (because the Germans had fewer guns and rounds available for CBF). ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted March 22, 2001 Germanboy wrote: You both are Happens from time to time. tss is incorrect if he meant to say German arty is cheaper because of the lower number of rounds. Got a short circuit in my memory when I wrote it. I put the blame on complexity theory. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted March 22, 2001 Originally posted by tss: Got a short circuit in my memory when I wrote it. I put the blame on complexity theory. That I live to see the day - the Finns could not be subdued by Soviet tanks but succumb to complexity theory. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts