Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Here's an example of Most: Most Sherman smoke shells were WP (about 2 out of 3, aka two thirds). Most were bursting. Can you guess the ratio of bursting Sherman smoke shells? (Yes, I know, you want to call this all 'specious' or some other over-used word you see in threads don't you?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m84_105mm_usafas.jpg Need help? Since you said 105mm... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Wasn't this thread about non-WP :confused: And artillery, rather than direct fire :confused: And shouldn't you be counting all weapon systems, not just cherry picking a few :confused: And even if you are right, what does it matter :confused: I still don't accept that including carrier-shell cas in future CMs is a good use of limited resources. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: Need help? Since you said 105mm... Yes I do need help. I am at a loss as to what point are you trying to make, since you can quite clearly see the solid base that the black-powder charge 'pops' off the back of the carrier round. [ October 27, 2003, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Wasn't this thread about non-WP :confused: And artillery, rather than direct fire :confused: And shouldn't you be counting all weapon systems, not just cherry picking a few :confused: And even if you are right, what does it matter :confused: I still don't accept that including carrier-shell cas in future CMs is a good use of limited resources. It is about non-WP. But you sound confoosed??? I do not think it was specifically stated to be about any weapons system but most people probably assumed artillery. Reread the first post. In my opinion, most base eject type smoke missions are pre-planned and beyond the scope of small unit actions like CM MOSTLY represents. They would mostly fit in as occurring on the first turn. I shortly plan to evolve my 'direct-fire WP/other-burster-smoke' finale on my WP in CMAK thread. I am using this thread to sharpen my obnoxious chops. The point is, i like to argue about crap like this. I dont give a hairy rat's ass about resources. Most software people waste more time arguing than improving the product. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 LOL - well, if that's your attitude then ... CYA! P.S. I'm sure Charles will be pleased to hear your assessment of his time-management skills 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: LOL - well, if that's your attitude then ... CYA! P.S. I'm sure Charles will be pleased to hear your assessment of his time-management skills Its my impression that the amount of time spent talking/arguing/etc about code making is greater than the writing of the code. I guess in an ideal setting, it should be 1/3talking (arguing) 1/3 coding 1/3 testing Leaving so soon? Well thanks for all the data, sources, technical drawings, etc [ October 27, 2003, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 I would like to wrap up some thoughts: MOST weapons that WOULD be firing smoke during a CM type battle would be using burster type delivery systems. These are specifically designed to shatter the shell. The WP burster type shells would be much more lethal/discomforting in effect than other smoke producing agents. The non-WP burster shells would still have some punch. While they are in no way comparable to HE in effect, they should not be ignored either. If AP ammo can have an infantry effect than so can these weapons. I wonder if many indirect or even direct fire weapons have smoke capability when they should not? But I dont care about any reprogramming about it. No sir. I just like typing in this small box that takes up less than 1/12th my computer screen. [ October 27, 2003, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: P.S. I'm sure Charles will be pleased to hear your assessment of his time-management skills Can you say 'Hall Monitor' Boys and Girls? Nice work JonS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Doctrinal point: generally smoke shouldn't be fired at the target to be screened/blinded. Far better results are acheived if the rounds are fired ~1/3rd of the way between the two points of interest (friendly location/enemy location). Not many cas are inflicted when rounds are fired at empty ground.I've been wondering when someone was going to get around to this obvious point. If you or someone hadn't soon, I intended to. It's glaring lapses like this in Mr. Tittlemens argument that lead me to wonder just what it is that he wants in the end. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: I will make some statements: 1. Non-WP can be bursting 'other'-Smoke. A burster detonates and flying metal happens. the 'other-smoke' substance may or may not hurt anyone. I don't care. Its the burster/fragments moving along nicely that can kill/maim. 2. Non-WP can be BES. These are also flying metal. They may actually break up. I am not so convinced they have to be time-fused to go off in the air and may actually hit the ground and do thier thing. Seems to me the back of an arty shell has to be strong. Like survive a launch from a rifled gun/howitzer strong. Wonder how I can get the stuff out the back? Is it OK if I blow up in the process? as long as the crap blows backwards? 3. Non-WP that just smolders. Maybe some shells just land and smoke out their ass. Screw em. I dont care. Okay, for the sake of argument let's say all of that is more or less true. So what? I mean, why are you being so vehement about such a trivial matter? Apparently—going by existing accounts—it was about as likely that a soldier would become a casualty from a non-WP shell as he was to fall on his own bayonet. Jon's question about whether all this would be worth BFC's programming time is right on target. Is it possible for non-WP rounds to cause casualties? Sure, no prob, case closed. Is it worth including in the game? Seems extremely doubtful. And that is the bottom line for all these kinds of discussions. Michael [ October 28, 2003, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS: Doctinal point: generally smoke shouldn't be fired at the target to be screened/blinded. Far better results are acheived if the rounds are fired ~1/3rd of the way between the two points of interest (friendly location/enemy location). Not many cas are inflicted when rounds are fired at empty ground. Regards JonS Oh a 'Doctinal' Point has been made. Well Oz has Doctinated. No casualties are made in empty ground. If a shell falls in the woods, and hits a bear, does the Pope wipe his ass? Do not look behind the Curtain. OZZZZZ has spoken! And Docinated too. I think people are 'feeling' you JonS. They get your 'value'. They respect your work. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CMplayer: I wouldn't object. It would add to the sense of 'metal flying everywhere' or 'lethal air'. (not to mention the WtFDTCF? factor). In that case I'd say that they should first implement friendly fire casualties for units in front of tanks and guns, and for units crossing the line of fire of squads and MGs, and so on. Wouldn't be very funny unless the TacAI would enforce some fire discipline in those situations. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: While they are in no way comparable to HE in effect...I've been wondering when this was going to dawn on you. If AP ammo can have an infantry effect than so can these weapons.And important difference is that when AP is shown to effect infantry that is because it is being intentionally fired at infantry. As Jon pointed out, non-WP smoke is not normally fired at the enemy but in front of him. I wonder if many indirect or even direct fire weapons have smoke capability when they should not?That's a fair question that has been on my mind as well. I hope it is one of the issues addressed in the rewrite. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: As it is now, you can completely ignore all common sense requirements for how to deploy troops and vehicles to prevent friendly masking. As a result, CMs value as a tactical simulator is seriously reduced. This has been an issue with me for a long time as well. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CMplayer: As it is now, you can completely ignore all common sense requirements for how to deploy troops and vehicles to prevent friendly masking. As a result, CMs value as a tactical simulator is seriously reduced. This has been an issue with me for a long time as well. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 I think I will clarify my points again since we have another player. 1. It was never specifically stated by the original post that he was ONLY talking about indirect fire non-WP smoke. Reread his post. 2. CM level of non-WP smoke generation MOSTLY involves bursting type ordanance. Either direct fire (tanks/SP/guns/howitzers) or indirect fire (mostly mortars/arty). I would like to see the effects of the non-WP burster charge modeled at the recieving end. Doesnt mean it has to be modeled or even addressed. Its just what I would want in a game, either thsi one or another, depicting battle at this level. 3. To say that the effects are negligible is fine, please provide proof. To realize the effects are actually greater than AP fire at infantry shows common sense. HE direct fire rounds that miss are tracked and collataral damage assesed. It is not that great a break with the detail of the game. 4. To say that 'well, no one is usually there' does not hold true. The indirect fire patterns are usually short/over in variation and units are usually there. Perhaps the game should not allow smoke unless the ground is vacant? Of course not, its silly. 5. The abuse in the game of arty systems having smoke when historically they did not have shells, the abuse of the ability of the player/AI to drop WAY too many smoke shells (HE/Smoke can be any variable ratio) and other artillery over-simplifications and problems, makes the arty element in the game unrealistic. As I have said before, most BES type smoke screens would be part of a fire plan and beyond the scope of the players control. If anything, it would be an event that occurs on the first turn (like a barrage) or at a set point in the game. These type of smoke screens are usually started with a bursting type round to get it up and maintained by BES. 6. If you have data, please share it. I can not take people like JonS seriously because he refuses to post data. He just feels it is his opinion that matters and that gives him the privelage to question people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If AP ammo can have an infantry effect than so can these weapons. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And important difference is that when AP is shown to effect infantry that is because it is being intentionally fired at infantry. As Jon pointed out, non-WP smoke is not normally fired at the enemy but in front of him. If AP is area fired at a location, and the unit inside is hidden, should there be any effect? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: If AP is area fired at a location, and the unit inside is hidden, should there be any effect? By saying "inside", do you mean inside a building or what? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: 2. CM level of non-WP smoke generation MOSTLY involves bursting type ordanance. ...Proof? 3. ... To realize the effects are actually greater than AP fire at infantry shows common sense. ...Proof? The thing about common sense is that it isn't that common. 4. To say that 'well, no one is usually there' does not hold true. The indirect fire patterns are usually short/over in variation ...How much variation? Besides, you still miss the point: smoke wasn't aimed at people or objects. It was aimed in front of locations that needed to be screened or blinded. Even if you are correct about everything else, and smoke-cas were added to the game, all you have done is give players an incentive to use smoke in a way that it wasn't in real life. What sort of simulation is that? ... and units are usually there. ...Proof? 5. Problems with CM arty model makes the arty element in the game unrealistic.True, it could be much better. How does adding another unsupported, unrealistic, a-historic element help correct that? ... As I have said before, most BES type smoke screens would be part of a fire plan Proof? Regards JonS [ October 28, 2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Most 'normal' (non-WP) smoke rounds use a carrier shell that holds 'some' (for 105mm 'some'=3) generators (like smoke grenades). These carriers have bases which are fused to fall off and eject the genies after a certain time of flight. Technically, it's called "Base Eject". Now, when adjusting a smoke mission you want the fuse to zero out ahead of and above the area you want screened. What happens top the carrier shell? Well, it continues on it's ballistic path, landing some hundreds of metres beyond the area being screened. So, what does this mean for CM and your suggestion? Well, if implemented you would get a smoke screen where you a=ordered it, and random casualties some hundreds of metres away. Players might object to that a bit ... I suppose, if you really want to drill down into it, you could model the chance of someone in the area to be screened getting sconed by a smoke genie ... but is it worth it? If you are relying on the carrier shells and smoke genies from a smoke mission, you are grossly misusing the smoek in the first place. Regards JonS Prove any of this first! 1. Prove BES were the majority non-WP smoke round. You were the first in the thread to claim so. you always want proof, well put some up! 2. Prove what you say about where the empty BES carrier shells land. [ October 28, 2003, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: Prove BES were the majority round.If we are talking about all the artillery of all the armies during the war, HE was the majority round. By a huge margin. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Prove BES were the majority non-WP smoke round. Jeesh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted October 29, 2003 Author Share Posted October 29, 2003 As the guy who started this mess, I suppose I should chime in: The question pertains to smoke from direct and indirect fire. The original testing I did using the scenario editor was done with direct fire smoke. As to actual smoke doctrine and concerns over players misusing smoke if it is given a BLAST value, consider the following: most of my smoke screens are placed directly in front of the enemy position. When given battalion mortar FOs, I routinely have my guys advance through the smoke barrage while it's falling. So, I seem to be running against doctrine with the current model. I don't think I'd change my tactics one bit if non-WP smoke were given the potential to damage soft targets. One of things that spurred my initial interest in testing smoke casualties was the blurb in the rule book about every large calibre round being tracked [i was thinking of CMBO p. 75 - MISSES]. So, I thought perhaps it tracked the smoke round impact and checked to see if some poor bugger got clobberred; it seems in keeping with the spirit of the engine design. As to difficulty of coding, I am utterly ignorant, but it seems to me that the system already tracks all the other ordnance and uses its assigned BLAST value. I don't see it as being all that different from Molotov Cocktails either: they have a damage effect as well as an graphic and secondary effect (potential ignition). So, why can't non-WP smoke impacts have an associated BLAST...other than aforementioned complications of air burst delivery systems...but that also seems like a tad more math. Resume banter... [edited for typos and to include the CMBO rulebook page number] [ October 28, 2003, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 29, 2003 Share Posted October 29, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: If AP is area fired at a location, and the unit inside is hidden, should there be any effect? By saying "inside", do you mean inside a building or what? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.