Louie the Toad Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 Has anyone found a good way to limit the number of rounds that fire from a spotter? I have two important targets and 50 rounds. The spotter and at least 2 HQ can see the targets. One of the HQ is in command of the spotter. All are in contact with each other. I would like approximately half of the rounds to fire on each target. Is there a best way to do this? Spotted Toad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Kruger Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 Well, usually the 'spotting' rounds fall in a 60 second block (movie) before they really start coming down in the next 60 sec block (movie) so if you think you'll be left with about half of your payload you can then switch to the other target... if you think you will have too little you can make a slight adjustment in where the spotter is targeting and the rounds will stop falling for a time, using less in the subsequent 60 sec block (movie), after which you can then move on to the other target. Not sure if that makes too much sense, but I hope it helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 well is your playing as the axis.....i find that the 150mm rockets to be a bargain, and affordable enough to not have ot worry about covering two targets on the map Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerxes Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 You need to adjust the barrage until you have around 20 seconds to impact on the delay. That should get you roughly 1/2 if you have 105s. The smaller the caliber the faster they fall so you'll need to adjust to 30+ secs if you have 81s. Personally I'd dump the full set on 1 target and take it out rather than splitting it and then not taking out either target. If it's guns you're taking out splitting makes sense but if it's infantry a 1/2 turn barrage probably won't do the trick. -marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted October 24, 2001 Share Posted October 24, 2001 as was stated above, just time it to where you only have a few salvos (or how ever many you want) and then the time will end. the only problem with that tactic is that the rounds are not usually that accurate on the first few. they seem to be pretty sparatoc. but hey, give lady luck a chance to ride on your side of the field! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted November 1, 2001 Share Posted November 1, 2001 Hmmmmm. Does anyone know if using the "pause" command has any effect on firing duration in the following 60 seconds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Equinox Posted November 1, 2001 Share Posted November 1, 2001 Nope, unfortunately the pause command only seems to have an affect on movement commands, not targeting ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 2, 2001 Share Posted November 2, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Equinox: Nope, unfortunately the pause command only seems to have an affect on movement commands, not targeting ones.<hr></blockquote> Does giving a move order to a spotter cause a fire mission to cease? It's been a while, but I think I recall that after fire for effect begins, the spotter can move without it effecting the fire. But I also seem to recall that if he calls in a mission and moves before it begins, the mission is held off until he stops moving. If that is the case, you could order a mission and then give him a short movement order, with or without pauses, and the fire mission countdown would not proceed until he had completed his movement. But of course all these machinations are extremely gamey. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louie the Toad Posted November 2, 2001 Author Share Posted November 2, 2001 Michael E, I would not call that gamey. Manipulating the quirks in the AI to attain an UNFAIR advantage is the definition of gamey, I believe. One of the quirks being that you can buy an army of King Tigers. But I think this is different because it is an attempt to simulate the real life ability of FOs to adjust attacks. Since the AI restricts the flexibilty that should exist in arty attacks, I see the actions taken to attain a closer match with reality to be perfectly fine. What would be gamey is the withholding of this information from an apponent since it should be available to all. Hence the question I raised to start this thread. Unsatisfied Toad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 2, 2001 Share Posted November 2, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Does giving a move order to a spotter cause a fire mission to cease? It's been a while, but I think I recall that after fire for effect begins, the spotter can move without it effecting the fire.<hr></blockquote> I tested this last night and it is a true statement. Once FFE has commenced, the FO is free to move without it effecting the fire mission. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 2, 2001 Share Posted November 2, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Louie the Toad: Michael E, I would not call that gamey. [...] Since the AI restricts the flexibilty that should exist in arty attacks, I see the actions taken to attain a closer match with reality to be perfectly fine.<hr></blockquote> You will please note that I inserted a winkie after my statement. What I was trying to imply was that the mechanism I described for achieving a result that should indeed be available in the game, is itself highly artificial and dependent on a quirk in the programming mechanics. Nothing more. Michael [ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerxes Posted November 2, 2001 Share Posted November 2, 2001 You can also target with your FO and then move. A critical arty resource (written by Peter Svensson) is: http://members.home.com/loketar/arty.htm Even includes average duration of smoke. -marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
History Buff Posted November 3, 2001 Share Posted November 3, 2001 If you are going to rely on artilery to wipe out an enemy, then I'd rethink your tactics. Artilery is their to soften the enemy up. Make a few men run back out of their cover. I've seen it rarely that an artlierry barrage has fully wiped out a platoon in foxholes. Its all a matter of timing. Barrage em while your infantary are approaching, so they are forced to take cover and hold fire, then halt the barrage as your troops come within range. Thats the general idea. R@ptor.au Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louie the Toad Posted November 3, 2001 Author Share Posted November 3, 2001 Michael E, Yup, upon closer scrutiny I recognize the winkie and not the smiley face. Hey, it was late. Sleepy Toad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 3, 2001 Share Posted November 3, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Louie the Toad: Michael E, Yup, upon closer scrutiny I recognize the winkie and not the smiley face. Hey, it was late. Sleepy Toad<hr></blockquote> Hey, if you never make a mistake worse than that, you'll be doing great. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerxes Posted November 3, 2001 Share Posted November 3, 2001 Arty used in concentration will break any infantry that aren't in large/heavy buildings. Foxholes just don't save them. -marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerxes Posted November 3, 2001 Share Posted November 3, 2001 as a matter of fact, I think foxholes should provide better protection when units are hiding in them. Foxholes are undermodelled! -marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by xerxes: as a matter of fact, I think foxholes should provide better protection when units are hiding in them.<hr></blockquote> If treebursts or airbursts are occuring, foxholes won't offer much protection. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerxes Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 Agreed on the airburst issue, it still seems like my concentrated 3" brit mortars are just too effective against entrenched infantry. If someone is hiding at the bottom of a foxhole they should be pretty safe until they get close assaulted I would think. -marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 6, 2001 Share Posted November 6, 2001 I've noticed that on-map mortars are pretty accurate, even firing indirect if spotted by a good HQ. I would think that having a mortar round drop into your foxhole, or even hitting the edge of it, would be a pretty unpleasent experience. Problem is, the foxholes in CM have no overhead protection. I guess they are supposed to represent hasty entrenchments. Really well prepared positions would have logs covered by sandbags or a couple feet of packed earth over the top. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerxes Posted November 6, 2001 Share Posted November 6, 2001 With a +2 bonus HQ they are devastating. My favorite unit in a firefight. -marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts