Combat Bonuses for At guns ?

[Joerg]

I've set up a small test using allied AT guns w/ leaders vs. Panzer IV's to see the difference the leader's combat bonus has on hit chances. Nil. Nothing. Do these bonuses get included in the _displayed_ chances or are they taken into account while firing only ?

[FFE]

Combat bonus applies only to firepower rating. Since 'Guns' do not exert a firepower rating the leader's bonus is null.

HQ morale bonus augments guns. This is a critical factor. Guns being directed by +2 morale HQ are less likely to be suppressed, thus less likely to abandon, and more apt to return fire.

[Redwolf]

FFE, I am not sure that his is correct.

From testing I am pretty confident that mortars with extra combat HQ command are more precise. Didn't test for guns, though. Maybe HQ bonus doesn't apply to those special shots that display a hit chance (the game's mechanism is entirely different).

[Cooper]

I think the difference may lie with using your hqs to spot for motors. If you use your hq to spot for motors maybe combat bonuses apply. With at guns your hq will not be spotting for them hence no accuracy bonus. Just an idea, really don't know.

[FFE]

You might very well be correct concerning mortars. I have never tested them while using an HQ as the spotter. In the light of Cooper's statement, let me pose a totally new theory:

All units exert a blast radius and firepower rating. This would explain:

1)Why nearby friendly units take casualties from enemy fire that is not directed specifically at them.

2)Why nearby friendly units duck for cover from enemy fire that is not directed specifically at them.

The exceptions would be:

1)Mortars using indirect fire by spotting from Hqs use the characteristics of the HQ. Thus an HQ with combat bonuses would directly modify the mortar's firepower rating.

This theory is satisfactory. It would explain the close proximity collateral damage and make game mechanics (coding) less of a boon. To continue on with my personal theory: all units have a firepower and blast radius rating. We are given the blast radius for non-infantry, but not its firepower rating. We are given the firepower rating for infantry, but not the blast radius. The damage calculation from exploding weaponry suffers diminishing returns as the radius from the point of origin gets larger.

This also would explain why infantry moving perpendicular to the firer tends to suffer fewer casualties. If the firer does not lead the target (as with Mgs and Infantry) then by the time the shots arrive at the point where the target use to reside, the target might no longer be within the bast radius. Thus, the target suffers nothing.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FFE:

This also would explain why infantry moving perpendicular to the firer tends to suffer fewer casualties. If the firer does not lead the target (as with Mgs and Infantry) then by the time the shots arrive at the point where the target use to reside, the target might no longer be within the bast radius. Thus, the target suffers nothing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it that by "moving perpendicular" [sic] you mean moving across the LOS/LOF. I have often wondered why the designers made the assumption that gunners do not lead the target, and that more experienced gun crews do not do a better job of it.

:confused:

Michael

[FFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I have often wondered why the designers made the assumption that gunners do not lead the target, and that more experienced gun crews do not do a better job of it.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Michael, I can offer but a guess since no official answer has been provided. My guess is the game engine would be swamped by excessive calculations. I surmise the designers had to juggle system requirements. We know by observation that vehicle hit and damage calculations greatly delay turns. And if infantry are forced to calculate a vector to lead their target, then a vastly more complex turn completion would be required. The designer's deduced this rationale: the lack thereof a firing resolution vector would not hamper the game. Yet it does in a minor way when the range from firer to target is greater than 150 meters; especially if the target is moving fast and across the perpendicular axis of the firer. The end result, as you very well know, is the shot landing behind the target and the invisible blast radius of the shot failing to encroach on the target.

I also believe infantry fire is not 100% accurate. It undergoes invisible scatter. This is why targets that hunker down behind a ridge, thus barely able to draw LOS over the crest, are far harder to effect. It would also explain why, sometimes, long range perpendicular fire strays into fast moving infantry and deals some sort of damage.

Perhaps infantry fire does not scatter and my observations concerning this are wrong. You be the judge.

[Redwolf]

Calculation with the speed of the target and the shell is obviously done only for shots on armour.

That is a large part of the problem why unarmoured vehicles are so hard to kill. The other (related) thing is that CMBO has no direct hits versus anything unarmoured, anything unarmoured is a point in space and only suffers from secondary blast effect of HE shells hitting ground, buildings or other terrain features.

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]