Indirect fire

[Kudos]

How come Hummels, and Wespes Can not do indirect fire to something behind a hill or a ditch. It can only fire in a straight line, I have used fire on a part of land or area, but it does not even fire on a ditch. Its a bit disappointing not being able to use your arty to devastating effect.

[FinnN]

The minimum range for indirect fire from this sort of thing is slightly greater than the maximum possible distance on the map (the diagonal across a 2kmx2km map), so it wouldn't be possible even if it were implemented.

Have fun

Finn

[Jeff Duquette]

Yes, the small map size and minimum range of say a Hummel is partly an issue. Although I suppose you could in theory have a Hummel parked at the very edge of one of the bigger maps and be able to come up with the right charge and gun elevation solution to plop a shell onto the far half of a map. Like a howitzer firing charge one at max elevation, or a mortar battery.

But to add to the map size restrictions, inherent round to round dispersion, danger close etc, indirect fire within a game of this tactical scale should be abstracted – as it already is. The problem with allowing a Hummel or the like to use indirect fire in a game of this scale is that before indirect fire can be employed the location of the gun or battery has to be established via surveying – both X & Y coordinates as well as the guns altitude (elevation). Back in those days there were no GPS systems or satellites and such. Artillery crews had to be psudo-surveyors as well as artillerists. An Aiming circle needs to be setup, aiming stakes need to be placed. The gun crew needs to very accurately establish what its actual location is in X, Y, and Z coordinates. This information needs to be relayed to the fire direction center (FDC). While not always the case, typically a forward observer (FO) needs direct observation on the target. His position also needs to be known by the FDC. The FO needs to guesstimate the position of the target and feed this information to the FDC. The FDC than figures out the location of the target in X, Y, Z coordinates relative to the position of the FO. The FDC than needs to determine an appropriate firing solution for the gun or battery or battalion or whatever level of unit is going to do the indirect fire mission. This will be a function of the guns positions, the FOs position and the Targets position. Than the FDC can than establish range, deflection and altitude for the gun and target line and determine propellent charge. Adjustments are made for a number of variables – propellant temperature, gun barrel ware, air temp, humidity, non-rigidity of trajectory for large contrast in altitude between the gun and target line, etc etc – even curvature of the earth if the range is great enough. Of course there will than follow a series of spotting rounds or adjustment shoots while the FO + FDC “walk” the fire onto the target. The details associated with different army’s could be a tad different than the above. But in general these are some of the reasons what players could not realistically employ indirect fire with on map guns.

Players constantly want to move their Hummels or Wespes about. Each time they are moved, the aiming circle would need to be broken out, aiming stakes set, position of the gun reestablished, etc. I think the only intent of having these vehicles in the game is for use in direct shoots only. The games present indirect fire mission format is much more appropriate to this scale of game than allowing players to utilize indirect fire for Hummels or Wespes or whatever. I suppose one might be tempted to add FOs or FOOs to the game.

The manner in which indirect fire is currently used in the game seems OK to me. It's not the best system, but it is a reasonable approach and a good compromise given some of the complexities of indirect fires.

[ June 10, 2007, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Kudos]

Well Hummels and Wespes are not good anti tank and a waste of time on the pitch but.... If you can have them in reserve then you should be able to call in some fire support. The aiming u say is right but with infantry you should be able to gain eventual decent arty fire and no miles off. Like When I call in arty from off map, there should be some shells that come in as rangers then u give correction and say fire for effect at which point all hell breaks loose. That is true arty... I know all games can not be perfect but if I can not use Hummels or Wespes to good effect then we should knock them on the head and exclude them from the game...

[Pandur]

i think its ok;

even in CM where maps are up to 16²Km(4*4km i think is max) it isnt possible.

if i win the "tank war" or at least can rid a specific spot/fireing lane of enemy tank observation its my place where i deploy those vehicles. preferable far away and a bit elevated to provide better visual.

there you can area fire away with big HE shells onto the helpless enemy troops or armored cars without beeing in danger. and even when a tank pops up, you can still reverse into cover if you have choosen a good place(at least after the patch this "should" work.

so in game i just use em as direct fire arty support from 600+ meters away.

problem though, you barely need those vehicles or in cases you have to slaughter much inf you dont have them. so i rarely used em so far.

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by Kudos:

Well Hummels and Wespes are not good anti tank and a waste of time on the pitch but.... If you can have them in reserve then you should be able to call in some fire support. The aiming u say is right but with infantry you should be able to gain eventual decent arty fire and no miles off. Like When I call in arty from off map, there should be some shells that come in as rangers then u give correction and say fire for effect at which point all hell breaks loose. That is true arty... I know all games can not be perfect but if I can not use Hummels or Wespes to good effect then we should knock them on the head and exclude them from the game...

I agree. Rather than assigning the player an on map Hummel or two for a scenario, give the player a couple of indirect fire missions. I have no idea why the designers would include this vehicle in a game of this scale when other more appropriate AFVs could have been included in the unit mix. Like an 105mm Sturmhaubitze 42 or 105mm Assault gun Sherman, or 88mm Flak 18/36 gun, etc.

[FinnN]

I suspect at least some units have been 'inherited' from IL2, where a ground attack mission against artillery makes sense. Probably the 88 didn't make it due to needing significantly different animations from anything else - it would have been worth the effort IMHO, but I bet that's the reason.

Seeing as they are there though I don't think they should be removed as it allows for them to be targets in things like partisan strikes. More the merrier I think!

Have fun

Finn

[SlapHappy]

Actually when the mortars finally come around, I'd be pretty happy if they just included the 50's and 60's and left the 80+ stuff in the support menu.

Still, an 81mm mortar makes more sense in this game than a 150mm mobile artillery piece that can't fire indirectly.

[Task]

In an interview, it was said the expansion (not the free moscow addon) might include on-map artillery, like howitzers.

[Splinty]

Has anyone tried using Wespes or Hummels against pillboxes or trenchlines? I'm thinking that those are about the only useful targets available in the game for our tracked arty pieces. I'll try testing this out once I figure out the map editor.

[Jippo]

Originally posted by Splinty:

Has anyone tried using Wespes or Hummels against pillboxes or trenchlines? I'm thinking that those are about the only useful targets available in the game for our tracked arty pieces. I'll try testing this out once I figure out the map editor.

Big HE shells work fine for those targets.

I fail to see any problem with ´Wespe's etc. Inrect fire is off map for obvious reasons, so what is the problem in having artillery pieces for direct fire role like they were hisorically used? Would you be happier without any direct fire artillery assets???

This thing about their usefulness is totally up to mission designers. In pure infantry battle the siude that has a wespe is with big advantage. Hauling artillery pieces to aid e.g. infantry assault into fortified positions was rather common.

[Kudos]

If you think about it, you would not risk those assets in front line warfare as they had hardly any armour and where used from the back, and maybe we could have artillery strikes from off map with Nebelwerfers and Katushas

[Jippo]

Why not use them?

In the real life they used also cannons that had no armor at all and which took ages to haul in to the firing position.

You don't have to be stupid and bring them into view of at-guns or tanks, or at grenade throwing distance of trenches either. Use them against infantry from 500m or further, just like the were used. Their powerful HE rounds will tear gaping holes in to enemy ranks.

[ June 12, 2007, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Jippo ]