Author Topic: Artillary (Read 4973 times)

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #30 on:** November 25, 2005, 02:55:01 AM »

How about this for an evil idea for artillery: the Katyusha.

The poor accurary keeps it from being a complete vultch weapon, yet sneaking one in close unseen and loosing it on a field could be devestating if the rockets catch planes rearming. Also a great way to reduce cities in a hurry.

The trucks would carry only one salvo but an M3 could rearm it. For reducing cities the M3 makes sense, but if they're anywhere in vis range of enemy planes the smoke trails will give away the position.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #31 on:** November 25, 2005, 10:09:26 AM »

The Katusha, Werbilwind(spelling) and Calopie(spelling again) would all be neat little rocket launchers. Would love to see them in the game. The only problem with them is that they would have to be modeled from scratch. The vehicles and rockets. I'm trying to keep this concept KISS right now so HiTech can take a good look at it and maybe have his model guru's do something quick and easy with it.

I am pleased to see the positive coments about this idea. I hope HiTech takes notice and realizes this is an element of the game that needs to be adressed.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #32 on:** November 25, 2005, 01:42:23 PM »

Wirbelwind was a quad-20mm version of the Ostwind ... a SPAA vehicle.

A Katyusha may actually be easier for HTC to do than a proper artillery piece. Consider that it's supposed to be inaccurate for starters - which simplifies the model and dealing with complaints after the fact. Next, the game already has rockets - so a lot of the work of modeling the round is done - just now extend the trajectory to reach 5 miles. The truck bed - well he has trucks now. The time to reload a salvo (assuming an M3 brought supplies) is also a pretty wide open calculation - which means fewer complaints. And, the Katyusha is very visible when it starts shooting - so that means no whining about "hidden artillery porking our base."

What I like is the asymmetrical nature of the thing. It'll be quick and hit hard, but have no staying power (w/o support vehicles) and no ability to hide once it opens up. At the same time, if a platoon get within range of a city they should be able to pretty much flatten it in one salvo and allow a capture if the defenders didn't react very quickly. And if The Horde is in play, well sneak 2 or 3 Katy's close to their base and open up on the rearm points.

-DoK

ghi · « **Reply #33 on:** November 25, 2005, 02:16:33 PM »

I would like this manable 88s, vulcher killers and antitank option

Try to imagine the LTARs in this 88s:)

Hornet33 · « **Reply #34 on:** November 25, 2005, 05:38:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Wirbelwind was a quad-20mm version of the Ostwind ... a SPAA vehicle.

A Katyusha may actually be easier for HTC to do than a proper artillery piece. Consider that it's supposed to be inaccurate for starters - which simplifies the model and dealing with complaints after the fact. Next, the game already has rockets - so a lot of the work of modeling the round is done - just now extend the trajectory to reach 5 miles. The truck bed - well he has trucks now. The time to reload a salvo (assuming an M3 brought supplies) is also a pretty wide open calculation - which means fewer complaints. And, the Katyusha is very visible when it starts shooting - so that means no whining about "hidden artillery porking our base."

What I like is the asymmetrical nature of the thing. It'll be quick and hit hard, but have no staying power (w/o support vehicles) and no ability to hide once it opens up. At the same time, if a platoon get within range of a city they should be able to pretty much flatten it in one salvo and allow a capture if the defenders didn't react very quickly. And if The Horde is in play, well sneak 2 or 3 Katy's close to their base and open up on the rearm points.

-DoK

Your right about the quad 20mm, I was thinking of the nebelwaffer(spelling). It's the rocket launcher trailer, also known as the screaming mimi.

I have to disagree with your other points made in this post however. Why would we want to make an artillery piece inaccurate? Most tube artillery is very accurate if the gun is laid properly, you have good FO's and a good FDC section. Also the 5" guns I'm talking about using off the CV's have a distinct smoke burst when fired. That will leave a fire signature for aircraft and GV's to spot and find the guns if they are not carefull. Shoot and scoot is the proper way to use artillery. If the guns set up and never move they will be detroyed. Also as I stated earlier in one of my post the 5"er doesn't do that much damage in one salvo. I don't think introducing this into the game will unbalance the MA to any great extent, other than to push base defense out beyond the perimiter of the field in question. Max range on the guns is only 11 miles. Well within historical specs for artillery. The U.S. Long Tom 155mm was capable of shooting to almost 16 miles with full charge. The self propeled version of that gun (M40 I believe) was built on a sherman chassis.

Regardless someone will complain about getting killed by artillery. Thats war though. No plan survives first contact with the enemy.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #35 on:** November 25, 2005, 06:01:30 PM »

Having pin-point accurate arty will result in a whole new generation of spawn-camping like behavior. As well as open a new avenue of complaint about modeling accuracy.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #36 on:** November 25, 2005, 07:52:35 PM »

Pin Point yes, however the system in place now is no where near pin point. You click the map and if your good you can hit the town. Thats a what??? 300 square meter target area??In real life when artillery is fired it hits in the target area alot closer than 300 meters.

When I worked FDC we would plot a mission, send it to the guns for 1 spotting round and 9 out of 10 times we would get a call from the FO's to drop or raise 50 or left or right 50 "Fire for Effect" and kill the target with the second shot. Again that was with NO computers or GPS. Slide rulers and a hand drawn map, and the guns we were firing were no more accurate than their WWII counterparts. Artillery since WWI has always been very accurate and effective so why dumb it down for a WWII simulation?

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #37 on:** November 25, 2005, 08:11:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hornet33
... Artillery since WWI has always been very accurate and effective so why dumb it down for a WWII simulation?

Because of how it would end up get (ab)used in the AH MA.

DWaves · « **Reply #38 on:** November 25, 2005, 09:39:45 PM »

Originally posted by Hornet33
... Artillery since WWI has always been very accurate and effective so why dumb it down for a WWII simulation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because of how it would end up get (ab)used in the AH MA.

Having pin-point accurate arty will result in a whole new generation of spawn-camping like behavior. As well as open a new avenue of complaint about modeling accuracy.

Yup, it would be (ab)used, by all sides. "All's fair in love and WAR." Spawn camping, I hate it when my spawn point is camped, on the other hand I love spawn camping, especially when newbes keep spawning out. Since I would not be able to hit my own spawn point from my base neither would the other side. So the only thing I could do to a spawn point with an arty piece is hit the enemy spawn point from my base. But the 5" doesn't hit that hard and the point and click is not that accurate. So if I have countrymen out; and close to; the spawn point "camping" and I start shooting there's a 50/50 chance of hitting an enemy or kill shooting myself. This makes for an interesting and new twist to the game, don't you think????? So if your going to spawn camp you had better get some distance from the point or you could kill your buddy at the base. So the only safe and accurate way to use arty in this respect is to sit on a hill over looking the spawn point, ie "Forward Observer" (FO). If it's rather flat you might be albe to see but most areas are slightly hilly, thus you can't see anything unless you get close. Thus you have to get close or calling and adjusting fire will not be very accurate or will not work at all. I see this as a new, yet very simple way of making the game more interesting. How close do you get, well as Col. Jessep would say;

"roll the dice and take your chances. I eat breakfast 80 yards away from 4000 Cubans who are trained to kill me."

I see an arty piece used only in coordinated attacks since alone it's not going to be that effective. Once spotted from the air your toast, an M8 or M3 with pintail guns has a better chance. You need lots of air cover and a shot and scoot method. Let's not forget that just one will not take down a town in a timely fashion, you will need two or more. Use of "Arty" will take more team work!

DWaves

SMIDSY · « **Reply #39 on:** November 26, 2005, 03:18:20 AM »

imagine the LTARs with this: a dual 128mm FlaK

or the quad 20mm

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #40 on:** November 26, 2005, 11:19:59 AM »

Waves, the sad truth is that players will gravitate towards whatever technique gets them the biggest bang for the least effort. Learning to fly a WW2 figther, deflection shooting, A2A tactics, and the characteristics of all the planes is a hell of a lot more work than sitting home one afternoon dialing in the range on a 105mm howitzer so they don't need a spotter.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #41 on:** November 26, 2005, 12:43:07 PM »

I'm still trying to see the issue with this. How many people do you think will give up the planes and tanks and just sit in a gun all the time?

But for the sake of aurgument, say your right Doc and it leads to cheesey game play. I would like to hear a detailed allternative to aiming the guns for indirect fire other than what we have now. I've read several post where people are saying you should have to punch in the coordinates manually. OK how do you get the coordinates?? This game is "supposed" to be realistic as far as flight models and such go, but you want to make the guns less accurate than they were in real life for the sake of game play. That goes against everything that HTC has created here. Also how are you going to spawn camp with an indirect fire weapons system? You can fire into the spawn area and might get lucky with a shot or two, but the odds are against you.

Sorry but I fail to see the validity of your aurgument.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #42 on:** November 26, 2005, 01:19:53 PM »

I never said make artillery less accurate than it was. What I said was that an area weapon like the Katyusha would prevent the kind of spawn-camping tactics that the more accurate artillery would foster.

Trust me ... if there's a way to accurately range find where to drop a shell to catch a plane on its take-off roll, players will find it.

mussie · « **Reply #43 on:** November 26, 2005, 02:03:43 PM »

All these posts and all I can think about is all the dumpsters you have abused hornet

mussie · « **Reply #44 on:** November 26, 2005, 02:10:04 PM »

Ya could have at least had the decency to furball it in a close range knife fight instead of wacking it from 14 miles away....

Ya BIG BULLY