Author Topic: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)  (Read 1548 times)

Offline AWwrgwy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5478
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #30 on: April 20, 2009, 08:30:39 AM »
Woops, looks like some ppl watched Patton 360
on the history channel.. Noticed that Arty played
a massive role in all WWII battles.. +10!!!!

RC

Massed concentrations of artillery played a role or, at the very least, concentrations.  Not some single dude with a Long Tom.


wrongway
71 (Eagle) Squadron
"THAT"S PAINT!!"

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay

Offline Nemisis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4086
      • Fightin 49'ers
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #31 on: April 20, 2009, 04:54:43 PM »
Good idea!!! Artillery would be a good addition to the game, it would give it more depth to the already deep and realistic game play :aok. Good Idea about the smoke but don't the tanks already have smoke shells :huh? But still, over all it would be a very good idea! :salute
All man needs to be happy is a home, his wife, and a place in the world

Col. 49Nem, Armor commander of the 49th

Offline Nemisis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4086
      • Fightin 49'ers
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #32 on: April 22, 2009, 03:21:10 PM »
Woah, no one posted after this, no way!!!
All man needs to be happy is a home, his wife, and a place in the world

Col. 49Nem, Armor commander of the 49th

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #33 on: April 22, 2009, 03:31:28 PM »
That's because this topic (recon/arty) has been pretty hashed out already.  Recently and less recently.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,248865.0.html
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline AWwrgwy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5478
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #34 on: April 22, 2009, 05:05:57 PM »
OK.  I had a that puts artillery and the dedicated scout plane together.
         
Have fixed artillery controlled by a dedicated scout plane.  An artillery battery spawns at a field or gv spawn and is fixed there.  It is targeted by a player flying a slow, unarmed, highly vulnerable spotter plane, say a Westland Lyander, Piper Cub, or a Fleisher Storch
This gives you artillery and a way to employ it without the need to drive it somewhere and set it up.  The batteries could be multiple guns in order to give them some effectiveness and should have some sort of error of probability added to the ability to hit, like puffy ack.   :D

The spotter aircraft would still need to be launched from an established airfield.  Their slow speed would make them vulnerable and also possibly limit there use due to the time it would take to fly to spawns other than those adjacent to friendly fields.

Just an idea that needs more fleshing out.  It would be a way to implement indirect fire into the game.  Otherwise, I see no need for a spotter plane nor an easy way to put indirect, land-based artillery fire into AH.


wrongway
71 (Eagle) Squadron
"THAT"S PAINT!!"

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay

Offline Nemisis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4086
      • Fightin 49'ers
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #35 on: April 22, 2009, 05:41:40 PM »
AWwrgwy, you sound like a smart guy, it would be a good idea to have, mabey something in the 155mm or bigger range as it would have to have good range to hit valuable targets. In addition to that we should have something mobile, like the 155mm long Tom, which would be the best, or the 105mm priest :angel:. Remember that why not gliders post, this goes with it and the artty, I said we should have a big glider that could land a tank :t, well if it could carry anything but a tank then we should stick a couple long tom guns in it and drop them behind enemy lines during or before a mission to soften the base or town. Or we could stick some towable guns inside of one along with a jeep to tow them out or move one if you suspect air attack then they could shell the bases :aok. One more idea that would be insanely awsome :rock would be to stick a single 155mm or 105mm inside a C47 or a bomber, then once you drop it where you want it to go you could either carry a gunner that would automaticly jump with the gun to shoot it or it could be linked to a go to plane 1,2,or3 button so you could shoot the gun yourself. To make it realistic there should be a timer that represents how long it would take to assemble the gun before you can shoot it.
All man needs to be happy is a home, his wife, and a place in the world

Col. 49Nem, Armor commander of the 49th

Offline Boxboy

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 740
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #36 on: April 22, 2009, 06:05:06 PM »
First of all, learn to spell and use grammar, second, don't post threads until you know what you're talking about. Third, please don't argue saying, "I'm not new to AH. I've already played 1 week of it." thanks.

-FYB

For a 13 yr old, you certainly have a hefty opinion of yourself.  As for advice try listening more and spouting less.
Sub Lt BigJim
801 Sqn FAA
Pilot

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2009, 01:16:19 AM »
wrgwy did you see this thread?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,248865.msg3061015.html#msg3061015

Having it so you just roll a plane and have some AI controlled arty somewhere out there is probably too... well, too gamey.  It's better if it were an actual player controlling the arty, if there were some teamwork.  It's a great opportunity for it.  As detailed in that thread, it could be so that the recon plane "shoots" at the target with its recon eqpt, which would report those coordinates on a clipboard for the whole country to see, or for anyone in an arty unit to see, at least.  The info would be raw data which would be used by the arty player to go through some calibration process, the same way bombers do.  Maybe the recon plane could have some calibration to do as well, but that's kinda pushing it, given that it'll be such a vulnerable unit. 
One idea to balance that out is to reduce recon units' icon range.  Maybe a sidecar or a jeep without an MG could also work as recon units.  They could have their icon reduced as well, compared to the regular 1.5K GV range.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #38 on: April 23, 2009, 10:51:25 AM »
Not exactly indirect artillery, but perhaps one of these would make a sensible add-on:



Could be towed by the German half track that we already have, and deployed in defensive positions. Should take a minute or two to set up and then the half track could simply disappear (scoots of and hides in the woods). Icon range for this gun should be half of normal or less to simulate the superior camouflage capabilities of AT guns in real life. Should be very susceptible to nearby HE or bomb blasts. Perhaps it could also be made mobile again after a minute or two of preparation and "morphed" into a half trak and trailer again.

Just my $0.02
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Nemisis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4086
      • Fightin 49'ers
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #39 on: April 23, 2009, 04:54:42 PM »
That is a good idea, but not exactly artty, I think we are talking something that can shell bases or that can destroy AA factories, etc. Besides, it would have to be a fairly large gun to nock out a tiger or the new soviet tank. And moot, if you actually read the end of my post then you will see that I came up with a way for the artty to be maned :aok. An idea that would help the AT gun thing would be so that if you put an AP shell through a building you could pull up inside and stick the gun barrel out a window, maby decrce the icon range to .5K, as only the barrel would be visible, but the building will still count as not destroyed :t.
All man needs to be happy is a home, his wife, and a place in the world

Col. 49Nem, Armor commander of the 49th

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #40 on: April 23, 2009, 05:02:53 PM »
Besides, it would have to be a fairly large gun to nock out a tiger or the new soviet tank.

The gun I posted above is a FlaK 36. Same 88mm as the Tiger. :)

Was used extensively as an AT-gun in Africa and the Eastern Front.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #41 on: April 23, 2009, 05:04:39 PM »
And moot, if you actually read the end of my post then you will see that I came up with a way for the artty to be maned :aok.
You never bothered to search, or you'd have seen all sorts of duplicates, like these:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,226866.msg2751439.html#msg2751439
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,254495.msg3142467.html#msg3142467
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Nemisis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4086
      • Fightin 49'ers
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #42 on: April 23, 2009, 05:41:22 PM »
Nice, 88mm is pretty big...but didn't the 88mm have trouble with the T34's sloped armor? and I have and idea that will out gun anything so far. You probably have heard about those big rail guns, the Dora one with the 800mm gun or something in that range, it could have it's own icon, you could up the U.S. halftrack with the quad .50's on it and the ostwind and the wiblerwind, or what ever it's called. It could function similar to a task group, you could have a flack car, an ammo car, a car carrying the main gun, and some that has an AT gun, like maby the 88mm you sugested. Just food for thought, I know it's gona attract jabo units like Chicago does snake oil salesmen, and it's big enough to have it's own furball, let's get down to the flaming, just don't insult ME, the idea's ok though.
All man needs to be happy is a home, his wife, and a place in the world

Col. 49Nem, Armor commander of the 49th

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #43 on: April 23, 2009, 05:53:15 PM »
Nice, 88mm is pretty big...but didn't the 88mm have trouble with the T34's sloped armor.

LOL! ... No.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline Nemisis

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4086
      • Fightin 49'ers
Re: Indirect fire weapons (artillery)
« Reply #44 on: April 23, 2009, 10:09:16 PM »
Ok, maby a different gun with a different tank. So what do you think about the rail gun idea?
All man needs to be happy is a home, his wife, and a place in the world

Col. 49Nem, Armor commander of the 49th