Author Topic: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game  (Read 3504 times)

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2011, 01:35:47 PM »
We need something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha_rocket_launcher

"The weapon is less accurate than conventional artillery guns, but is extremely effective in saturation bombardment, and was particularly feared by German soldiers. A battery of four BM-13 launchers could fire a salvo in 7–10 seconds that delivered 4.35 tons of high explosives over a four-hectare (10 acre) impact zone. With an efficient crew, the launchers could redeploy to a new location immediately after firing, denying the enemy the opportunity for counterbattery fire. Katyusha batteries were often massed in very large numbers to create a shock effect on enemy forces. The weapon's disadvantage was the long time it took to reload a launcher, in contrast to conventional guns which could sustain a continuous low rate of fire."

M4A3(75) Calliope.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Ardy123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2011, 01:50:02 PM »
I do believe it would be an interesting addition to add more to the ground war. We do have tanks but we do not have much in the way of infantry. Instead of capturing a town, could you imagine if you had ground infantry and defensive barriers, etc..
Yeah, that's right, you just got your rear handed to you by a fuggly puppet!
==Army of Muppets==
(Bunnies)

Offline pallero

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 242
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2011, 02:04:28 PM »
M4A3(75) Calliope.

Nah, not even close.

Offline USRanger

  • AvA Staff Member
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10325
      • BoP Home
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2011, 03:10:17 PM »
Back in the old H2H I made a terrain that used shore batts for artillery.  Each side could shell a custom-built city in the middle of the terrain where tank battles were taking place.  Was very fun, especially if enemy GVs happened to come in vis range of one of the arty bases.  Imagine a tank zigzaging as 4 shore batts blasted away at him from a half mile away.  Good stuff. :aok
Axis vs Allies Staff Member
☩ JG11 Sonderstaffel ☩
Flying 'Black[Death] 10' ☩JG11☩

Only the Proud, Only the Strong Ne Desit Virtus

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2011, 03:11:21 PM »
lol, sounds like it was a blast.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Aegis88

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2011, 04:41:34 PM »
They way i see it, with carrier battle groups with naval artillery, tanks, and various ground vehicles in the game, this is more than just a dogfight sim game. It is a combined arms warfare simulation game which is what makes me want to play this game again. I haven't played in a long while but I'm looking forward to starting up again. I cannot currently because I'm stuck at Fort Sill with terrible internet.

Yeah it's called aces high but there aren't very many games that pull so many aspects of warfare together on such a large scale. I see no reason for the field artillery to be absent from this game. There is a lot that they can provide in terms of combat capability as well as add to the teamwork element that I love about this game.

Guns can provide fires to destroy enemy airfields, cities, and factories. They can provide fires to neutralize enemy tank and troop carrier formations. This may be difficult, but this game is not an EZ mode game. This ability will come from player skill and experience. And really important is their ability to provide fires to suppress or destroy enemy anti-air weapons. They can also provide smoke screens to allow friendly units to advance and obscuration fires to limit the enemy's ability to be accurate and possibly force them to displace from a defensible position.  

Of course they will be a vulnerable target in open field. but this can be solved through team work. Players could hop into anti-air assets to stay near the guns and defend them from enemy air. This could also be accomplished by air assets patrolling overhead. I'm sure enemy aircraft will be looking for the ground craft destroying their assets. I'm not sure how the naval artillery works in this game but the artillery should use an observer. This could be done using aerial as well as ground observers consisting vehicles players already use. Give a arty unit a location to hit and provide corrections to hit the target.

The way I see artillery implemented is by introducing the M7 Priest or equivalent type self propelled artillery pieces to keep things simple. Another more complicated way but i think cooler war would for the player to take control of a fire direction control vehicle. He would drive it to a desired firing point, orient it on his desired azimuth of lay and click an emplace button or something and this would spawn a number of guns. maybe 4 which would be controlled by the player.

I really hope this game includes some sort of artillery to improve to combined arms warfare aspect of the game that is already awesome.

Thank you for your time and i hope for further discussion of this topic.

Aegis88
King of Battle  :salute

Offline Reschke

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7724
      • VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2011, 04:49:46 PM »
As it is right now I can't tell you how many times over the years I have been on a channel with the gun bunnies on the cruiser giving them spotting assistance on the old towns while flying over above AAA range. The CV group was at least just a tiny spot on the distance from shore and we were attempting to either have a GV run in on the town or had C-47's inbound to it.
Buckshot
Reschke from March 2001 till tour 146
Founder and CO VF-17 Jolly Rogers September 2002 - December 2006
"I'm baaaaccccckkk!"

Offline Melvin

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2797
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2011, 04:58:17 PM »
As it is right now I can't tell you how many times over the years I have been on a channel with the gun bunnies on the cruiser giving them spotting assistance on the old towns while flying over above AAA range. The CV group was at least just a tiny spot on the distance from shore and we were attempting to either have a GV run in on the town or had C-47's inbound to it.

^^^^ This.

One of my fondest memories of AH was when I was calling out range and direction for the cruiser gunners that were firing blind over a hill onto an enemy base.

I pulled into a left turning orbit (F4U-1D I think) just above ack range as the rounds came screaming in.

The reason that this was one of my fondest memories was due to the fact that the immersion factor was immense. Imagining myself over some Pacific hell-hole calling out "Short 200 left 100" and then having the corrected rounds impact on target was awesome fun. I'd volunteer for that job anytime.  :rock

Oh yeah, big +1 for arty and the necessary FAC role it would create.
See Rule #4

Offline wil3ur

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1990
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #23 on: August 15, 2011, 05:44:02 PM »
Possible as a choice.

All you need now is a guy to up & fly over to an area covered in tanks with no fighter cap & work in conjunction with the field artillery units & hope no one shoots your spotter down as he is trying to give grid locations.

Good luck with that mission.

Get some smoke rockets and some spotter craft, maybe even a PBY in here.  :rock
"look at me I am making a derogatory remark to the OP"


Offline wil3ur

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1990
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2011, 05:46:14 PM »
We need something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyusha_rocket_launcher

"The weapon is less accurate than conventional artillery guns, but is extremely effective in saturation bombardment, and was particularly feared by German soldiers. A battery of four BM-13 launchers could fire a salvo in 7–10 seconds that delivered 4.35 tons of high explosives over a four-hectare (10 acre) impact zone. With an efficient crew, the launchers could redeploy to a new location immediately after firing, denying the enemy the opportunity for counterbattery fire. Katyusha batteries were often massed in very large numbers to create a shock effect on enemy forces. The weapon's disadvantage was the long time it took to reload a launcher, in contrast to conventional guns which could sustain a continuous low rate of fire."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SLvtP6KMUM
"look at me I am making a derogatory remark to the OP"


Offline wil3ur

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1990
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2011, 05:50:21 PM »
To artillery, I think it'd be neat, however I think it's kind of against what they're going for in here.  I've noticed a few spawns have been changed, and also the targeting system for GV's has changed due to there being areas where a few tanks w/ HE could function as an artillery battery and take down bases from 5K+ out.  Not sure if it was any of the reasons behind the changes, but I've seen enough complaints on 200 when it's happening to venture a guess it could have been...

"look at me I am making a derogatory remark to the OP"


Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2011, 06:13:14 PM »
had an idea for how they could be aimed.

Give them land-gunner mode, but have accuracy go up the longer they sit there. If they relocate, they (the crew) only have a rough idea of where they are and hence only a rough idea of the range to target.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline muzik

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #27 on: August 16, 2011, 05:50:16 PM »
With realistic ranges, what effect do you think it will have on the game? Should it be in the 105mm range or the 155mm range? Should they get some form of land gunner mode? How about they just get a range and a bearing to a target and have to aim the gun themselves (with the inherent inaccuracy due to the size of a degree of fire at extended ranges)?

Thoughts, ideas, suggestions for implementation?

If they add anything to the game it should have realistic performance. The only restrictions that should be put on them is whatever perk system adjustments needed to prevent them from throwing the game out of balance.

Artillery would be a great addition to the game.
Fear? You bet your life...but that all leaves you as you reach combat. Then there's a sense of great excitement, a thrill you can't duplicate anywhere...it's actually fun. Yes, I think it is the most exciting fun in the world. — Lt. Col. Robert B. "Westy" Westbrook, USAAF 6/<--lol@mod

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #28 on: August 17, 2011, 08:51:13 AM »
I'm sorry but if i can rack up about 5 kills in 20 minutes by shelling 8" shells on a spawn while having a spotter then why not have a 105 155 battery do the same? :aok
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy

Offline Wiley

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8096
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #29 on: August 17, 2011, 12:36:30 PM »
I'm not against artillery in the game per se.  My only question would be, would it not be slightly overpowered to have an extremely powerful land-based artillery battery that resides somewhere in a 30 square mile circle?

I'm just envisioning the guy with way too much time on his hands driving for a while and then shelling the heck out of an airbase from the top of a hill miles away with practical impunity.

It seems to me it would need to be implemented with some kind of way of seeing where it's coming from.  My first thought is make it like the ship artillery where you can see the shells coming in, but that also makes the guy a sitting duck...

Wiley.
If you think you are having a 1v1 in the Main Arena, your SA has failed you.

JG11