theoretical discussion on artillery in the game

[Mayhem]

Again

Everything in this game revolves around joe fighter pilot. In real war it revolves around the Basic General Issue JOE infantryman. Even in today's modern military everything revolves around the infantryman.

ACES HIGH HAS NO INFANTRY! therefore there is almost no reason to put Artillery in it. people basically just wanta shell Air fields and spawn points from bases with artillery on them or new special Fire Bases. The concept of shelling and Airfield from an Airfield or a fire base is unrealistic.  A good example of Artillery being used against an airbase is the Battle of Khe Sanh. All of the Artillery brought to bear on Air field by the NVA was brought in by vehicle or carried in by infantry. Most of it was mortar fire carried in by Infantry.

1) the artillery used to shell fields and fixed bases is almost always carried by the 11c infantry types towed behind vehicles like jeeps or is Motorized artillery (In modern times they can be airdropped from a c130 and sling loaded from a helicopter) . and most artillery is crewed by 5 people per gun.

2) the big artillery bases are set up to support infantry and assist in defending other assets like airfields from mostly large infantry attacks. artillery's primary function is soften a target regardless if its infantry battalion dug in, a platoon on the move, a tank column, a convoy, or an airfield.  

3) Most indirect fire artillery used in wwII like you want is ineffective against a few tanks. Maybe a tank battalion but not a handful of tanks. Look how effective Ship guns are against tanks on the ground. Land based big gun artillery would only be slightly more effective (they aren't shooting from a moving platform) in accuracy but would also lack the punch of the big ship guns.

4) their are only 2 implementations of BVR indirect fire. (you can't see the target and/or it is not in your line of sight) the Big ship guns and Rockets from the PT boat, m4a3, and sdkfz 251. Have you tried making a rocket salvo attack on targets you can't see in this game? most damage done to an airfield or town is done in visual range with line of site direct fire shooting. The only effective system of Indirect BVR Artillery in this game is Ship guns in land mode using the map to aim which has no system to call for fire with other then "your west or right of the base". Try this against a spawn point with 10 tanks on it. With towns and fields your getting lucking, with tanks on a spawn point your winning the lottery if you hit anything.

As far as I know no consumer grade Multiplayer game that has ever gotten "Call for fire" right. My understanding only a heavily modded AA and operation Flash point used by the us army military and 75th rangers is close, otherwise the battlefield series is about as close to it as it gets and they are way off with it.

In my personal opinion with what I know of both this game and real world Modern artillery. artillery would be to complex to bring to the game and it would serve very little purpose as the game stands now. In my opinion there are far better things for HTC to spend their time and resources developing. Personally I would like a way of setting the range on rockets even something as simple as telling my what angle they are aimed at before they further implement artillery . At a latter time after we get infantry some self propelled artillery and a Means to accurately spot for and aim said artillery would be nice. Mabey even sime defensive pieces at bases would be nice after infantry is implemented - until then we have tanks. But right now ... IMHO if this were put to a vote I would vote "no".

Here are some more links on the Artillery. Be warned the Global Security Links will eventually want you to become a subscriber, and the youtube vids may have some profanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_fire

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-30/f630_2.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-30/f630_5.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-71/ch8.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-09-12/index.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-09-21/index.html
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLsYPCVGMAY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3juBMCxzvds&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdZc5RfKqyA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=uBjGyt0Ga9Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzUnyAqwZic&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV9LojyoASc&feature=related

[Karnak]

I think Mayhem is correct.

That said, if I were to think artillery should be added it would be something like this:

You take your M7, or equivalent, and head out to the point you are going to setup as your firing position, perhaps like bombers you'd get three of your chosen vehicle, following in a line.  While driving you have a drone light vehicle, jeep or equivalent, following behind you.  Once you have reached your firing position you hit a key to deploy the gun.  At that point you can now use one of the view keys to jump into the jeep as though you were jumping into a gunner position on a bomber. You then drive your jeep to your spotting position and either by using a radio "interface" fire and adjust the guns from the jeep or jump back and forth between the M7s to fire and/or adjust aim and the jeep to observe the results.

I have no idea how a good range indicator would be worked into the game nor do I have any idea what the use of this system would be other than another way to destroy towns or bases.

My uncle's wife's father was a spotter in WWII, landing a D-Day and fighting through the Battle of the Bulge.  He had some very interesting stories.  Sadly, he passed away a couple of years ago.

[321BAR]

I think this is one of the earlier times Dale has brought this up.

My assumtion is you belive the game should be a WWII simulator. I do not belive that Aces High should be a WWII simulator,and it shows up in our description of what aces high is on our home page. Aces High primary purpose is an ACM simulator that uses WWII aircraft. At times AH will be used as a WWII simulator but this will be in senario base functions and other events.

mayhem the game has changed alot since HTC said that. You'll notice on the front page...

High fidelity flight simulation is the heart of Aces High but it doesn't end there.  A war rages on the ground and at sea.  Engage enemy armor in tank combat.  Protect your fleet as a gunner or make a torpedo run in a PT boat.  Lead an assault in an amphibious vehicle.  With over 100 warbirds, vehicles, and boats available, you have access to a vast virtual arsenal.

to add to this HTC wants infantry added into game (trying to find his quotes in the wishlist) with a FPS action somehow and also wants submarines. The game is changing and is far from the ACM sim it used to really be. since the GV update, new vehicles are being pumped out at what is now for this game an alarming rate. With all this in mind one must realize that all playable factors of the game are being worked on. And if HT gets what he wants with infantry and street to street fighting this will instantly turn into a full blown WWII Sim

[muzik]

Again

blah blah blah

I don't know how to explain it to you any better and it is pretty obvious you havent read all of this thread so you dont even know what has been proposed.

If you dont take time to read and understand the discussion, then you shouldnt be commenting on it or at least not comment like you KNOW.

I dont need to understand EVERYTHING about artillery to know that it can be simulated in a game. A simulation could be as gamey as a Nintendo game or it could be a highly detailed and EXTREMELY accurate representation of the actual thing. I dont know OR CARE how close htc decides to make it to the real thing.

Now to address your flawed logic, the fact that we dont have infantry means nothing. By your logic we shouldnt have aircraft or tanks. WHY you ask? Because they were invented to support infantry.

AND AGAIN, you seem to keep ignoring a fact that even you agreed to. Artillery is an area weapon. It is not used because of its accuracy. It is used as fire suppression, to disrupt and disorient the enemy and to soften targets. This can all be accomplished in the game. The casualty level of 25% that you suggested we might expect in the game is probably pretty close to real life expectations. But then again, that is just your flawed logic, because it all depends on how many guns are firing, how many targets they are shooting at, and how good the spotter is.

The following is a post on artillery. I do not attest to it's accuracy, but everything in this post sounds like someone who actually knows what they are talking about and includes references to back up his assertions. Unlike you.

"Test Results
The first test was conducted in 1988. Researchers confirmed that the US 155-mm HE round was a reasonable surrogate for the Soviet 152-mm HE round. An M109 155-mm howitzer battery using Soviet fire direction and gun procedures fired the test. The targets were manikins placed in fighting positions, US trucks, Ml 13 and M557 armored vehicles, and M-48 tanks. Several different computer models were used to predict results. The test was fired three times using 56 HE rounds with point-detonating (PD) and variable-time (VT) fuzes.
The resulting effects on the trucks and personnel were close to model predictions. However, the effects on the armored vehicles and tanks were significantly higher than model predictions. The model predicted 30 percent damage to armored vehicles and tanks; however, 67 percent damage was achieved. Fragmentation from the HE rounds penetrated the armored vehicles, destroying critical components and injuring the manikin crews. In addition, the HE fragmentation damaged tracks, road wheels, and tank main gun sights and set one vehicle on fire. Interestingly enough, none of the damage to the armored vehicles or tanks was the result of direct hits-all the damage was caused by near hits. This test confirmed that US Army models did not accurately portray artillery effectiveness. Direct hits were not required to damage tanks and other armored targets."


Taken from  http://battlegroup42.de/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=147

And the article goes on to debunk other myths you are perpetuating.

Dont talk to me like you are an expert just because you spent a little time with artillery. Clearly you are not. Just as clear is that you know nothing about what software can and cant do.

If I knew these things without having "studied artillery" I wonder what else I might know that you dont.

[muzik]

In my opinion there are far better things for HTC to spend their time and resources developing.

And again the motive of every BBS warrior rears its ugly head.

[Tank-Ace]

Sorry but this game is not a combat flight simulator. It stopped being that at the instant the very first non-aircraft mounted, player-opperated weapon was added to the game. At that point in time it became a combat simulator with an emphasis on aircraft combat. Right now it is a combat simulator with a primary emphasis on aircraft, and a secondary, yet still sizable, emphasis on ground combat.

IMO everyone needs to stop using the argument that planes will automaticly take precedence over vehicles and ships, and that every other facet of the game should be tailored to their combat, as that is no longer correct (never was infact) and is not a valid argument. Its no more valid than a toddler saying they should get candy just because they want it.

I've even heard tell that one of Dale's favorite sports was to park a T-34 on the runway and kill upping aircraft.