Author Topic: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game  (Read 3466 times)

Offline muzik

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #45 on: August 18, 2011, 02:12:49 PM »
I agree player controlled spotter and land modes are a bit gamey. Forcing players to rely on other players for fire control is more realistic and also works prevent any unbalancing that artillery might inflict.

As someone else suggested, there should be more strategic and more cooperative play built in as a requirement or what we end up with is just another Xbox game.

If they do it right, they will program a spotter with a pair of binoculars that can be inserted by vehicle or c47 para drop.

Locating enemy artillery is a non issue. You frequently have to rely heavily on aircraft to defend against enemy armor, why should it be any different with artillery. If your getting shot at, send someone to find them or put a spotter on the highest hill in the area.

BTW, we are suggesting here that artillery be deployed in unit strength to single players are we not? I would go so far as to include an AA vehicle with each unit for defense.
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 Wiley

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8096
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #46 on: August 18, 2011, 03:08:00 PM »
Maybe the thing to do would be to have an artillery battery function along the same lines as a CV.  Moves around the countryside, spawns from a base somewhere.

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

JG11

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #47 on: August 18, 2011, 05:52:07 PM »
I'm not sure if giving a full battery to each player is a good idea. With 4-6 guns per battery, 5 players gives you between 20-30 guns with a striking range of 8 miles with the Hummel and 14 miles with the M12.

I say yes to the batteries if they're guns in the 105mm range. Single units if they're in the 150mm range.
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 crazyivan

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #48 on: August 18, 2011, 06:12:07 PM »
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 06:18:36 PM by crazyivan »
POTW
"Atleast I have chicken!"- Leroy Jenkins

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #49 on: August 18, 2011, 06:15:48 PM »
Ivan we already discussed this in game, remember? Some spinless marine lifeform will never get out of it.

If you mean using it as artillery, I might as well up a Tiger.
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 crazyivan

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #50 on: August 18, 2011, 06:30:25 PM »
Ivan we already discussed this in game, remember? Some spinless marine lifeform will never get out of it.

If you mean using it as artillery, I might as well up a Tiger.
:rofl I remember but still I think it's an idea for large airfields to have a couple of these.

I'm sure some would  auger into this but could this even stop the vRooks now. :t
« Last Edit: August 18, 2011, 06:47:00 PM by crazyivan »
POTW
"Atleast I have chicken!"- Leroy Jenkins

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #51 on: August 18, 2011, 07:57:01 PM »
Post in a different topic then, I'd like to keep this one on 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 crazyivan

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #52 on: August 18, 2011, 08:27:05 PM »
Post in a different topic then, I'd like to keep this one on target.
It's 2 post not derailing. In Pyro's word's " Don't be a dick."
POTW
"Atleast I have chicken!"- Leroy Jenkins

Offline wil3ur

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1990
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #53 on: August 18, 2011, 08:44:55 PM »
I was talking to a Vet at my local bar here a while back.  He was an artillery gunner in West Berlin in the 70's.  Being naieve I said, "You're so damn close, artillery seems kind of worthless in a traditional sense..."  His reply was that they spent hours every week practicing direct fire in their guns.  He also stated he held a record for rapid fire in war games with the European forces with 8 for 8 in under a minute.  Pretty cool guy, but just stating direct fire's not out of the question, nor gamey.

It would be sweet to get some jeeps with recoiless rifles on 'em:

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


Offline muzik

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #54 on: August 19, 2011, 04:04:14 PM »
I'm not sure if giving a full battery to each player is a good idea.

Artillery rarely operated in wartime as a single piece for the same reason it would be silly to do it that way here, because it would be ineffectual and of little use. What good is a single gun going to do trying to take out a town or tanks?

Even six guns is not going to be a game changer. It would probably take them just as long to take down a town as a good 8 inch gunner from a cv. That gives a fair amount of time for an alert to go out and a couple of aircraft to find them and shut them down.

Artillery is an area effect weapon that has no advantage unless it is in unit strength. And I don't see it getting used in overwhelming numbers; even less so with only a single gun per player.

If only allowed a single gun, you would have to have 6 guys to have an effect. Ask any bomber pilot how easy it is to find 6 guys to go on a mission. That's why we have bomber formations now.



With 4-6 guns per battery, 5 players gives you between 20-30 guns with a striking range of 8 miles with the Hummel and 14 miles with the M12.


That would be an awesome thing to see and a realistic addition to the game. And if a group with 30 pieces went on a mission it would be no different than a group of bombers on a low alt raid.

It's not like artillery is difficult to put out of action. They are vulnerable to light machine guns, light bombs and rockets; so the threat you describe is minimal. And it would give tank drivers something to do other than go from a spawn point to a base. M8s and jeeps would be far more valuable and effective in 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 Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #55 on: August 19, 2011, 06:18:07 PM »
Well first off artillery shouldn't be trying to kill tanks, its not what they were designed to do and its not something they did very effeciently. You'd do far better to have a group of tanks and protect you


Asside from that, I'll admit you have a point. If its not too hard to coad this, then perhaps put a slight perk price on a batter? 30 guns will make short work of hangers which could be a major issue. I would hate to see Chewie, the vTARDS, or even my own countryman Jaryo with a battery of 30 M12s under his command.
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 #56 on: August 22, 2011, 01:23:43 PM »
Well first off artillery shouldn't be trying to kill tanks, its not what they were designed to do and its not something they did very effeciently. You'd do far better to have a group of tanks and protect you


Asside from that, I'll admit you have a point. If its not too hard to coad this, then perhaps put a slight perk price on a batter? 30 guns will make short work of hangers which could be a major issue. I would hate to see Chewie, the vTARDS, or even my own countryman Jaryo with a battery of 30 M12s under his command.

I didnt suggest otherwise. But arty fired on anything they were ordered to and did have good effect on armored units. If I am not mistaken I believe I read that early in the war artillery saved the Soviets because their armor was not on par with the Germans or there was a shortage of it. Something to that effect.

Anyhow, what you see as a potential problem, I see as a game changer. I see some better strategic action coming into play here. I see fire bases and "pork chop hill" battles.

I see an end to spawn and die battles over the same spawn point terrain where players know every little crevice by heart. I see armored missions moving to destroy a firebase getting ambushed in valleys.

I dont know anything about artillery shell accuracy. I would imagine if a rifle round can have 2 inch group at 600 to a 1000 yards, an artillery round could have huge groupings at 8+ miles. My point is, I don't think artillery was all that precise. With a good spotter and 6 pieces (1 battery) firing on his mark, I would think you would be lucky to get one hit from the salvo.

Even with 30 pieces firing, Im guessing the grouping would be about 4 times larger as opposed to 4 or 5 times denser if you follow.  eg  5 batteries of 6 = a shell dispersal about 4 or 5x larger than the shell dispersal of a single battery. And that's ONLY if all 5 of them were lucky enough to be on target in the first place.

If you only had one spotter, and he was calling out a single fire correction for 5 batteries and one was a hundred yards off target, another was 300 yards off target, and another 1000 off, it's likely only the closest battery gets any hits when a 100 yard correction is given.

And by forcing players to rely on other players as spotters we double the inherent human error and eliminate the gamey aspects like land mode. Which is the way it should be.

It wouldnt be any harder to code a player controlled convoy of artillery pieces than to code a drone convoy of trucks. The real work would come in building the 3d model of the guns, the vehicles to pull them, the ballistics, etc.

There would be issues in making the guns visually adapt to any given location, especially if the terrain is not flat. One solution to this is to have fire bases added to the maps permanently. Lots of them.

Arty batteries could still set up at other locations on the map if the terrain is flat enough though.

I would prefer that they build so many FBs, ground vehicles had to fight their way from fire base to fire base all the way to the enemy fields and towns instead of using the gamey spawn system we have now. Essentially having a conventional front line that moves as you gain control of every fire base between you and the enemy towns.

Fire bases could remain vacant until players decided to set up shop there.

Fire bases should have AA guns of different types or arty batteries should include an AA vehicle or gun.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2011, 01:39:25 PM by muzik »
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 Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #57 on: August 22, 2011, 01:41:53 PM »
Sure its no harder to coad than drones.... if you don't mind them ignoring trees and burms anyway. But I think you're imagining something closer to WWIIOL with the firebases. If you make GV's fight their way through the Seigfried Line every time they want a fight, you'll just kill the GV aspect of the game.


And how would you give firebases AA if they're neutral untill someone sets up shop? Would they fire impartially at all sides? No offense intended Muzik, but if you want WWIIOL, go play WWIIOL.
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 Shuffler

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27311
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #58 on: August 22, 2011, 01:43:37 PM »
Are you wanting to lob shells into a spawn area?
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning In A Bottle)

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: theoretical discussion on artillery in the game
« Reply #59 on: August 22, 2011, 01:47:55 PM »
No, I'm wanting to lob shells at a CV   :banana:.
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"