theoretical discussion on artillery in the game

[muzik]

Sure its no harder to coad than drones.... if you don't mind them ignoring trees and burms

As I said, "the real work..."  These are not drones and they would work just like any other gv. drive into a tree and you're going to stop.

And how would you give firebases AA if they're neutral untill someone sets up shop? Would they fire impartially at all sides?

If you want me to lay out every single detail as to how this would work, you could just ask.  I didnt think I needed to do so.


First off, I never said they would be nuetral. I hadnt given it too much thought because it is less of an issue than designing the arty batteries and adding FBs to the map. But since you asked, here is how it could go.

Fire bases could, would, or should replace vehicle bases.

GVs could, would, or should spawn from FBs. The distance between spawns would likely not be much farther than they are now.

FBs could be nothing more than random flat spots all over the map, possibly with nothing more than a map room for buildings.

FBs could, would or should be easily taken once overrun, with no requirement to drop dozens of buildings for a capture.

It could be coded that front line bases are automatically populated with arty until a player chooses to occupy and use it, or it could be a player made decision like where to move a cv. (minus the rank requirement) Or how ever works best.

If the enemy sneaks past front line bases, and reaches a FB that is unoccupied all he has to do is run troops and it is theirs although I think there should be zone control acquired before the base can spawn GVs or other vehicles. Only when that base is on or behind the front can it spawn GVs. Until then, all you get is what you brought.

Multiple FBs all over the map would allow more flanking type warfare and allow GVs to use the 80 or 90 % of the terrain that currently goes unused while keeping players in the same old battle zones day after day.

I'm sure there is more I could add, but I'll let you tell me what that might be.

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.

I thought the fight is what we were here for....but we dont want to "fight our way to find...a fight?" 

I dont play WW2 online so I have no idea what kind of problem you are referring to. If spawns are scattered all along a front line and they are spaced about the same distance as they are now then I dont see the GV aspect doing anything other than get better and more interesting.

In fact one of the worst of the gamey aspects of this game, spawn camping, would stop being a big problem because there would be other spawns that might be a bit more of a drive, but not unbearable and a camper couldnt shut you out of a fight.

As a matter of fact,  if a GVers main objective is to have a good GV fight, it seems this method should be better. He would be in a constant battle to push forward. I foresee a much more strategic type of fight as well.  If all they want is to bum rush a town and get a quick capture, then I guess, not so much.

[Tank-Ace]

All I'm saying is that if you have them behave as normal GV's, you'll need to have them self-navigating to some degree, or have them proceede in a tight single-file line  behind you. Otherwise you'll spend more time getting your GV drones through the trees than you will firing.


With how Aces High is set up right now, making a frontline of easily captured firebases and lines centered on main bases like GV bases, airfields, and ports, would just be a waste of time IMO. If they were counted as war win bases and you leave them as nothing but a maproom, then they're too easy to capture. a late night horde could easily roll the map. Increase the defenses and you've just made another vbase.

If, however, you have them be nothing more than forward possions, and independent of the war win bases there would be no real reason to use the ones that aren't right infront of the base you want to capture, and you have what is essentially a glorified spawn point. +1 eventually, but not with the current system.


As to fighting issue, you seem to have some false ideas about the average lemming in Aces High. Most just want to find a double spawn, camp it, and get their perkies. They'll fight to camp it, but they won't fight just for the sake of a fight. The exceptions are NDisles, and Tank Town island, the large one with 3 GV bases and an airfield.

[muzik]

All I'm saying is that if you have them behave as normal GV's, you'll need to have them self-navigating to some degree, or have them proceede in a tight single-file line  behind you. Otherwise you'll spend more time getting your GV drones through the trees than you will firing.

The convoy would follow your lead vehicle precisely as if they were driving in your tracks.

With how Aces High is set up right now, making a frontline of easily captured firebases and lines centered on main bases like GV bases, airfields, and ports, would just be a waste of time IMO. If they were counted as war win bases and you leave them as nothing but a maproom, then they're too easy to capture. a late night horde could easily roll the map. Increase the defenses and you've just made another vbase.

A hordes effectiveness is determined by the effectiveness of their enemy, not the game.

You are discounting this idea based on "what ifs" instead of finding solutions. If you have a specific scenario you think would make this impractical then say it and I will offer a possible solution.

You will never know how this will work in practice until you try it. But to answer your concern, I didnt say they would count as "war win" bases.

If, however, you have them be nothing more than forward possions, and independent of the war win bases there would be no real reason to use the ones that aren't right infront of the base you want to capture

You are missing the point here. You dont get to spawn next to the enemy air bases or vehicle bases anymore. This is not checkers, you dont get to jump 100 miles of terrrain or the opposition. So here are a few changes I could have mentioned earlier.

-There is a matrix of spots all over the map that allows ANY country to set up fire bases.

-Perhaps every country will be allowed a certain number of "constantly occupied" (guns are already present and instantly usable) FBs.

-Perhaps players can arrange the constantly occupied bases within their controlled territory in anticipation of enemy movements.

-FBs do not show up on the map and abracadabra...Reconnaissance aircraft now have a place in the game and players have to do some planning and strategic maneuvering to fight the war.

-You cannot spawn from your air field all the way to the enemy town as the current system allows, Every mile of territory must be gained through movement of forces.

-There are two ways to take an enemy airfield and town.
1--You must fight your way across the ground terrain taking FBs and VBs as you go OR
2--you might try to sneak a base with an air attack. Either way you risk being flanked or surrounded so you better have a good plan.

As to fighting issue, you seem to have some false ideas about the average lemming in Aces High. Most just want to find a double spawn, camp it, and get their perkies. They'll fight to camp it, but they won't fight just for the sake of a fight. The exceptions are NDisles, and Tank Town island, the large one with 3 GV bases and an airfield.

Believe me, I am well aware how people game the game.


In case you dont realize it, people are not going to be able to memorize all their favorite camp spots as easily as they used to because we will be using more of the AH terrain and not the same "hotspots" that get used every single map rotation.

Plus the ability for the enemy to spawn from several different locations all within a reasonable striking distance from your attempted spawn camp, will force a move and shoot warfare. If you drive to within camping distance from an enemy spawn, you would not only be subject to the multiple spawns I just described, but also from multiple artillery positions. So I think spawn camping would be a thing of the past and any GV warfare would require a coordinated and planned effort to move into enemy territory.

With FBs being numerous and somewhat easilly taken out, I foresee them being taken out and popping back up with such irregularity and frequency it will be a challenge to coordinate and time attacks so that you can effect a movement of the front line. This would also seem to lend itself to a fast moving constantly changing fight or a stalemate that requires better coordination to break.

And I foresee pilots attempting to support ground forces having their hands full reconnoitering the surrounding terrain watching for FBs being set up rather than those occasions where a horde has superior numbers and their air cover leisurely spots for spawn campers. In other words, another strike against spawn campers.

[Shuffler]

Interesting

[Tank-Ace]

I like the idea, but I don't think it would work very well. The bases that are constantly controlled would have to be permenatnly set or you will see arguing over them like we have with CV's now. If you let rank be the determining factor in controll and placment of the firebases, you'll have dweebs chaning sides to keep resistance away from their main line of attack.


And how would the firebases work.  Could you spawn there, with them acting as bases with very light defenses? Or would they just be a random spot where theres a few 37mm's and maybe a 17lber or two?  If they're just capturable gun emplacments then I really don't see much of a point, as you'll remove GV's as an effective attacking force, due to the lack of rapid deployment, with the main airfields and bases still being your main objective. Unless you can spawn up from them, I can easily see GV use dropping to near zero.

A better solution might be to have main fields that are just a center of strength. You still get the guns and the multiple hangers and such, but they're capturable in the same way that firebases are. The only advantage a field gives you are heavier defenses, and (with an airfield) the ability to launch aircraft as well. This would mean that the strength of a base's defenses comes from the defenders, and not its difficulty of capture.

[muzik]

I like the idea, but I don't think it would work very well. The bases that are constantly controlled would have to be permenatnly set or you will see arguing over them like we have with CV's now. If you let rank be the determining factor in controll and placment of the firebases, you'll have dweebs chaning sides to keep resistance away from their main line of attack.

That same thought occurred to me, but if they wanted to remove the cv from the game for those same reasons, would you agree with that?

Ultimately it's up to htc to decide how to control things like this. I think the rank control of cvs is ridiculous and I have suggested alternatives before. As for the constant control base, if they did use the same rank system, then maybe a player only operates one out of the 20(? or so) that belong to his country. If they send 20 spies, they get steamrolled by the numbers.

And how would the firebases work.  Could you spawn there, with them acting as bases with very light defenses? Or would they just be a random spot where theres a few 37mm's and maybe a 17lber or two?  If they're just capturable gun emplacments then I really don't see much of a point, as you'll remove GV's as an effective attacking force, due to the lack of rapid deployment, with the main airfields and bases still being your main objective. Unless you can spawn up from them, I can easily see GV use dropping to near zero.

Gun emplacements are permanent fixtures and very frequently cant get shots do to terrain or obstacles. There is no way that they will be a substitute for mobile armor and the artillery wont be accurate enough to stop GV use.

Lets start with the constant control base. Yes, it should have multiple means of defense plus it should have 2 or 3 artillery batteries up for player use just as field guns are now. It should also have room for 1 or 2 more mobile (player driven) batteries.

Once the guns are destroyed they will stay down for __ minutes.

Yes, they ARE bases with light defenses.

Yes you can spawn GVs there. When I said that there would be multiple spawns for GVs, this is what I meant. They can spawn from any FB. I also think that the current vehicle bases could still serve a purpose as well and would remain in their current locations as some kind of "zone" object.

Once a constant control base is shut down, it stays down for ___ minutes. When that time is up, it comes up at that same base it was destroyed at unless that base was captured.

Then, either a message goes out over country channel announcing system: Fire Base 23 is available for deployment. Player pulls up clip board and selects it to place it at any unoccupied FB. Or it is auto deployed to a unoccupied FB close to its previous location.

A better solution might be to have main fields that are just a center of strength. You still get the guns and the multiple hangers and such, but they're capturable in the same way that firebases are. The only advantage a field gives you are heavier defenses, and (with an airfield) the ability to launch aircraft as well. This would mean that the strength of a base's defenses comes from the defenders, and not its difficulty of capture.

I dont see there being any hangers or buildings at FBs. That is just a lot of unneeded objects to put on the map. I think it would look really cool if we could have tents and sandbags so that it looked like a temporary firing position that it is, but I am trying to be conservative believe it or not.

If any buildings or objects are a must have on a FB it would be a map room and possibly one hanger for shutting down the spawn temporarily. Maybe a farm house could serve as a FB destructible just as it might have in ww2.

The reason I suggested an easily captured FB was exactly that, It should be the strength of the defenders, not the task that stops the enemy from moving forward. And we want to be able to see some quick successes, not see hours of stalemate like you see now.

It just occurred to me, that there should only be one way to shut down vehicles from spawning at a FB. Taking it with troops.

The only exception to this is cutting a FB off from the front. For example taking a FB in the middle of enemy territory does not allow you to start spawning vehicles from there. It must be on or behind your country's front line or a string of bases that your country takes in a push through enemy territory.

Perhaps the purpose of the vehicle base as zone object would be to allow vehicle spawning from surrounding FBs even though that VB might be cut off from the rest of your bases.

[muzik]

I was also thinking that para-frags would be a great addition to the game and an effective arty suppressor.

See, I'm a fair guy, If I give you a way to build it, I will give you a way to blow it up.

[Tank-Ace]

Perhaps have the maproom in the center, make a peremiter of sorts with barbed wire and sandbags like you suggest. A single large tent in place of the VH. It takes 2000lbs of ord to destroy and will stay down for 5 minutes. Its easy to destroy, but isn't crippling like killing the VH's at a regular vbase.

And good idea for the surrounding of an FB. You can't spawn vehicles up if its cut off from both the zone base (perhaps have that represent Brigade HQ?) and the main body of your 'army'.

But I don't think bases (airfields in particular) should be much more difficult than an FB to capture. If you want to keep that airfield, well then you have to defend it, you can't rely on the auto ack and town buildings to buy you 10 minutes of time to let you decide if the fight is better over at some other base.

[muzik]

But I don't think bases (airfields in particular) should be much more difficult than an FB to capture. If you want to keep that airfield, well then you have to defend it, you can't rely on the auto ack and town buildings to buy you 10 minutes of time to let you decide if the fight is better over at some other base.

I agree with this. The only reason they made airfields and towns so hard to take was to provide extra time for fights to take place.

If the time it would take to go from base to base is what i imagine, I don't think they need to be that hard to take any longer. There will be plenty of action just getting there.

What they could do is perhaps put more defensive positions in and around towns and bases  as if the defending army had dug in as the enemy approached.

So while it may be a little more difficult to attack a town or base, they could eliminate the need to blow up buildings as means of drawing out a fight.

Put a vehicle hanger in town to allow spawning in the town and as the only building that needs destroyed.

[Tank-Ace]

While working on a terrain I'm making, I remember seeing a machine gun on a tripod. Perhaps we could get those, in town and at the FB's as both manguns and auto guns.

Drop the troop requirment at FB's. the MG's will be perfectly capable of killing those.

[Mayhem]

I would like to point a few things out.

Artillery's primary function is as an area effect weapon to soften a target. otherwise it only Delays and Harasses. Artillery is mostly effective against infantry in the open and even then it is even more effective at keeping a soldier in his fox hole pinned down.

That being said we have no infantry in this game. What we have are drones that make a b line to map room at 30mph like ants on crank heading to a picnic.

This game is a WWII mass multiplier combat flight game designed to simulate the WWII Fighter pilot experience. At one time everything in this game revolved around the fighter pilot. Dale has even said that a time or two on the boards. Even though that is less true today it is still some what in effect. It's the fighter pilot that has the least concessions to reality in the game. are bombers accurately simulated in this game ... heck no in fact I think the bomber is the least accurately simulated craft in the game. Bombers are nothing more then a targets for fighter pilots.

Artillery is very in-effective against armored vehicles. Artillery would have to make a direct hit or at least a very near hit (within a few feet) to destroy a tank. Artillery can kill and maim (take them out of the fight) infantry in the open up to and even beyond 20meters. Artillery is almost useless against target in the water as it would require a direct hit. Artillery is very inaccurate and requires some one to tell them where to shoot. Think about how hard it is to hit and kill tanks with ship guns ... most land based artillery is indirect fire and weaker then ship fire.

Your basic infantry man is trained to call for and adjust fire (artillery). However its the forward observer (13f) who is specifically trained and tasked at it. He unlike the 11x series soldier is an expert at calling for fire.  the smallest true artillery peace is a mortar (some may argue it is the grenade launcher). A basic infantryman is familiarized with the company level mortar however it's the 11c (mortar maggot) not the 11b (ground pounder) that's actually trained to fire the mortars. the big guns are fired by the 13x series MOSs in the army.


Now artillery is an extremely Complex critter. I have been trained to call for fire and I have been familiarization with the m224 (60mm)  m29 and m252 (81mm) as well as the m30 (107mm from my Mech inf days). I have trained on and qualified expert with the m203 grenade launcher and been trained on the mk 19. I honestly have a hard time figuring out how the two systems work together (calling for fire and actually aiming and firing the weapon.) as the grenade launcher does not implement a two party system like mortars and big artillery guns do.

My Father in law is a an old Vietnam Area 13F. He knows far more about it then I do and we have occasionally traded notes and stories. To the best of my knowledge the only "simulations" that have artillery in them are First person shooters. Of those only bf1942 bf2 and Far cry 2 have anything like artillery or mortars in them. Far cry 2 can't even come close to remotely simulating a mortar. The battlefield series is probably the best and closest I've seen to it but even it is way off on accurately simulating it. (Note: I have not played WWII online).

At best Artillery in the game would simply be click on map to aim and then fire the gun/guns. At best it would take an entire artillery barrage to destroy one or 2 troops in a paratroop drop (out of 10) a vehicle out of a convoy or a jeep or two out of a huge rushing hoard of a direct GV attack.

It would be about the same as shore batteries and ship guns without direct fire capability. I don't think it should be in the game mainly because it really would have no purpose other then simply giving aircraft something else to shoot at and it would be impossible to defend itself. We already have AAA guns.


I do believe there are a couple Army 13x type vets in the game and on the boards. That could better explain how Artillery works better then I can and why it really doesn't belong in the game. at best it would be ineffective yet fun for a time or two then it would never get used much. basically a novelty at best.

Here are some wiki articles that may help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_(artillery)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_observers_in_the_US_military
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_(weapon)

[Tank-Ace]

Ummmmm..... have you ever set foot in an 8" gun  ? I'll say that a cruiser is probably one of the best town killers in the game, and damn effective against hangers if you have a good map or someone spotting from an aircraft.

[muzik]

.'

Artillery's primary function is as an area effect weapon to soften a target.

Really?  I think Ive hear that somewhere before.

This game is a WWII mass multiplier combat flight game designed to simulate the WWII Fighter pilot experience.  

That is correct!

At one time everything in this game revolved around the fighter pilot. Dale has even said that a time or two on the boards. Even though that is less true today it is still some what in effect. It's the fighter pilot that has the least concessions to reality in the game. are bombers accurately simulated in this game ... heck no in fact I think the bomber is the least accurately simulated craft in the game. Bombers are nothing more then a targets for fighter pilots.

This is not even close, and demonstrates the misconceptions you have that led to the false conclusion you just gave.

I have also heard something about hitechs desire to focus on air combat and not a simulation of the war in general.

I can imagine that years ago when he started creating his first simulation, he only had fighters. It would have been nothing but a big furball. And then it got boring so he added a ground war to add more variety to the game.

The fighter pilot experience doesnt start and end with a dogfight. Whether it was a purposeful decision, an accident, or by demand, he added a ground war and bombers because anything less woud be a poor example of an air combat game.

Let me make this clear before I even say it or the twits are going to have a spazz attack..."GETTING SHOT AT IN THE AIR IS NO LAUGHING MATTER"    ----BUT----   it in many ways it was the lessor of the dangers they face.

A pilot could bail out of a damaged airplane, what he faced after that had the potential to put his life at risk every minute of every day for days, weeks or years on end. He could land in shark infested waters, spend weeks floating in it waiting for rescue, be captured and spend years subjected to torture and starvation. Hell they were even told to watch out for head hunters. They could get lost and never be heard from again. The list goes on.

There are a few that would be happy if this game was nothing than a furball. Most wouldnt.

Air combat was born out of a need to win a ground war. The ground war is not a negotiable or insignificant aspect anymore and never will be and the richer and more detailed it gets, the richer and more detailed the air war gets.

I couldnt imagine going back to a time when there was no anti-aircraft in the game or a possibility you might accidentally fly over a flak panzer. That IS what being a fighter pilot was about.

are bombers accurately simulated in this game ... heck no in fact I think the bomber is the least accurately simulated craft in the game. Bombers are nothing more then a targets for fighter pilots.

Your perception of bombers might have been accurate if you said they arent used historically. Bombers suffer their fate in this game because of the way they are used, not because of the modeling.  If ever people worked together, and flew their aircraft EXACTLY as they were historically, then you would see the same types of results found in ww2.

Artillery is very in-effective against armored vehicles. Artillery would have to make a direct hit or at least a very near hit (within a few feet) to destroy a tank.

Which explains my suggestion for "batteries"

Your basic infantry man is trained to call for and adjust fire (artillery). However its the forward observer (13f) who is specifically trained and tasked at it. He unlike the 11x series soldier is an expert at calling for fire.  the smallest true artillery peace is a mortar (some may argue it is the grenade launcher). A basic infantryman is familiarized with the company level mortar however it's the 11c (mortar maggot) not the 11b (ground pounder) that's actually trained to fire the mortars. the big guns are fired by the 13x series MOSs in the army. Now artillery is an extremely Complex critter. I have been trained to call for fire and I have been familiarization with the m224 (60mm)  m29 and m252 (81mm) as well as the m30 (107mm from my Mech inf days). I have trained on and qualified expert with the m203 grenade launcher and been trained on the mk 19. I honestly have a hard time figuring out how the two systems work together (calling for fire and actually aiming and firing the weapon.) as the grenade launcher does not implement a two party system like mortars and big artillery guns do. My Father in law is a an old Vietnam Area 13F. He knows far more about it then I do and we have occasionally traded notes and stories.

What does any of this have to do with our conversation? Self promotion? Your an expert? That's cool.

I have ZERO real life experience with artillery and if you had given any of this information when it was actually warranted and NOT told us you were an expert or your personal history, I would have taken your word for it because I'm quite sure you are capable of talking intelligently on artillery and bull dung is usually pretty easy to spot.

This is a game, and we are discussing how to add a "condition" that existed in ww2 that had an effect on all types of flyers in ww2, however indirectly that might have been.

That condition might be an artillery unit that threatens or stops a ground offensive and it needs to be taken out by air.  Or an arty unit supported by AA that presents dangers to air operations in the area. And considering most of our dog-fights occur far below historical altitudes that is a significant risk.

And as far as I'm concerned there could be 50x the amount of AA scattered throughout the map.  If there was, then you might get the more historically accurate flying altitudes you mistook for "inaccurate bomber simulation."

At best Artillery in the game would simply be click on map to aim and then fire the gun/guns.

That's just flat out wrong. It could be done exactly like it was done in RL. Spotter, coordinates, and "fire for effect."

At best it would take an entire artillery barrage to destroy one or 2 troops in a paratroop drop (out of 10) a vehicle out of a convoy or a jeep or two out of a huge rushing hoard of a direct GV attack.

Dont you think you should determine the barrage strength before you determine what the casualties will be?  So how many guns are in this theoretical fire team of yours? Because, I believe 30 guns and a good spotter would be pretty devastating. I dont know, I am just a civilian, you army boys must just stand there when 30 howitzers line up on you.

It would be about the same as shore batteries and ship guns without direct fire capability.  

In RL neither of those things were a "click here if you want to play cannoneer" type situation. How many of the ships guns usually get occupied during a cv raid in the game? 3? 6? As opposed to 50 that might have been used by a RL task group.

The point you just graciously made for us, is that it wasnt the shell size, the accuracy, or the location (land or water) of the artillery unit that made the most difference. It was sheer volume. And if Im not mistaken, that lesson is taught to artillerymen in training. Isnt that what you call "area effect?"

I don't think it should be in the game mainly because it really would have no purpose other then simply giving aircraft something else to shoot at and it would be impossible to defend itself. We already have AAA guns.

Did you even read the rest of this thread? Because I think we made a good case for it's use in the game.

You all but said it yourself. Artillery is not a sniper rifle. It's strength is not in accuracy, it is deterrence. It presents a threat that must be dealt with exactly as it was in RL.

In the game it presents opportunities to use aircraft as they were historically. It presents a way to give attack planes more use in the game. It presents an opportunity to force people to recon an area and use strategic movement instead of a "Half-Life" spawn and die fight that we have had for 20 years. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.............

[Mayhem]

This is not even close, and demonstrates the misconceptions you have that led to the false conclusion you just gave.
 

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.

Your perception of bombers might have been accurate if you said they arent used historically. Bombers suffer their fate in this game because of the way they are used, not because of the modeling.  If ever people worked together, and flew their aircraft EXACTLY as they were historically, then you would see the same types of results found in ww2.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not referring to 5K b24 raids or Kamikaze Lancstukas. I'm refuring to why the bomber is in the game. It is in the game to give the fighter a challenging historical adversary to shoot at and a reason to shoot at it. Think about it, how accurate is it, that one guy can control (fly) and bomb with 3 aircraft at once as well as control all the guns on those 3 aircraft? Why is in the game? this one step from being point a point and click liek an RTS. This game is not a Bomber simulation - but it can be but that depends on the players. The purpose of current bomber set up is give the fighter pilot player the simulated experience of what it was like to engage a formation of fully crewed bombers without requiring that many players to crew them - if the game required 1 player each for the Pilot, the bombardier, and each of gunner position for each aircraft we simply wouldn't see bomber formations in the DA and would also have a negative effect on the scenarios. Dale has even pointed this out in one of his early post as to why Pilots can man guns. Requiring an additional player to man the guns on a bomber was unreliable most bombers would be defenseless in the game and few people would fly them.

Which explains my suggestion for "batteries"

With this I assume your NOT wanting mobile artillery like flying artillery (jeep towed artillery piece) or Self-propelled artillery, Hummel, Wespe, SU-85, M7 Priest. You want fire base like, fixed artillery.

Even firing an artillery salvo or even a barrage from a battalion or brigade level artillery battery at a single moving tank the likely hood of me destroying or even damaging that tank is coin toss probably less then 25%.

Now firing the same salvo or barrage at tank battalion I will probably destroy 3 or 4 tanks and damage probably around 3 times as many. the best tank killer in the game would still be a bomb or rocket from a fighter/bomber or an AP tank shell.

Even shooting at a stationary tank a spotter may have to make a few adjustments which is easily defeatable if the tank has cover, moves fast enough to get out of area of effect, or worse yet the spotter is detected and engaged.

What does any of this have to do with our conversation? Self promotion? Your an expert? That's cool.

Actually I'm pointing out while I'm not an expert as a 13F is I do have a working knowledge of artillery and have actually gotten to call for fire a time or two. SO I do have real world experience with it.

I have ZERO real life experience with artillery.

But you want it without really knowing anything about it? and when some one who does know something about it tries to tell you it really won't bring anything to the game and is fairly useless without infantry in the game you nearly insult them.

[Mayhem]

This is a game, and we are discussing how to add a "condition" that existed in ww2 that had an effect on all types of flyers in ww2, however indirectly that might have been.

Non- Anti Aircraft Artillery from a fixed based had no effect on flyers in WW2 other then being a target to protect infantry which we again do not have in AH.

That's just flat out wrong. It could be done exactly like it was done in RL. Spotter, coordinates, and "fire for effect."

You have already stated you have "ZERO real life experience with artillery" so how the heck do you know this? Even I have Problems understanding certain aspects of artillery fire and I have been trained.

Dont you think you should determine the barrage strength before you determine what the casualties will be?  So how many guns are in this theoretical fire team of yours? Because, I believe 30 guns and a good spotter would be pretty devastating. I dont know, I am just a civilian, you army boys must just stand there when 30 howitzers line up on you.

Barrage is defensive type of salvo. The number of guns brought to bare on a target are determined by the Targets type size and strength as well as the availability of guns that can be brought to bare on the target. At best when hitting troops in the open your only going to get a 20% casualty rate. Troops dig in maybe 15% less for armored vehicles. This is the Softening effect. It also delays and harrasses movong units and and suppresses fixed units keeps their heads down and in their possitions. depending on the gun type they can also shoot High Explosive, air burst (A flack shell that explodes just above the ground) incendiary (whilly pete), and flare rounds. The best artillery do in AH is HE and Smoke.

The size of the unit like a battery depends on the type unit and type of gun. A Howitzer battery (Company) in 7th ID and 101st I think is 6 guns 5 guys per gun plus support and command. A Mortar section in the same units infantry companies is 3 sections  each made up of 2 guns 2 guys per gun plus a section leader and team leader. This could change from unit to unit. When i was in a mech infantry unit mortars where in the battalion level rather then company, and the an Artillery battery consisted of 8 guns.