Author Topic: Artillery?  (Read 1559 times)

Offline HORSEMAN

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Artillery?
« on: August 16, 2011, 04:54:48 PM »
     I wonder how much more interesting having artillery would be? There are quote a few vehicles as it is but it would bring a more strategic battleplan to the forefront. Thoughts?


HORSEMAN
"Behold I saw a red horse and he that satteth upon him was war"

Offline SDGhalo

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2011, 05:18:46 PM »
I dont think towed artillery would be worth it.

But Self propelled Artillery way the Preist with the 105mm or the Sexton i think would make great add ons just imagine it right now a Battery of 8 to 12 guns sitting about 10 or 12 KM back while a jeep near the town or base calls in a fire mission.

nowif they do ever add it, People would really have to work together on using Artillery that means some one in charge to be the Battery Commander and he would have to be a veteran of the map know the distance and he would have to be exprienced in Artillery Tactics. That Also goes to the forward operation observer team. or FOO team   


Offline HORSEMAN

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2011, 05:33:09 PM »
Very good points! People tend to argue about how detailed the game is getting or can get for that matter but I like to think of it as reality. To have more components available would intensify the strategy needed to excel in the game. Yes?

HORSEMAN
"Behold I saw a red horse and he that satteth upon him was war"

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2011, 05:55:33 PM »
Only if its in the 6" range (around 150mm) would be kinda uselss against town otherwise.
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 Nathan60

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4573
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2011, 08:22:03 PM »
I dont think towed artillery would be worth it.

But Self propelled Artillery way the Preist with the 105mm or the Sexton i think would make great add ons just imagine it right now a Battery of 8 to 12 guns sitting about 10 or 12 KM back while a jeep near the town or base calls in a fire mission.

nowif they do ever add it, People would really have to work together on using Artillery that means some one in charge to be the Battery Commander and he would have to be a veteran of the map know the distance and he would have to be exprienced in Artillery Tactics. That Also goes to the forward operation observer team. or FOO team   



or just simplify it with a "land mode" like system
HamHawk
Wing III-- Pigs on The Wing
FSO--JG54
CHUGGA-CHUGGA, CHOO-CHOO
Pigs go wing deep

Offline ToeTag

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2011, 08:29:01 PM »
I would love to see this.  But to make it kinda easy mode, it should be line of sight.  Kinda like C&C.  If you have a spotter "jeep" you could get very accurate shots off.  No line of sight and your using "land mode" like the task group does.  Would be fun trying to find the spotter or spotters in a il-2.  Imagine finding the arty hoard sitting behind a hill.  I think I would go from 6 o'clock to 12 in a second.   :devil
They call it "common sense", then why is it so uncommon?

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2011, 10:03:36 PM »
Like I said. Give us the Hummel or the M12. Since they'res 6"ers, woul would probably get the shell trail and land gunner mode.
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 Skyguns MKII

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1067
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2011, 10:52:38 PM »
Only if its in the 6" range (around 150mm) would be kinda uselss against town otherwise.

105 not worth it? how?

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2011, 11:53:13 PM »
If you can't destroy buildings with splash damage, that means you'll need many guns firing many rounds according to a spotter. You'll have to get each gun on target 1 at a time, since you can't know whos shell fell short, whos is long, and whos is dead on target. Very time consuming and gives defenders a long time to kill the spotter or just up an M8 kill the artillery.

So by using the more effective direct fire method, you've defeated the purpose of artillery, and might as well ask for the 105mm on the sherman if all you want is the larger cannon, since you'll be using it in the same way.

Guns in the 150mm range are also more likely to recieve shell trails than guns in the 105mm range. This gives a better chance of detection by following the shells screaming in. It would also help encourage using them as long range, indirect fire weapons, since sitting 7 miles back of your target is a lot safer when your own fire gives away your possition.

They'll also be more effective against CV's than a 105mm weapon. It would encourage CV's to be used in a more historicly-accurate way. They would also help prevent quick smash-and grab base captures, as well as the NOE undefended base sneaks. You can fire on town anywhere from within a 7-10 mile radius, meaning the attackers have to work harder, or come up with other methods to take the base.

So to simplify, 105mm isn't worth it (IMO) for 4 main reasons.
1) lower effectivness against town using indirect fire, and hence a likely use of these guns for direct fire, which is almost opposite their intended purpose.

2) easier detection and and counter battery fire, as well as increased likelyhood of historical usage.

3) increased effectiveness against CV's means they can't sneak to within 6000yds of the shore, launch fighters, and quickly horde the base before anyone notices them.

4) They would also be more effective against countering the horde and NOE sneaks due to their larger blast-radius and longer range (you can shell the map room from spawn-in). It will require greater strategic preperation and planning to take the base. But on the upside (from the WiN teH wArz  :rock! dweeb's prespective) you'll also be able to smash up targets such as shore batterys, towns, hangers, etc. with greater ease.


It will also encourage strategey such as out flanking a tough-to-take base so you have multiple spawns for the enemy to watch, giving your artillery a better chance to survive an hit the town and base. Artillery will add many new and interesting aspects to the game, as well as encouraging out-fighting and out-smarting your opponents instead of out-manning them.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 12:03:16 AM by Tank-Ace »
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 Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2011, 12:03:43 AM »
If you can't destroy buildings with splash damage, that means you'll need many guns firing many rounds according to a spotter. You'll have to get each gun on target 1 at a time, since you can't know whos shell fell short, whos is long, and whos is dead on target. Very time consuming and gives defenders a long time to kill the spotter or just up an M8 kill the artillery.

So by using the more effective direct fire method, you've defeated the purpose of artillery, and might as well ask for the 105mm on the sherman if all you want is the larger cannon, since you'll be using it in the same way.

Guns in the 150mm range are also more likely to recieve shell trails than guns in the 105mm range. This gives a better chance of detection by following the shells screaming in. It would also help encourage using them as long range, indirect fire weapons, since sitting 7 miles back of your target is a lot safer when your own fire gives away your possition.

They'll also be more effective against CV's than a 105mm weapon. It would encourage CV's to be used in a more historicly-accurate way. They would also help prevent quick smash-and grab base captures, as well as the NOE undefended base sneaks. You can fire on town anywhere from within a 7-10 mile radius, meaning the attackers have to work harder, or come up with other methods to take the base.

So to simplify, 105mm isn't worth it (IMO) for 4 main reasons.
1) lower effectivness against town using indirect fire, and hence a likely use of these guns for direct fire, which is almost opposite their intended purpose.

2) easier detection and and counter battery fire, as well as increased likelyhood of historical usage.

3) increased effectiveness against CV's means they can't sneak to within 6000yds of the shore, launch fighters, and quickly horde the base before anyone notices them.

4) They would also be more effective against countering the horde and NOE sneaks due to their larger blast-radius and longer range (you can shell the map room from spawn-in). It will require greater strategic preperation and planning to take the base. But on the upside (from the WiN teH wArz  :rock! dweeb's prespective) you'll also be able to smash up targets such as shore batterys, towns, hangers, etc. with greater ease.


It will also encourage strategey such as out flanking a tough-to-take base so you have multiple spawns for the enemy to watch, giving your artillery a better chance to survive an hit the town and base. Artillery will add many new and interesting aspects to the game, as well as encouraging out fighting and out smarting your opponents instead of out-manning them.

There is splash damage, fire a 75mm next to a pair of buildings then fire again to see the results - its called "Someone who actually has be in a tank"
JG 52

Offline Skyguns MKII

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1067
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2011, 12:08:06 AM »
There is splash damage, fire a 75mm next to a pair of buildings then fire again to see the results - its called "Someone who actually has be in a tank"

yeah plus IL be in a lvt and sometimes i don't even hit the building and it will blow, imagen how much powerful it would be in a 105, indirect or not

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2011, 12:17:46 AM »
yeah plus IL be in a lvt and sometimes i don't even hit the building and it will blow, imagen how much powerful it would be in a 105, indirect or not

I am not going to knock Jager, however my biggest problem is some of the "knowledge" he comes up with, doesn't chive with what goes in the main arena.
Anyone can have 10 tank kills in the MA and consider them selves to be an expert, however I see enough garbage time and time again that I really have to question whether anything he comes up with is legit.

There is splash damage which comes with the weight of the round coming in, It takes quite a few hits with a .303 round to take down a building (because it takes a certain amount of damage to kill a building) - however You can drop a 100lb bomb next to a building to cause splash damage, the same as you drop a 75mm round next to it.

I am not sure what the statistics are on the damage caused by splash damage, but the majority of the towns I take down are because I will fire a round 5 feet in front of a pair of buildings, and watched the 2nd round destroy both buildings.

Assuming there is a splash damage, I would believe a single hit from a 105mm Howitzer (given the weight of the HE shell) would easily destroy one building and heavily damage a second.

My Biggest problem with Artillery is how can you make it historically inaccurate as it was?

« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 12:33:06 AM by Butcher »
JG 52

Offline Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2011, 12:22:49 AM »
Katyusha ftw.
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2011, 12:23:02 AM »
I'm saying that you can't fire a shell and then see:

It takes two direct or near- hits with a 75mm to kill a building. With the new towns, theres a lot of open space between those buildings. Once you take the town-centers down you'll be wishing for the extra splash damage a 150mm would give.


Butcher, could you elaborate on what exactly is 'garbage'? Perhaps I'm misjudging player reactions, I've never been particularly good at that, but a 150mm WOULD be more effective against towns, a 150mm WOULD be more effective against carriers, a 150mm WOULD be more effective against troops (If they give us artillery, there should be round randomization dependent on 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 Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Artillery?
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2011, 12:43:23 AM »
Only if its in the 6" range (around 150mm) would be kinda uselss against town otherwise.

Not quite sure why you assume anything smaller then 150mm is useless against town, the 75mm we have is more then useful if not over useful.
JG 52