Destruction or Disruption?

[Deputy]

The most controversial aspect of the two new patches (1.03 and 1.04) seems to be the ability of indirect artillery fire to take out large numbers of tanks that were previously immune to it. XLVIII Pz. Korp made what I thought was an excellent suggestion. Instead of these tanks being destroyed, wouldn't it be much more effective/realistic for them to be disrupted? If they were disrupted, that would cover temporary damage, as opposed to something like losing a track being considered as needing a replacement tank. Even if they were disrupted for multiple turns during one scenario, it would still be more realistic than complete destruction. As it is we have tanks being destroyed by everything from the lowliest 60MM mortar to the largest railway gun. The destructive power of these items is not equal!!! I don't know if the game now includes naval cannon as was used in Sicily to assist the Big Red One. But 8, 14, and 16 inch naval guns fire different shells than regular land-based artillery. And the shells from a 60MM mortar are barely more powerful than a standard hand grenade.

BTW...beefing up the replacement rates does NOT make things better. It makes things even more unrealistic. Beefed up replacement rates means that (1) you are increasing the replacements beyond what was normally available during a specific time period, and (2) the replacements LOWER the morale of any unit they are assigned to.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

(1) you are increasing the replacements beyond what was normally available during a specific time period,

Keep in mind, if the replacement rates were historical, you wouldn't see replacements for some divisions for months. I would imagine there would be a number of happy campers then.

Considering DCG's are more fiction than anything, does it really matter?

Jason Petho

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: Deputy

(1) you are increasing the replacements beyond what was normally available during a specific time period,

Keep in mind, if the replacement rates were historical, you wouldn't see replacements for some divisions for months. I would imagine there would be a number of happy campers then.

Considering DCG's are more fiction than anything, does it really matter?

Jason Petho

My point was the replacement rates wouldn't need boosting if the artillery wasn't shooting anti-tank rounds instead of HE rounds [;)]
Does it matter?...yes, to those who play mainly DCG games. This new artilley ability has thrown ALL the DCG games out of whack. That's why so many of us are remaining with 1.02b and not updating. Does Matrix REALLY want to split the users into two camps where you have one group playing PBEM and scenarios using the newest patch, and another group using 1.02b and playing campaigns? [&:]

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Deputy
This new artilley ability has thrown ALL the DCG games out of whack.

They didn't throw my DCG's out of wack.

The artillery was not nearly the nuisance as it appears to be for you.

Different playing styles , I presume.

Jason Petho

[Deputy]

I will let it go...no problem[:)]. I just ask that if we ever get the back-and-forth problem fixed, it be released as a stand-alone fix and not be inside one of those all inclusive patches. I'm sticking with the 1.02b crew [;)]

[Bonzo Dog]

well it throws my DCG s out

the change in artillery anti capabilities is self evident if you play thriugh them

Jason i cannot understand that you cannot see it

dont mean to critise but come on please at least acknowledge there is a change for the worse with increased artillry anti tank results

me considering going back to 1.02 but do play PBEM

[scottintacoma]

So far I am averageing 2 armor Casualties per scenerio in DCG's. That is up from 1 to 1.5 prior to 1.03, 1 extra strength point per scenario is nothing. I am loosing more tanks to hidden AT guns, and hidden infantry.

Jason,

I am enjoying the new rules. Thanks for adding them.

Scott in tAComa

[Deputy]

If you play single scenarios you can set the initial setting to no Fog of War. So that will show you where the enemy arty is targeted and you can move from those hexes before getting hit. Still won't do anything for random hits, though. In DCG you can't use that setting at all. So about your only alternatives are to constantly keep your armor moving at least one square per turn, or move your armor to squares where they can't be spotted. As in behind steep hills or in dense forests. So the days of locating your tanks to a prime positions to cover a strategic area are over if you move to the new patches. Drive in an open field and your armor will be decimated by invisible anti-tank guns. Park in one location and be clobbered by anti-tank artillery. It sure looks like whoever made these patches sure had an axe to grind with armor units. [:(]

[Jason Petho]

We get your point, Deputy.

Thank you.

Jason Petho

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

We get your point, Deputy.

Thank you.

Jason Petho

You're welcome Jason. At least 1/2 the battle is won[:D]. Now if we can figure out some kind of resolution for DCG players, we will have a victory. [;)]

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: Deputy
Now if we can figure out some kind of resolution for DCG players, we will have a victory. [;)]

Maybe altering your tactics is a good resolution.

Seems to be working for Scott!

Jason Petho

[1925frank]

This is just an observation, but the tactic Deputy is describing wouldn't work against a human opponent.  If you leave your tanks exposed to the enemy line of sight, the enemy will eventually turn that to his advantage.  Even if a 60 mm mortar did nothing more than make the tank commander button up, if I were the tank commander, I would assume the enemy wanted me to button up for a reason -- so I wouldn't be able to see any approaching infantry or tanks. 

I played primarily scenarios against the AI until last year, when I played my first PBEM game.  Line of sight and concealment play a far more prominent role when playing against a human.  The AI is very lax about covering up and concealment.  I don't know how the AI is programmed, but I would bet it'll go after sighted targets rather than fire blindly every time, so, like a human opponent, leaving tanks in the open would only invite trouble, even against the AI.

What Deputy is describing as a blemish might be seen as an improvement, depending on your point of view.  Regarding the hidden anti-tank guns, the odds of them being spotted are 50 percent, if I'm not mistaken, so, if you hold your ground, you should be able to spot them fairly quickly.  If you're using 3D, you should be able to spot the hex out of which the anti-tank gun is firing, even if you can't target it because it remains concealed.

I don't know about realism, but I do recall reading a book by a German tanker who put more value and taking out an anti-tank gun than taking out a tank because an anti-tank gun was usually harder to spot. 

Matrix can't get CS to meet everyone's specfications.

[Edit: I think the book was "Tigers in the Mud," but I don't recall the author's name. Also, personally, if a tank is going to take a hit by indirect artillery, I'd think it'd be a blown tread or a radiator getting pierced or something along those lines, so I'd prefer the tank take an inalterable "fixed" status for the remainder of the scenario or for several turns, at least (with the assumption somebody would make repairs), but I don't think that's within the game's programing. I appreciate the work Jason and company do, and I'll play with whatever they present or work around it, like Deputy has with using the 1.02b patch. Even if a person disagrees with the effectiveness of artillery on tanks, I'd concentrate on adapting my tactics. At one time I think it was set at 10 pecent, then down to 5 percent, and now it's apparently at 4 percent, so Matrix is responsive.]

[Achsah]

as i recall from much reading. artillery can be quite effective against tanks. in fact soviet doctrine favors using artillery over tank to tank battles. if any of you ever played combat mission you will understand just how easy it is to knock out a tank even if its not destroyed. often the crew will just bail! I recomend not being in a barrage with overstacked tanks. or just not be in the barrage.

[R_TEAM]

Hi,
 
i think the main problem with Arty_VS_Armor is not the basic concept.
This is :
 
a, small mortar (60/80) take to high damage on Heavy Tanks
b, the Tanks get destroyed and not more available in the next campaign scenario
 
So to make (me [:D]) happy i would like a adjustment from small arty_VS_Armor (and this have nothing to do with the tactic .. is the destroying from an Heavy tank with an small mortar VERY rare and it
happens to much time then the Game enging need a rethink ! ) and like more "Disabling" of the bigger
tanks and adding it to the next campaign scenario.
 
For the AT-Gun_Stay_Hidden i am happy ... basicaly [:D]
But i think this musst fine tuned too .. have in a winter scenario a AT gun on Open terrain ..
It was not spotet .. it fires .. stay hidden .. this is a bit unrealistic .. sure the gun can unspottet and
sure the gunflash can not seen (specialy in the snow) .. but he black dust MUSST seen in the with
snow ..
So the 50% stay_Hidden is IMHO to much and only for good camouflaged placed o.k.
It is better altered based of the terrain the gun is to reflecct this better.
 
R_TEAM <Aka R-TEAM>

[Deputy]

Well the problems with driving tanks through forrest is fairly obvious. In some DCG scenarios it would take more turns than is permitted to even reach the objective. Plus if you encounter pretty much ANY opposing unit, the tank is going to be more vulnerable because of the close range that the encounter produces. The lightest, smallest infantry unit is going to take out a tank at "next to" range. So driving through a forrest for protection from being spotted by artillery more often than not isn't an option. If you are in terrain where you can take advantage of cover from elevated terrain, that will work. But that depends on the terrian and how close or far it is located to the objective hexes. Many times in the game you are forced to make an "open run" in clear terrain to get anywhere near the objective hex.

I have no problems with tanks being disrupted by artillery. Although I think it should vary greatly depending on how heavy (and what type) the artillery concentration is on a certain hex, the armor of the tank, and the terrian and forrest levels in the hex. Note I said DISRUPTED. Disrupted tanks should include in the definition ANY repairs that can be made to make the tank combat ready again. Thrown track, broken sights, someone pooping all over the tank from the artillery fire, etc. [:D] The problem is artillery is being applied as TANK DESTROYERS. And unless the tank is a very early war model or a flimsy Italian or Japanese tank, destruction shoudn't be happening. A disabled tank is NOT a DESTROYED tank. A disabled tank should be fully ready for combat by the next scenario. It shouldn't need a full replacement. And the disruptive/destructive power of mortars is WAY too heavy in the newest patches. Mortars sole purpose is to destroy infantry. They have very little destructive power vs hard objects.

Recommending to "not be in a barrage" certainly sounds logical. But in the Campaign Series, hardly reasonable. I don't think I've ever played a DCG where the artillery wasn't raining down by the second turn of a unit being spotted. There is another item I have noticed...I have targetted a stack of M4 Sherman tanks in the open with a huge number of 105 and 150MM artillery and watched as ABSOLUTELY NO DAMAGE or disruption occured. WTF????? If it works for the enemy AI, why doesn't it work for the human?????[&:][&:]

[cw58]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

If you play single scenarios you can set the initial setting to no Fog of War. So that will show you where the enemy arty is targeted and you can move from those hexes before getting hit. Still won't do anything for random hits, though. In DCG you can't use that setting at all. So about your only alternatives are to constantly keep your armor moving at least one square per turn, or move your armor to squares where they can't be spotted. As in behind steep hills or in dense forests. So the days of locating your tanks to a prime positions to cover a strategic area are over if you move to the new patches. Drive in an open field and your armor will be decimated by invisible anti-tank guns. Park in one location and be clobbered by anti-tank artillery. It sure looks like whoever made these patches sure had an axe to grind with armor units. [:(]

I know this isn't what you really want, but here's a quick fix (sort of [8|]) for you. Start your DCG, let's call it "Deputy". After starting your first mission, deploy your units then exit the game. In the appropriate folder (EF, WF or RS), find "Deputy.CPN". Rename it "Deputy.scn". Then start the game and select "Play Scenario". Find your renamed scenario "Deputy.scn", it's easiest to sort by file name. You'll have all the options available, including fog of war. Play through to the end of the scenario, saving after the conclusion of battle. Exit the game and again find your "Deputy.scn", renaming it "Deputy.cpn". Then resume your campaign, it'll pick up where you last saved the scenario.

To recap:
1. Start DCG and deploy
2. Rename *.CPN to *.scn
3. Play *.scn and save at the end
4. Rename *.scn to *.CPN
5. Resume campaign
You can do this on every new mission you start.

It won't stop your tanks from being blown away but at least you can see it coming. [:D]

[Achsah]

ORIGINAL: Deputy

Well the problems with driving tanks through forrest is fairly obvious. In some DCG scenarios it would take more turns than is permitted to even reach the objective. Plus if you encounter pretty much ANY opposing unit, the tank is going to be more vulnerable because of the close range that the encounter produces. The lightest, smallest infantry unit is going to take out a tank at "next to" range. So driving through a forrest for protection from being spotted by artillery more often than not isn't an option. If you are in terrain where you can take advantage of cover from elevated terrain, that will work. But that depends on the terrian and how close or far it is located to the objective hexes. Many times in the game you are forced to make an "open run" in clear terrain to get anywhere near the objective hex.

I have no problems with tanks being disrupted by artillery. Although I think it should vary greatly depending on how heavy (and what type) the artillery concentration is on a certain hex, the armor of the tank, and the terrian and forrest levels in the hex. Note I said DISRUPTED. Disrupted tanks should include in the definition ANY repairs that can be made to make the tank combay ready again. Thrown track, broken sights, someone pooping all over the tank from the artillery fire, etc. [:D] The problem is artillery is being applied as TANK DESTROYERS. And unless the tank is a very early war model or a flimsy Italian or Japanese tank, destruction shoudn't be happening. A disabled tank is NOT a DESTROYED tank. A disabled tank should be fully ready for combat by the next scenario. It shouldn't need a full replacement. And the disruptive/destructive power of mortars is WAY too heavy in the newest patches. Mortars sole purpose is to destroy infantry. They have very little destructive power vs hard objects.

Recommending to "not be in a barrage" certainly sounds logical. But in the Campaign Series, hardly reasonable. I don't think I've ever played a DCG where the artillery wasn't raining down by the second turn of a unit being spotted. There is another item I have noticed...I have targetted a stack of M4 Sherman tanks in the open with a huge number of 105 and 150MM artillery and watched as ABSOLUTELY NO DAMAGE or disruption occured. WTF????? If it works for the enemy AI, why doesn't it work for the human?????[&:][&:]

Heya Deputy and to others that like dynamic campaigns. [8D] Not being in the barrage is very possible. This goes back to jason's comment about playing style. It is more difficult now then it once was to avoid artillery from the machine but far from a pipe dream i assure you. planning ahead for for enemy artillery is also a critical aspect of head to head play.
Also i would like to remind everyone that this great game is not billed or designed to be a realistic simulation. Its simply supposed the be "teeth clenching armored warfare on the eastern front". Beer and pretzel stuff as the old table top gamers called panzer blitz as compared to say the more "real" squad leader. Have fun everyone playing this most playable of wargames made for the computer![:D]

[Deputy]

Pasha: I don't think anyone believes that the game is 100% historically accurate. I have a bunch of other WW2 PC games that are much more accurate than the CS series (see my signature). I don't play H2H, so I have no reference point as far as that area is concerned. But I can tell you right now the second the AI spots a unit, ANY unit, fire missions are generated. And if you are going to capture objectives at all, you are eventually going to have to come out of hiding and make some speed. Or the scenario will end before you even get to the objectives. And if this game is supposed to be just a fun "beer and pretzels" game, then there sure are a lot of people wasting a lot of time and effort in making it much more historically accurate for users. For one thing we wouldn't be seeing all the OOB tweaking if this was just a "close enough" game. [;)]

I am hearing a lot of "playing style" comments for solutions to the invisible anti-tank guns and anti-tank artillery. But I am not hearing any examples. Let lose with the secrets for how to remain intact and still have a winning scenario!!! [:)]

[junk2drive]

After all the debates around here over the changes, I had to chuckle when I saw this
&nbsp;
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?p=636476#post636476

[Deputy]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

After all the debates around here over the changes, I had to chuckle when I saw this

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?p=636476#post636476

Good stuff!!!! it seems there is NO consensus on the effects of 105 and 155 arty on tanks. One guys says "This is all very probabilistic, but normally a 15cm (150MM) round must impact much closer to an MBT than 25m to cause a mission kill. Even just a couple meters out might not accomplish this effect. 105mm HE in indirect fire is pretty much harmless to an MBT short of superficial damage."...which is what I agree with.

Another guy says "H.E. can do a lot of damage to a tank. I served in the Artillery. Back in 1975 I had the chance to fire 105mm H.E. shells (super quick fuse setting) against an old Sherman tank. Rounds that hit in the center of the armoured plates penetrated about ½ to ¾ inch at the point of impact, and produced a radial pattern of gouge marks out to a distance of 18 to 24 inches. One round that hit on the right sponson, about four inches up from the bottom edge, broke off a large piece of the armour plate about 14 or 16 inches long by up to 4 inches high."

Of course, he was an ex-artilleryman and the tank he was shooting at isn't known for having a lot of protective armor. [;)]

The Canadian account of an artillery barrage knocking out MKIV tanks and SP guns wasn't a surprise. That amount of firepower used on a precisely registered position had the expected result. Total devestation. Must have been something awesome to see.