Godly Mortars

[kushyte]

can they please tone down mortars? number one they are way to accurate considering they are and indirect fire weapon. i give an AT gun a 3 shot life span once one starts firing. secondly how many times to they drop a shot right inside a halftrack or and open topped afv? you know how unlikely that is? i see it happen 75% of the scenarios i play. if they were that deadly why did anyone ever bother to build tanks LOL

[Andrew Williams]

Have you noticed no body buils open topped troop carriers any more?

[kwverdon]

I would believe that the decline of open topped AFV's was more due to the effects of Proximity fused air burst artillery than the extreemly unlikely event of a mortar round landing inside an open top APC.

[Andrew Williams]

hmmm..

Do you find your mortars are too accurate and wipe out all the enemy?

Do you find yourself going into battle with 4+ mortar teams because they are so effective?

[TheReal_Pak40]

My take on the onboard mortars:

I've read some 1st person accounts of how accurate mortar fire can be if you have a LOS to the target. I think it was in Donald Burgett's book about Market Garden where he described a situation in a farm field. There was a haystack a couple hundred meters away that they suspected was covering up an armored vehicle or enemy position. They decided to setup their 60mm mortar and flush out whatever was in it. I think it took the crew two rounds to hit it.

That example is with LOS to the target. Without direct LOS to the target then you're going to have reduced accuracy and this is modeled in Close Combat WaR. If your mortar team is within command range of a leader that has LOS to the target then you get slightly better accuracy, but not as good as if the mortar crew itself had direct LOS.

Overall I think WaR does a good job with the on board mortars. The only thing that seems really off is the time it takes for the round to land, which is way too fast. It should take something like 8-10 seconds rather than the 2-3 seconds in WaR.

Off Board mortars and artillery is a different beast and not realistic at all, but that deserves it's own thread.

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams



Have you noticed no body buils open topped troop carriers any more?

you mean like HumVees?

[mavraamides]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

Do you find yourself going into battle with 4+ mortar teams because they are so effective?

I do.

I go into battle sometimes with as many as 6 mortar teams if available. Unless I know I'll be facing a lot of heavy armor.

I love them. Especially the self propelled ones because they have like 80+ rounds. They don't wipe out all of the enemy but they sure as hell soften them up or make them stop and cower in the middle of an open field where I can mow them down with MG fire or even rifle fire.

They probably account for close to half of the casualties I inflict directly or indirectly through suppression.

Mortars have been the cornerstone of my CC strategy as long as I've been playing. Nothing better than seeing a wave of German infantry sprinting across an open field towards me only to be blown to bits by a weapon they can't even see. [:D]

[TheReal_Pak40]

I agree. I will get as many mortar teams as possible unless I know the enemy is an armored unit. But of course, the campaign that I'm playing severely restricts me from using more than 2 or 3 because of the difficulty settings that I've set on myself.

[Pzt_Serk]

Mortar took heavy tolls on advancing infantry IRL but my problem is more regarding guns. They are so fragile most of them will be lost after very few mortar rounds. I've often seen ATGs dead within 3 mortar rounds and it renders them almost useless. Mortar should suppress and cripple the crew but to automaticly take out the gun is to much IMO.

I've also just tested out and noticed mortar have a min range of 50 m or so. I think this should be reconsidered as it looks the US mortar had a minimum range of 100 yards = 90 meters -->http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_m2mortar.htm
http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_81mm_mortar.htm

Cheers,

Serk

EDIT- Indeed, bringing 2 or 3 mortar is a sure way to stop cold any infantry assault and to effectively deal with any gun threat within the first 5 min of a battle...

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: Pzt_Serk

Mortar took heavy tolls on advancing infantry IRL but my problem is more regarding guns. They are so fragile most of them will be lost after very few mortar rounds. I've often seen ATGs dead within 3 mortar rounds and it renders them almost useless. Mortar should suppress and cripple the crew but to automaticly take out the gun is to much IMO.

I've also just tested out and noticed mortar have a min range of 50 m or so. I think this should be reconsidered as it looks the US mortar had a minimum range of 100 yards = 90 meters -->http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_m2mortar.htm
http://www.ww2gyrene.org/weapons_81mm_mortar.htm

I have to agree, the AT guns seem extremely brittle. But I think the real problem is that it takes so little time for a mortar to take out an AT gun in WaR than compared to reality.

For example, immediately after your AT gun opens fire the enemy mortar team will have already zoomed in on the gun and started to fire at it as long as ANY enemy unit can draw a LOS to your gun. The round will drop within 2-3 seconds. If it takes an average of 3 rounds to knock out an AT gun then your gun life will be 9 seconds after firing.

Reality is a bit slower: Your AT gun opens fire. An enemy unit may take a few seconds to spot the gun; then depending on the unit and location, they will have to relay the information to the mortar team. I suppose this could be as little as 15 seconds if the spotting unit has radio to the mortar team or is real close to it. It will then take the mortar team several seconds to align the mortar in the right direction and put the right ascension on the tube. I'm not sure how quickly this is done, maybe someone with some mortar experience can chime in. I assume it will take at least 15 seconds. Then the team will fire the first round which takes about 8-10 seconds to fall. Using the same average of 3 rounds to kill an AT gun, that would be at least 24 seconds. So, maybe reality is around 1 minute of time that your AT gun survives. BIG difference.

However, another problem I have with AT guns is that if they miss a tank on the 1st shot, the tank will, it seems about 90% of the time, hit the AT gun on the first shot. This seems odd to me because my tanks have a harder time hitting other tanks and AT guns are a smaller target than tanks.

[Senior Drill]

ORIGINAL: Pzt_Serk

I've also just tested out and noticed mortar have a min range of 50 m or so. I think this should be reconsidered as it looks the US mortar had a minimum range of 100 yards = 90 meters

Actually, Pzt_Serk, any mortar can have a minimum range of 0 m if the elevation is set high enough and the wind is right. All the fuze activation, if any, occurs as the round travels it's ballistic arc, which can be several hundred feet for a 60mm and a few thousand for a 120mm.
The minimun ranges in manuals are the minimum range the mortars can be used against a target and have a low probability of producing casualities in the owning mortar crew or friendly troops. When set up on flat, even ground, most mortars with a tripod support cannot be raised higher than about 92 degrees (a design feature to ensure that safety factor), but if you set up on a slope, you have to factor that in. Plus, things like a fizzle charge that only half burns or a strong headwind, or a fool of a gunner who increases manually increases the mechanical angle can drop rounds much closer than is comfortable for the firing side.

In your second link, Fowler quotes the "bursting radius" of two of the WWII US 81mm mortar rounds. What he should have pointed out is that there are two radius involved. The 90% probability of killing in the 10m to 15m Killing Radius and the 50% probability of producing casualties in the Casualty Radius. The bits of the round are going to fly much, much farther than that and the odds go down as the distance increases, but chuncks like the fin section can and do travel up to 250m from the point of impact and really make a bad day all the more bad for anyone so unlucky enough to get bonked by them. They can leave a mark - a conversation worthy bruise not worthy of a wound badge.

@ TheReal_PAK40 - Time Of Flight (TOF) for low angle 50mm and 60mm 6 to 10 seconds, high angle 12 to 25 seconds. For 80mm, 81m and 82mm, low ange TOF 25 to 45 seconds, high angle 45 seconds to 1 minute 30 (depending on charge). For 120mm and 122mm low angle TOF from 25 to 50 seconds and high angle between 1 minute 20 to 2 minutes 10 seconds (again, depending on the charge).

It is safe to say that all Times of Flight in the CC series are abreviated as are off board mortar and artillery response times. In the latest military version, CCMarines v6, this has been worked out to more realistic CFF and CAS timelines, but that was done on highly reworked CCM code. From what I have been told, not an easy or two week job to work back into previous versions that haven't been field stripped and re-assembled, but the ground work is done for CC6. So there is hope!

[Senior Drill]

Pak, come on now. A SPOTTED AT gun does have a low chance of survival, but it is not alway taken out by enemy mortars. I do have AT guns survive a moonscaping barrage and continue to get some shots off. If spotted by a tank, well, not so much unless the tank gunner is rattled and misses just a round more than the gun.

The real key with AT guns is to place them on DEFEND or AMBUSH and leave them alone. They will pot shot all battle long and rarely get spotted unless an enemy team gets within 30m. That same gun that just bushwhacked two tanks and is lining up on the third and waiting for a high probablility kill will be short order toast if I give them an order to fire. If I leave them alone, they will, if the opportunity presents itself, and no enemy soldiers (including those pesky bailed out tank crews!) get close enough, fire when the can do so without giving away their position. Only order an AT gun to fire if it is just about to be discovered and hope that they can get something before they are blown away.

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill

Pak, come on now. A SPOTTED AT gun does have a low chance of survival, but it is not alway taken out by enemy mortars. I do have AT guns survive a moonscaping barrage and continue to get some shots off. If spotted by a tank, well, not so much unless the tank gunner is rattled and misses just a round more than the gun.

Yes, I know this. But, if they do open up and they are spotted then there's a very good chance they will die and die quickly. I've only seen 1 AT gun survive a barrage, but it does happen.

BTW, in my previous post, the example of 3 mortar rounds until your AT is KO'd was JUST and example. I'm not saying that this is THE average. My entire point was that in reality, it would take much longer to land 3 rounds on a target than it does in WaR. Do you not agree?

Thanks for the flight times. It seems that WaR mortar round flight times are much more abbreviated than I thought.

[Senior Drill]

Yes, I do agree, but you must also agree that the AI cheats! Do you remember when the original un-patched version of CC5 gave that uncanny accuracy to the player as well? Those were some fun gun busting times that paided back some of that before the Ohms Watt Amps (pronounced "ohm what ams" - the powers that be) took it away.

And yes, I did take your figures as example rather than statistics. I've know you by reputation long enough not to include you in that group of percentage spewerers like that Swedish fellow with his bogus "law of armour" thread of imperious mis-statements.

The quandry created by Guns vs Armor is not an easy one to resovle without resorting to "gamey" stuff that belies reality. AT guns should have a greater degree of "invisibilty" until they tell tale with a muzzle flash or muzzle effect ("Whoa! I just saw leaves jump 2 meters into the air over there!) But in doing so in context of the game data, guns then gain an invincibility that makes them even harder to take out. And a gun that only has at best a 20mm shield and more often than not much less, it becomes a gaming trade-off.

The game engine has it's limits. And game play has some limits as well. Do we want AT guns with cloaking devices and crews that can rally fast from AP and HE rounds impacting just 3 meters away from it? Do we want to wait for up to two minutes in-game to get that mortar barrage to finally land where we ordered, but now is empty of moving enemy?

The trick is to find that balance between real life and game play, each having to give aspects up to the other to make it worth our time to come back to the game again and again, year after year and soon to be decade after decade. Gripes are good; they lead to discussion. Observations are good; they lead to investigation. Documented and reproducable stats are better; they lead to developing and testing new approaches. WAGs presented as facts aren't good; they go nowhere and produce nothing but blather, easily dismissed and ignored by the OWA's because their basis is flawed.

I've been kicking in CC discussions for over ten years now and all of it does lead to positive change. But so much if it dross.

[Pzt_Serk]

Thanks for the informative post Senior Drill.

I knew about the defend stance for guns and I play this way. It's just that when playing H2H, it's better for you not to miss the first shot or else the ennemy will definately spot the muzzle flash for subsequent shots and then it's over for the gun even if it is not actually «spotted». I usually keep my gun on ambush so they wont fire and then get them on defend when I want them to fire. If posible, reverting back to ambush to prevent fire for a while is my way to go in hoping the other player puts his attention somewhere else before I allow my gun to fire again.

EDIT: losing the gun so easily wouldn't be so bad if the GC wasn't 25 days long [;)] Maybe more guns should be around to prevent depleted bg after day two??

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill

The quandry created by Guns vs Armor is not an easy one to resovle without resorting to "gamey" stuff that belies reality. AT guns should have a greater degree of "invisibilty" until they tell tale with a muzzle flash or muzzle effect ("Whoa! I just saw leaves jump 2 meters into the air over there!) But in doing so in context of the game data, guns then gain an invincibility that makes them even harder to take out. And a gun that only has at best a 20mm shield and more often than not much less, it becomes a gaming trade-off.

Well, it wouldn't be so bad for game balance as it may appear to be. The problem with guns is that they are almost immobile in game and usually there's only a few of them in a whole battalion and the opponent usually has more tanks.

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill

The game engine has it's limits. And game play has some limits as well. Do we want AT guns with cloaking devices and crews that can rally fast from AP and HE rounds impacting just 3 meters away from it? Do we want to wait for up to two minutes in-game to get that mortar barrage to finally land where we ordered, but now is empty of moving enemy?

I've seen such delay in Armored Brigade - it's pretty good and turns mortars/arty from superweapons (like in something from Command & Conquer) into something more believable.
Also, using them against mobile targets requires predicting enemy movements. It's something I'd love to see in CC.

BTW.
Is your Pacific theatre mod for CCMT, still alive?

[Grollub]

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill
Yes, I do agree, but you must also agree that the AI cheats! Do you remember when the original un-patched version of CC5 gave that uncanny accuracy to the player as well? Those were some fun gun busting times that paided back some of that before the Ohms Watt Amps (pronounced "ohm what ams" - the powers that be) took it away.

And yes, I did take your figures as example rather than statistics. I've know you by reputation long enough not to include you in that group of percentage spewerers like that Swedish fellow with his bogus "law of armour" thread of imperious mis-statements.

SD, I don't know if you read the entire "law of armour" thread. If so, I hope that you saw that the meaning of that post really was an (obviously poor) attempt at humor. I wan't to clarify that again, since both you and Pak40 obviously didn't see the humor and took me literally.

If I somehow offended both of you guys (or anyone else) with that post, I apologize.

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill
The quandry created by Guns vs Armor is not an easy one to resovle without resorting to "gamey" stuff that belies reality. AT guns should have a greater degree of "invisibilty" until they tell tale with a muzzle flash or muzzle effect ("Whoa! I just saw leaves jump 2 meters into the air over there!) But in doing so in context of the game data, guns then gain an invincibility that makes them even harder to take out. And a gun that only has at best a 20mm shield and more often than not much less, it becomes a gaming trade-off.

The game engine has it's limits. And game play has some limits as well. Do we want AT guns with cloaking devices and crews that can rally fast from AP and HE rounds impacting just 3 meters away from it? Do we want to wait for up to two minutes in-game to get that mortar barrage to finally land where we ordered, but now is empty of moving enemy?

The trick is to find that balance between real life and game play, each having to give aspects up to the other to make it worth our time to come back to the game again and again, year after year and soon to be decade after decade. Gripes are good; they lead to discussion. Observations are good; they lead to investigation. Documented and reproducable stats are better; they lead to developing and testing new approaches. WAGs presented as facts aren't good; they go nowhere and produce nothing but blather, easily dismissed and ignored by the OWA's because their basis is flawed.

I've been kicking in CC discussions for over ten years now and all of it does lead to positive change. But so much if it dross.

I fully agree. If there is something that have struck me when I read these forums, it is that so many appearantly expect this game to some sort of perfect simulation of tactical combat. IMHO, that isn't even remotely possible. I also think that the developers have managed to find quite a good balance between reality and game. I like it.

Cheers, Grollub

[Perturabo]

I wouldn't be so sure. I remember some people complaining that instant mortar made their CC games degenerate into crawl-fests because any running soldiers would be quickly killed/suppressed by magical mortars.

ORIGINAL: Senior Drill

In your second link, Fowler quotes the "bursting radius" of two of the WWII US 81mm mortar rounds. What he should have pointed out is that there are two radius involved. The 90% probability of killing in the 10m to 15m Killing Radius and the 50% probability of producing casualties in the Casualty Radius. The bits of the round are going to fly much, much farther than that and the odds go down as the distance increases, but chuncks like the fin section can and do travel up to 250m from the point of impact and really make a bad day all the more bad for anyone so unlucky enough to get bonked by them. They can leave a mark - a conversation worthy bruise not worthy of a wound badge.

Does it mean that 90% of people withing 10-15 meters of explosion of 81mm mortar shell in CC should drop dead and 50% of people within 15-40 meters should be injured or incapacitated?
I've never seen such thing happening in CC, even with running soldiers.

[TheReal_Pak40]

ORIGINAL: Grollub

SD, I don't know if you read the entire "law of armour" thread. If so, I hope that you saw that the meaning of that post really was an (obviously poor) attempt at humor. I wan't to clarify that again, since both you and Pak40 obviously didn't see the humor and took me literally.

If I somehow offended both of you guys (or anyone else) with that post, I apologize.

No offense taken. I honestly didn't detect any humor in your "Laws of Armor" thread but internet posts can often get taken out of context. I took you literally because you seemed to want to point out flaws in the game in hopes that they will be addressed in future updates. I do the same, I honestly complain about CC more than anyone on this board, IMO. The only problem I had with some of the points in your "Laws of Armor" thread is that you used words like "always" that really discredited what you were trying to say.

If players like us are going to help the developers point out bugs or suggest improvements then we need to be as accurate as possible about what is happening in the games that we play. That's why I took you literally.

ORIGINAL: Grollub
I fully agree. If there is something that have struck me when I read these forums, it is that so many appearantly expect this game to some sort of perfect simulation of tactical combat. IMHO, that isn't even remotely possible. I also think that the developers have managed to find quite a good balance between reality and game. I like it.

Cheers, Grollub

I agree, it's not possible to get a perfect and realistic simulation. I certainly don't think or expect CC to be 100% realistic. I do think there are some areas like offboard artillery that can be modeled a little better.

[Grollub]

Point taken. After re-reading my post I've seen that I was quite clumsy with my choice of words. I should also have written some sort of disclaimer in the beginning to explain the point of the post, or used the smileys [;)]

Regards, Grollub

Added: Come to think of it, I should have named the thread "Murphys Law applied to CC". That was roughly what I tried to write.