Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/10/2008 3:40:54 AM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline
Has anyone else noticed this...for lack of a better term, and I shall hesitiate to call it a glitch...but Indirect artillery fire, seems way too effective in the MCS as opposed to the Talonsoft version. To wit: I am commanding a Pz VIB, or ISII M, or a ISIII battalion in DCG's...even on drift...i seem to lose tanks out of proportion to the situation. One shot..on drift...and I l9ose a tank...sometimes even 2. I average 3 to 4 tanks lost PER ENGAGEMENT due to indirect artillery fire. Yes...I understand tactics...I move my unit every turn, so they are not static...this seems a bit excessive to me...I would understand it better is the unit were disabled...but these tanks are destroyed outright. In the Talonsoft version, casulties did happen occasionally due to artillery fire, but not on this scale. Conversely, when I am able to catch an enemy tank unit in artillery fire....very rarely do i even disrupt the unit, much less cause a casulty.

After having said this...I do understand the concept of lighter armour vs shell penetration...and that would work for me on lighter tanks...but for the big boys....not so often...and definetely not on the scale that MCS has in the game.

I also understand the concept of random die rolls to fulfill casulties...sure....one can have a casulty on any given event...hence the random factor...however...this seems to go beyond randomness. I am think indirect is way too effective against heavy tanks....more so than it should be....against soft targets...it worked fine.

Anyway, I am sure I just created a firestorm here...but I wanted to throw this out for general speculation.

Thanks Guys
Post #: 1
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/10/2008 4:12:21 AM   
willy g

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: USA
Status: offline
Well, maybe you have the worst luck of anyone ever to play this game, it is possible, however extremely unlikely, that one could play the game without ever losing any SP, soft or hard, over the course of the entire game, and also equally likely that every shot, an entire platoon is destroyed. I have had some tanks lost to indirect arty fire as well, but it doesnt seem out of the ordinary to me.

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 2
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/10/2008 4:49:35 AM   
dgk196

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline
I hope the information on this web-site helps you out.......

http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/

Its lengthy, but full of useful information!

Basically, you have a better chance of winning the lottery than you would hitting a moving tank with indirect fire! Near misses, sure! Effective? Well!?

BTW, I think that one of the 'Talonsoft' game manuals had an interesting piece in it.........

East Front II, pages 214 and 215. Its a 'study' done during the war. It says that only 3% of the tanks lost over a period where due to 'HE' fire. This is of all types both direct and indirect together. Which means that if both types of fire where equal than only 1.5% of the tanks were lost to indirect HE fire! But you know, now that I think about it, indirect artillery fire seems pretty effective in the game, against armor!

As to the 'drift', I have never bought into that. I think it was thought up by some wargamer decades ago and just became 'urban fact'! Artillery drifting 250 meters! How would you ever know if they were 'on target'?

Dennis

(in reply to willy g)
Post #: 3
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/10/2008 7:54:29 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
I recall an earlier discussion where the chance of artillery disabling tanks was raised from 2 percent to something like 5 percent with Patch 1.03.  So, yes, my understanding is there is a difference between the Talonsoft and the Matrix version.

(in reply to dgk196)
Post #: 4
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/10/2008 9:40:00 PM   
Arkady


Posts: 1259
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline
Well, do not count all losses in CS as destroyed/killed...they are just out of action for duration of scenario

And indirect artillery fire WAS very effective way how to stop tank attack - simple near miss can damage tank's track and when tank slip off the track it is  almost impossible to recover without assistance.

_____________________________


(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 5
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/10/2008 9:45:22 PM   
dgk196

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline
quote:

artillery disabling tanks was raised from 2 percent to something like 5 percent with Patch 1.03.


Man I hope not!

Is there any way to change the probability of events occurring? Can other aspects such as 'drift' effects be addressed?

Dennis

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 6
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/10/2008 9:47:08 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 12404
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196

Can other aspects such as 'drift' effects be addressed?

Dennis


Drift only happens if you lose LOS to your target hex.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


(in reply to dgk196)
Post #: 7
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/10/2008 9:55:04 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
Look at post 26:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1775360

I don't know what the final decision was.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 8
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/10/2008 9:57:38 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 12404
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

Look at post 26:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1775360

I don't know what the final decision was.


I believe the final number was 4%.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 9
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 1:26:34 AM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline
I repeate...my tank loses are not disabled...but destroyed outright...which is why i am saying indirect artillery fire is way too effective against my heavy tanks....but the reverse does not seem to apply....my indirect artillery isnt at all effecvtive.

(in reply to Arkady)
Post #: 10
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 1:46:44 AM   
marcbarker


Posts: 1213
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
I have noticed this as well I landed a salvo of 105's in a herd of trucks. destroyed 2 and disrupted 0. out of 16 in the open with passengers. nest turn my panther hq with 2 gets hit with a 75 shot and 6 hexes and destroys 1 and disrupts the other. A Fluke? This was just a few minutes ago while playing a DCG.

May the way of the unicorn forever horn in on your OOB and pick it to death

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 11
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 2:39:07 AM   
cpdeyoung


Posts: 4914
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: South Carolina, USA
Status: offline
Disabled armor from indirect fire is "destroyed" for game time span purposes.  It is not "disruption". A strength point is removed for each disabled result.

Chuck

(in reply to marcbarker)
Post #: 12
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 2:50:16 AM   
dgk196

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline
Hey Jason thanks for the info........

Not to get into a pee-pee contest, but 'drift' happens in the game!

I've talked to a lot of 'artillery' types both in the service and out. I specifically asked them about this. To make a long story short, one in a million chance! The procedures for control of artillery when the communication with the observer is lost seems to be almost universal, the barrage stops on time and not repeated until directed to!

As to the actual events that would have to take place for 250 meters of drift to occur, didn't register with them either. Once the target parameters are determined and set, except for conditional circumstances such as redeployment of the guns, the target will keep being hit within a prescribed area with variations, but far less than 250 meters!

This is what I mean when I talk about 'drift' being addressed. As I said earlier, I think its a holdover from the very early wargaming days of solid shot civil war / Napoleonic era games. And as with many things 'urban mith' became 'urban reality'. It really has nothing to do with 'modern' artillery and methods! I just wish it would go away altogether.

So if one of you really sharp guys can tell me how to do this, sing out! Jason, if you could, put it on the 1.04 options list as 'selectable'!?

Dennis

(in reply to marcbarker)
Post #: 13
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 2:51:51 AM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
Initially I thought there was just one complaint: The increased effectiveness of artillery against tanks.

Reading Borst50's and Barker's posts collectively, you're actually making two complaints:

(1) The increased effectiveness of enemy artillery against friendly tanks, and

(2) The decreased effectiveness of friendly artillery against enemy units. I'm not clear on whether this is limited just to enemy hard targets or both enemy hard and soft targets. My understanding is it encompasses all enemy units. I don't think you're saying friendly artillery fire has not been bumped up in the same way as enemy artillery fire. I think you're saying not only has it not been bumped up in the same way, but it appears to have been reduced against all enemy targets -- most notably against soft targets.

Is this limited to DCGs?




< Message edited by 1925frank -- 7/11/2008 2:57:21 AM >

(in reply to cpdeyoung)
Post #: 14
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 3:12:36 AM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline
for myself personally, I am thinking they are related...if this is hardwired into the game, it should apply to human and AI player equally Yes? obviously it is not... Ina addition, I have no problem with the number of casulties against soft targets, to me this is expected. My "complaint" is based on the number of casulties I recieve vs my heavy tank units, which are way way out of proportion....and not being able to do the same in return. From everything I have read...both in books and here on the forum, this should not occur.

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 15
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 3:45:44 AM   
dgk196

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline
Personally, I'd like to see no 'kill' effects against armored targets by indirect artillery fire, especially if they are moving!

Disruption, sure! Kills? NO WAY!

I'd rather have an event not occur 2 times out of a hundred than occur 2 times out of a hundred!

Dennis

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 16
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 7:09:49 AM   
Arkady


Posts: 1259
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline
There is no different percentage of artillery scoring hit for you and enemy!

AS I stated before, SP loss in game doesn't equal for destroyed unit in real life (burning wreck etc)...
in game terms it is immobilized, heavily damaged, lost tracks, main gun jammed etc.
it is same for infantry, SP loss don't mean killed...they are killed, wounded, dispersed stragglers and so on

Indirect artillery fire decreasing your tank strength with ratio 4 of 100 hits (4%) it is absolutely OK and realistic


_____________________________


(in reply to dgk196)
Post #: 17
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 7:25:22 AM   
TAIL GUNNER

 

Posts: 1154
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Los Osos, CA
Status: offline
With new patch it is 5%.

_____________________________

"If you want peace, prepare for war."

(in reply to Arkady)
Post #: 18
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 12:28:15 PM   
Temple

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 7/31/2002
Status: offline
I'm surprised there's even any question of the ability of indirect fire to kill armor. The key element, as Arkady points out, is the definition of "kill". I look at this as achieving a "mission kill". At the tactical level at which we are working, a mission kill is the same as a hard kill, since we aren't worrying about tank recovery. Even something as trivial as damaging the tank optics, causing the crew to simply button up and wait out the battle, is a mission kill.


(in reply to TAIL GUNNER)
Post #: 19
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 5:40:49 PM   
dgk196

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline
Its not the 'mission kill' concept that I have a problem with.

Its the 'frequency of the event'!

If in reality AFV's are that easy to 'take out', what the heck was the armor / gun race about during the war?

I mean, if its so easy to cause 'mission kill' damage to the things mentioned, and they are common to all AFV's, why did anyone spend all that time and money developing the vehicles they did?

Did the Americans put more armor on the Sherman because of being vulnerable to 'indirect artillery fire', or because the Germans where using tank and anti-tank guns of bigger caliber and more power?

Why did the Germans develop the Panther, the Russians, JS series, Su series and so on!

If HE is that effective against tanks why have a 'solid' round at all? Why did the SU152 have a 'solid' round for use against German heavy tanks? You could direct-fire with HE rounds and cause, effectively, just as much 'mission kill' damage, right!?

Anyway, as I said, I'm just not happy with the increase of effectiveness when it comes to indirect-fire vs armored targets. An optional selection for changes such as these would be nice. Something simple like a 'slider' function setting to either increase or decrease its effectiveness would have been nice! Because to be honest with you, when I see changes like these it always worries me that we just stepped onto the slippery slope that leads to 'arcade' like games! That would be a shame if that happened. It never happens all at once. One day you fire up the game and wonder what happened!

Dennis

< Message edited by dgk196 -- 7/11/2008 5:45:13 PM >

(in reply to Temple)
Post #: 20
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 6:22:18 PM   
Arkady


Posts: 1259
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline
easy ??? 4 mission kills on 100 hits => 4% ? it seems not so easy
in reality indirect fire was much more effective
I belive that mission kills ration for hits in reality was much, much better





_____________________________


(in reply to dgk196)
Post #: 21
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 6:43:21 PM   
Temple

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 7/31/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196
If HE is that effective against tanks why have a 'solid' round at all? Why did the SU152 have a 'solid' round for use against German heavy tanks? You could direct-fire with HE rounds and cause, effectively, just as much 'mission kill' damage, right!?


Wrong. A horizontally fired HE round would hit some of the thickest armor and is just as likely to disintegrate the shell as explode on contact. The shrapnel cloud would expand in a vertical plane, not a horizontal one, greatly limiting it's effectiveness. Now HE *could* be used as an anti-tank round to attempt to cause a mission kill (and many times infantry support tanks has nothing else to throw at enemy armor) but that same space in the tank stowage could be used for solid shot which has a much greater likelihood of taking out an opponent's tank. It's a matter of the tank task priority.

HE is effective when fired in the hundreds of rounds. Obviously tanks couldn't carry hundred of HE rounds to be delivered in a short period of time. Nor deliver it at the proper angle of fire. You're really talking apples and oranges when comparing solid shot from an SU152 compared to medium artillery sending in a lot of HE shells.

Read Marine Tank Battles in the Pacificfor some interesting stories of the difficulties of fighting against HE and MG in a medium tank. The shrapnel and bullets couldn't penetrate, but often tanks were put out of service due to damage to auxiliary systems. It didn't happen often, but it did happen.

(in reply to dgk196)
Post #: 22
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/11/2008 11:13:21 PM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline
ok...time out...I guess I am not making myself clear here...when a tank unit is disabled...yes...I know the unit takes a loss on map, and is supposed to return to working status for the NEXT engegement...much like battlefield repair. In the case I am stating, the units in question so not have their sp returned, and therefore I must use a replacement point to bring the unit back to full strength!

Hence my saying the unit is destroyed outright!

As for the same effectiveness applying to both human and AI...It's not true! My losses to indirect fire attest to that. Perhaps I am just plain unlucky...who knows, however I shall stick to the belief that indirect fire is out of proportionally effective against my heavy tanks, no matter what nationality I play.

(in reply to Arkady)
Post #: 23
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/12/2008 7:51:17 PM   
awc

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 9/21/2006
Status: offline
Borst50, I am with you on this indirect fire issue all the way! I was just playing the training scenario of all things and had a 81mm mortar drop two shells on my 3 platoon PZKW IIIL tanks and the next thing i know a tank was burning. That is crap! I am just going to set down the game for now until this ---- is fixed.

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 24
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/12/2008 8:54:15 PM   
scottintacoma

 

Posts: 192
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
If I recall that is how the original game worked as well, a causualty was removed until a replacement point came in. Artillery disables were treated no differently then a destroyed tank.

The only change that I can see is that Artillery is a little (3 to 4 percent) more effective.

Scott in Tacoma

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 25
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/12/2008 10:37:53 PM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline
I am really having a tough time buying into the arguement that indirect artillery fire is accurately depicted in this game, I am now on the 3rd engagement of the DCG "Storm on the Reich", commanding a mixed heavy battalion of Pz VIE's and VIB's. In the first engegement, I was defending a static line....POW....4 tigers lost to indirect artillery fire....the second engagement, no losses, but I was on the offensive, and not forced to hang near my strategic points to defend them. And now for the the current engagement....i havent finished it yet, but I am on the defensive again....and sure enough....4 more tigers lost due to artillery fire. This is utterly ridiculous!

And it only freakin turn 5!!!!! down 4 tigers due to artillery fire by turn 5! 4% my butt! And when I catch the enemy tanks in my artillery fire....not a bloody thing happens. I dont even scratch their paint.

I would really like to see a no kill on tanks...disruption I can live with, but kills on my tanks due to artillery fire...no. I hope Matrix hears and changes the artillery rules. I have no complaint with artillery vs infantry or vehicles.....just against tanks!

(in reply to scottintacoma)
Post #: 26
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/12/2008 11:37:22 PM   
TAIL GUNNER

 

Posts: 1154
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Los Osos, CA
Status: offline
quote:

I would really like to see a no kill on tanks...disruption I can live with, but kills on my tanks due to artillery fire...no.


Many artillery pieces could also lob AP shells, so you shouldn't expect zero kills....

But the number of tanks you're losing seems too extreme.


Balck and I are playing his Normandy scenario, with hundreds of artillery pieces throwing ordnance all over the map, but we only lose maybe 1-3 AFVs per round from disablement....it seems right on this scale.

I wonder if each gun fired is getting a check for disablement, instead of just one check for the entire battery...

What I mean is say a four-gun battery fires a salvo that lands on a AFV, are there four checks for disablement....or only one?

If there's four then obviously the chances for disablement are much higher...

_____________________________

"If you want peace, prepare for war."

(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 27
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/13/2008 2:24:36 AM   
Huib


Posts: 585
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline
Perhaps it has to do with the AI level settings. It was tested in Human vs Human games and the results were like Juggalo describes.

(in reply to TAIL GUNNER)
Post #: 28
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/13/2008 2:52:16 AM   
dgk196

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline
If at first you don't succeed..........

'Call it 1.0'!

Dennis

'Edit'

Not to single you out "Juggalo", but I would be very interested in your 'data' source for this, "Many artillery pieces could also lob AP shells, so you shouldn't expect zero kills...." ! It would help in 'other' discussions! Thanks, Dennis.


< Message edited by dgk196 -- 7/13/2008 7:39:32 AM >

(in reply to Huib)
Post #: 29
RE: Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire - 7/13/2008 2:51:06 PM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline
I have just finished the 3rd engagement, and here are the final results;

Tigers lost due to enemy tank vs tank....2
tigers lost due to enemy artillery....8 Yes you read that right....8 count em 8 dead tanks!!!
enemy tanks lost due to my artillery fire...0 yep.....zip, zilch, nada

If this isnt enough to convince you something is wrong with the indirect fire system in this game, then nothing will. These tanks are not disabled, but destroyed outright! the lost sp's do not return for the next battle, but are permenantly lost. Now I have to use replacement points to increase their sp's.

Boys and Girls, we have now just passed the merely riciculous....and have entered in to a whole new area of frustration. I am more firmly convinced than ever this issue needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. So Matrix...if you are listening, please please, please.....fix the indirect artillery fire!


(in reply to dgk196)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> Talonsoft VS MCS: Indirect Artillery Fire Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.184