The magic of separate artillery

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: ericdauriac

I don't know if it's right or bad, but according to the tests I've been able to do, I confirm that the artillery in a division is treated by the software as using direct fire (for example: it suffers losses despite the "passive defender" function, it causes losses to tanks).

So my proposal seems to me valid. I make it based on Askey's studies, and I retain the range as a discriminating parameter.

Regards

Whether or not artillery in a non artillery unit uses direct fire or not is of no consequence in combat resolution. Artillery regardless of the type of unit it is in is all lumped together in one composite unit of bombardment. Range is not taken into consideration for that bombardment total unless it's buried somewhere in the code where us mortal users cannot see it.

Units can be exposed to flanking attacks exposing passively defending units to attack. Read 3.3.1 and 13.13 for explanations. If I recall correctly artillery in a non artillery unit does not suffer from counter battery fire. Can't recall for certain. Artillery in an artillery unit can be exposed to counter battery fire under certain circumstances. So yes, passively defending equipment can and will take losses. That's why you lose horse teams and trucks neither of which are using direct fire against an opposing unit unless I'm mistaken.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Whether or not artillery in a non artillery unit uses direct fire or not is of no consequence in combat resolution.

On the face of it that's a pretty bold assertion.

What's clear is that artillery in a non-artillery unit is much less effective. It would seem that's because the game is using a different set of mechanics for these guns, whatever you want to call it.

[Lobster]

I do agree, artillery does some inexplicable things that do not mimic real life. BTW, do the math on the following examples. [;)]

Not bold at all. It's supported by Uberdude. All artillery is lumped together. After running several combats there does seem to be a bit of randomness concerning shell weight. It's sometimes a bit less, not by much but a bit.:

Non artillery unit attacking by itself. (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)

ARTCombat:257 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 5%.

Artillery unit attacking by itself. (20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:1086 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 10%.

Non artillery and artillery units attacking together. (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)+(20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:2230 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 14%.

Non artillery attacking with artillery acting as a cooperative support artillery unit (1/2 strength applied). (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)+(20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:1237 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 11%.

[Lobster]

It makes me wonder if an artillery unit firing with a non artillery unit adds the effect of an FO and increases the effectiveness of the artillery unit. [&:]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

I do agree, artillery does some inexplicable things that do not mimic real life. BTW, do the math on the following examples. [;)]

Not bold at all. It's supported by Uberdude. All artillery is lumped together. After running several combats there does seem to be a bit of randomness concerning shell weight. It's sometimes a bit less, not by much but a bit.:

Non artillery unit attacking by itself. (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)

ARTCombat:257 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 5%.

Artillery unit attacking by itself. (20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:1086 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 10%.

Non artillery and artillery units attacking together. (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)+(20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:2230 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 14%.

Non artillery attacking with artillery acting as a cooperative support artillery unit (1/2 strength applied). (12x75mm guns and 4x150mm howitzer)+(20x170mm guns)

ARTCombat:1237 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 8,6 by 11%.

The above is all about reducing entrenchment. My test results show artillery causing units in mobile status to retreat- that's much more likely with an artillery icon.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

It makes me wonder if an artillery unit firing with a non artillery unit adds the effect of an FO and increases the effectiveness of the artillery unit. [&:]

It's a very well established fact that artillery is much more effective when supporting an attacking unit than when conducting a "pure bombardment", but this is subject to meeting the threshold for "attacks very weakly" in TOAW, so a tiny attacking unit will be ignored and the attack treated as a bombardment anyway.

[Lobster]

Explain to me why 257+1086=2230. Why 257+(1086/2)=1237.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
What's clear is that artillery in a non-artillery unit is much less effective. It would seem that's because the game is using a different set of mechanics for these guns, whatever you want to call it.

To the original topic: Have we made progress in understanding why having artillery separate in a `bombardment' unit is more effective to cause retreats even when the defending units are in the open and in mobile posture?

[Lobster]

I thought it was more ordinance delivered to the target as demonstrated by the increased amount of shell weight. I think the only one who can give you a definitive answer is Bob because he has access to the program's code. In other words...[&:]

Other's mileage will vary. [;)]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: governato


To the original topic: Have we made progress in understanding why having artillery separate in a `bombardment' unit is more effective to cause retreats even when the defending units are in the open and in mobile posture?

I have a vague intention of returning back to the original test and seeing what the loss levels are like on the defending unit. If the defender takes higher losses then naturally that would cause more retreats. If not then something is specifically happening in the Retreat From Combat calculation- but I think it's higher losses.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: ericdauriac

I don't know if it's right or bad, but according to the tests I've been able to do, I confirm that the artillery in a division is treated by the software as using direct fire (for example: it suffers losses despite the "passive defender" function, it causes losses to tanks).

So my proposal seems to me valid. I make it based on Askey's studies, and I retain the range as a discriminating parameter.

Regards

Wow, totally missed this one. Found it in my Spam folder. Why you would drag Nigel's name in mystifies me. You are obviously under the delusion that this covers just the summer/fall/winter of 1941. It does not. This is for artillery of ALL armies of ALL nations for ALL of time. [:D]

Scenario designers should have some control of how it works. No, not by making even more units than they already have to. [:'(]

In any event Bob has total control of how this game is designed so I'm just blowing hot air. Gotta go turn on the air conditioner. Getting hot in here and it's only February. [;)]