Disabled Armor-Indirect by the Map-and more about Gardening Later

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I seem to recall a tank platoon of mine receiving a disabled roll and consequently spending the rest of the game stuck in that particular hex (ie.a SP loss and a fixed status) ???

Ok no snarky comment about your memory. :whis:

A disabled result does not imobilize a unit......honest. It is a one SP loss nothing more.

Unfixed units cannot become fixed during the game (well not without opening the BTE file anyways).

It sounds like you got a Reduce 1 disrupted result from the fire results table and not a 4% disabled result. Depending on the location of enemy units you very well may not have been able to move the unit as you would have been trying to move a disrupted unit towrds an enemy unit.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Crossroads]

It sounds like you got a Reduce 1 disrupted result from the fire results table and not a 4% disabled result. Depending on the location of enemy units you very well may not have been able to move the unit as you would have been trying to move a disrupted unit towrds an enemy unit.

That could be it :chin:

I was sure I lost a jagdpanzer to indirect arty early in the game. But maybe it was disrupted indeed, and remained so for the few turns it stayed alive...

It is difficult to remember details, I received such a thorough whipping from a certain Man-of-war in that particular game :smoke:

[Hawk Kriegsman]

I was sure I lost a jagdpanzer to indirect arty early in the game. But maybe it was disrupted indeed, and remained so for the few turns it stayed alive...

It could have gotten both a loss and disrupted.

Although if your refering to our game you have to be mistaken because I am never that fortunate! :hissy:

It is difficult to remember details, I received such a thorough whipping from a certain Man-of-war in that particular game :smoke:

Yes well....who getting smacked around now :rolleyes: :kill:

Thanx!

Hawk

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Actually since all indirect fire, spotted or not, is essentially unaimed and random, a moving tank is just as easy to hit or miss as a stationary one is, as long as it is in the area where the artillery is falling.

The only advantage moving might give you is spending less time in the target area if you can get out of it before the barrage stops. The disadvantage to moving, especially at high speed, is that you're probably more likely to drive into shell craters or into large debris thrown up by the barrage, either of which could probably throw a track (i.e. a disable results).

From everything I have read, tankers avoided artillery fire whenever feasible, so they at least thought that they were vulnerable.

So, for the record, I am fine with the indirect fire vs arty rules as they are now, with the possible exception of a lower disable percentage for small caliber arty/small mortars.

Mike

Once again Mike, you are a voice of reason. I agree with your comments.



RR

[Jim von Krieg]

Nice point - counterpoint discussion...

I'm still developing my opinion on the new artillery routine... not enough experience with v1.04 to have a hard and fast opinion... other than I want the arty to have an effect... After all, it is the number one killer on the WW2 battlefield of everything...

I like the fact there is a possible result against a tank under shell fire... I'm open to what the result should be, but there should be some more than No Result. However, in one of my current games I'm not seeing much results against me as my opponent blindly fires into the village I just took with a very large armor force..

One of my other old opinions on blind fire was the ineffective nature against infantry on the march... Is that still the case?... Loaded in a truck could get results, but if they were on foot I always noted that it had little effect if it was unobserved... Anyone have any relevant observations on the effect on unobserved troops on the march?

US Army terms... Registration Points (RP) in military (US Army) speak are key terrain or points on the battlefield in which you expect you may have to fire your arty... and want to do it quickly and accurately...

Forward Observers (FO's) observe some preliminary fire to "register" the guns on that location... this way the guns can quickly re-orient on that location without having to figure anything out... I have a chart to RP 1 for bearing and range from the gun's location... A call for fire comes in, I just have to set the gun and ammo to that range and bearing... no calculations occur... greatly speeding the response time of a call for fire to the resulting steel on target...

it could be a crossroads.. a village... an open area... Pre-registration fire is done to reduce response times on locations that you think that your opponent will move through... the better you do this, but better results you may get when you know the enemy is moving through that area...

Other thing mentioned is what we call Time-on-Target... essentially coordinating multiple guns to strike a single target at the same time... done by firing guns in a sequence based on time it takes the round to get to a target, so that all the rounds strike the target at the same time... Guns farther away fire first at lower elevations, while guns closer fire later or at higher elevations...

US Army could do multiple battalion and brigade arty units on a single target with devastating consequences... I recall reading of many instances in which German attacks were smashed as they were buried in concentrated artillery barrages by guns from across this front... this requires a high level of sophistication and communication capability to coordinate...

Thanks for everyone's input...

Jim

[Von Earlmann]

Actually...I kinda like the new arty......I have noticed a few more retreats etc on infantry than in the old game (altho I am not sure why we see that when firing blind, but that is another topic)...I also like the armor effects better...except when it is my armor and it is a Tiger or Panther.....or anything I really need to keep in the scenario.....:-)

VE

[dawags]

"This is where you are incorrect. It is not a combat results table. It is not based on the odds of attack verses defense. It is a staight 4% chance." -Hawk

Hawk,
I am totally flummoxed by this statement...
I have basically said you get the same roll regardless.
You tell me I am incorrect, because it is a staight (sic) 4% chance. :conf:

Essentially, you are saying my assertion is incorrect because there is no difference between whether armor is spotted or not because the % chance to hit is the same...which was my point!

I have to give up on you here Hawk.
Obviously, you don't see my point, which is fine.
However, arguing with counter-intuitive logic is a waste of time.
It has a certain school-yard feel to it, which doesn't have much appeal in an intellectual debate.

I only post on this forum to make the point...and I seem to be losing sight of it, so let me re-form and clarify... Most who have weighed in, don't agree, but that is part of what this is about...I'm good with that. It is the nature of this form of dialogue, or at least that was my impression.

1) I like the new indirect table and greater percentage chance to disable armor. It adds a nuance to the game that forces you to protect armor against indirect that you did not have to previously.

2) The only aspect of this I dislike, because it lacks a certain "realistic" feel to me, is that indirect by map (which I do realize is an optional rule) hitting unspotted armor has the same general effect as spotted armor. It should NOT, but I leave that to the designers at Matrix to decide fully.
and, relative to that...

3) the caliber of indirect has no basic impact on the likelihood of result on armor. High caliber has no add nor does low caliber subtract. This also feels less than realistic to me.

Regardless, I continue to play this game, as it is the best game engine available for wargame simulation on a tactical/strategic level.

Frankly, due to this change, I indirect by map more, especially if I believe advancing armor is located in the general vicinity of where I am dropping said "load". I rarely did this before, as I did not deem it to be as effective (except when as Von Krieg put it..."loaded in a truck could get results"). Now it appears to be over-effective. It changes how I play in this regard, as I see it as enhancing my likelihood of success.

dawags
:cool2:

[Hawk Kriegsman]

"This is where you are incorrect. It is not a combat results table. It is not based on the odds of attack verses defense. It is a staight 4% chance." -Hawk

Hawk,
I am totally flummoxed by this statement...

Yes I can see that you are flummoxed based on your responses.

I have basically said you get the same roll regardless.

Not exactly. You have made incorrect statements IMHO in which it appears that you are lumping an indirect fire attack on armor (which is reduced when the indirect fire is unspotted) and Random Armor Disablement which has a slight percentage chance of disabling armor when indirect fire hits any hex containing armor.

It is two seperate rules that you are appear to be combining.

You tell me I am incorrect, because it is a staight (sic) 4% chance. :conf:

Yes you are incorrect and I agree with your smilie icon that you appear to be confused.

Essentially, you are saying my assertion is incorrect because there is no difference between whether armor is spotted or not because the % chance to hit is the same...which was my point!

No that is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that Indirect Fire Verses Amor and Random Armor Disablement are two different concepts resolved in two different ways.

Your points did not address these seperate items. You lumped all indirect fire verses armor into a series of incorrect statements.

I have to give up on you here Hawk.

That is your choice.

Obviously, you don't see my point, which is fine.

Yes I did see your point, I understood your point and I pointed out the incorrectness of your point. I would like to point out that it appears you did not understand my points.

However, arguing with counter-intuitive logic is a waste of time.

I could not agree more on arguing with people who don't understand the game engine, don't read posts and misquote as being a waste of time.

It has a certain school-yard feel to it, which doesn't have much appeal in an intellectual debate.

A thinly veiled attempt to question my intelligence? You understand that personal attacks are against the posting rules correct?

I only post on this forum to make the point...and I seem to be losing sight of it, so let me re-form and clarify... Most who have weighed in, don't agree, but that is part of what this is about...I'm good with that. It is the nature of this form of dialogue, or at least that was my impression.

Yes everyone is posting and debating without issue. I am unsure of what you are trying to say here.

1) I like the new indirect table and greater percentage chance to disable armor. It adds a nuance to the game that forces you to protect armor against indirect that you did not have to previously.

Again it is not a new indirect fire table. Per Jason P. the fire tables have not changed.

The Random Armor Disablement percentage changed from 2% to 4%.

2) The only aspect of this I dislike, because it lacks a certain "realistic" feel to me, is that indirect by map (which I do realize is an optional rule) hitting unspotted armor has the same general effect as spotted armor. It should NOT, but I leave that to the designers at Matrix to decide fully.
and, relative to that...

Again no you are incorrect. Indirect fire by map is reduced verses all target types.

Random Armor Disablement is something totally different.

3) the caliber of indirect has no basic impact on the likelihood of result on armor. High caliber has no add nor does low caliber subtract. This also feels less than realistic to me.

Incorrect. Larger calibur guns with their higher attack factor do have a greater affect on armor then smaller calibur guns.

Here's a little experiment you can do. Create a sceanrio. Open ground nothing fancy. Put some PZIV's on it. Give the Allies some off board artillery say 16inch naval guns and 81mm mortars. Fire the naval guns at one PZIVH platoon and the 81mm mortars at the other.

You will find the 16 inch naval guns will give you more results than the 81mm mortars.

Regardless, I continue to play this game, as it is the best game engine available for wargame simulation on a tactical/strategic level.

Total agreement here!

Frankly, due to this change, I indirect by map more, especially if I believe advancing armor is located in the general vicinity of where I am dropping said "load". I rarely did this before, as I did not deem it to be as effective (except when as Von Krieg put it..."loaded in a truck could get results"). Now it appears to be over-effective. It changes how I play in this regard, as I see it as enhancing my likelihood of success.

Good gaming to you!

Hawk

[dawags]

"Here's a little experiment you can do. Create a sceanrio. Open ground nothing fancy. Put some PZIV's on it. Give the Allies some off board artillery say 16inch naval guns and 81mm mortars. Fire the naval guns at one PZIVH platoon and the 81mm mortars at the other.

You will find the 16 inch naval guns will give you more results than the 81mm mortars."-Hawk

Thanks Hawk...
However, I agree fully with your assessment here. 16 inch Naval guns are highly likely to achieve a result on the combats results table on a PzIV. This wasn't my point, but I assume you knew that. The point has always been, the disable likelihood.

I have one for you...a little experiment. Create a scenario. Open ground nothing fancy. Put some King Tigers on it. Make sure you have selected indirect by map. Drop 81mm's, and 155's on it. You will have to make sure the units aren't spotted, so many efforts will need to be made as the indirect will scatter. You will find that the 81mm and the 155mm "disable" at a similar rate, when they hit. I don't see this as accurate, and of course you don't have to agree, but you also knew this.

Lastly...
I do not need you to quote rules of engagement to me relative to my posts. I don't have a problem with civility. I don't question your intelligence at all, in fact, you strike me as someone who communicates very well and with a purpose. I see three likely reasons why you have seen the need to do this...

1) You don't actually see that your posts taking the attitude of I'm right, you are wrong, and misinformed, here let me educate you are at their root very patronizing. In general, most people don't like to be patronized, especially so when they don't actually recognize it for such. I am new here, but I would be willing to bet that you engender some real nasty response at times from a few people. If you don't realize this, you should really take a look. It will improve your dialogue with folks.

2) You have many friends amongst the admins. here, so that you feel that others need to be accountable to rules that you yourself don't have to be. Again, I am new here, I don't fully know all the relationships. I was recommended by people I respect to weigh-in on this debate. I was told people who know, and who have influence on the game will listen. I will take that at face value, and hope I have been heard. However, if these folks don't hold you accountable for your posts, I would suggest they evaluate their own rules. There are many methods to being impolite over and above simple name calling, and nastiness. I enjoy the game, and had hoped to enjoy some dialogue regarding same. Again, I am somewhat new here, but I said that already.

3) You actually know full well what you are doing, and purposefully are actually looking for a reaction from folks. I am not a psychologist (nor do I play one on TV), but a lifetime of training as a behaviorist has served me well in this regard. Did I say earlier?, I am new here, and have very few posts. I am not looking for a fight, or to be "banned". Based on your responses, and your approach, I would be willing to bet that you have gotten more than one poster "banned" with your interactions. If this is the case...I am dying to know...What is your current count? You are pretty good at this. :bow:

dawags
:cool2:

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Thanks Hawk...
However, I agree fully with your assessment here. 16 inch Naval guns are highly likely to achieve a result on the combats results table on a PzIV. This wasn't my point, but I assume you knew that. The point has always been, the disable likelihood.

Ok so we are good then on indirect fire by map is reduced on the CRT for being unspotted, correct? We both agree on this.

We are now on the seperate issue of Random Artillery Disablement (page 57 of your game manual)?

You are at issue with the 4% disablement rate no matter what, correct?

I have one for you...a little experiment. Create a scenario. Open ground nothing fancy. Put some King Tigers on it. Make sure you have selected indirect by map. Drop 81mm's, and 155's on it. You will have to make sure the units aren't spotted, so many efforts will need to be made as the indirect will scatter. You will find that the 81mm and the 155mm "disable" at a similar rate, when they hit. I don't see this as accurate, and of course you don't have to agree, but you also knew this.

Actually I did say a few posts back that larger guns should have a higher chance of disabling. I also said that open topped vehicles should be more at risk too.

You and I disagree on the spotted / not spotted correct?

Lastly...
I do not need you to quote rules of engagement to me relative to my posts.

I didn't actual quote them, but point taken.

I don't have a problem with civility.

I agree 100%. You are very adept at civility and good debate.

I don't question your intelligence at all, in fact, you strike me as someone who communicates very well and with a purpose.

Thank you for that.

I see three likely reasons why you have seen the need to do this...

Alrighty let's see.

1) You don't actually see that your posts taking the attitude of I'm right, you are wrong, and misinformed, here let me educate you are at their root very patronizing.

I could see how one could take it this way.

In general, most people don't like to be patronized, especially so when they don't actually recognize it for such.

I would agree with that.

I am new here, but I would be willing to bet that you engender some real nasty response at times from a few people. If you don't realize this, you should really take a look. It will improve your dialogue with folks.

I am quite aware that I have gotten some real nasty responses. Have given them too. PM me if you would like the links to them.

2) You have many friends amongst the admins. here,

I would like to think so. I was an admin here for a bit.

so that you feel that others need to be accountable to rules that you yourself don't have to be.

Actually I do have to be acountable to the rules.

Again, I am new here, I don't fully know all the relationships. I was recommended by people I respect to weigh-in on this debate. I was told people who know, and who have influence on the game will listen.

You are correct here.

I will take that at face value, and hope I have been heard.

I am sure you have. You have not been mislead by your friends.

However, if these folks don't hold you accountable for your posts, I would suggest they evaluate their own rules. There are many methods to being impolite over and above simple name calling, and nastiness.

Just to keep you in the loop I got a week off back at the end of August for rules violations. I then took 3 months off on my own to readjust and reflect. I have only been back posting for a couple of weeks. I am following the rules of this forum.

I enjoy the game, and had hoped to enjoy some dialogue regarding same. Again, I am somewhat new here, but I said that already.

I do to. I think there is good dialog going on.

3) You actually know full well what you are doing, and purposefully are actually looking for a reaction from folks.

Partially true. I know full well what I am doing but am not looking for a reaction out of anybody.

I am not a psychologist (nor do I play one on TV), but a lifetime of training as a behaviorist has served me well in this regard.

LOL! It shows.

Did I say earlier?, I am new here, and have very few posts.

Once or twice.

I am not looking for a fight, or to be "banned".

No, no you are not that is easy to see.

Based on your responses, and your approach, I would be willing to bet that you have gotten more than one poster "banned" with your interactions.

As a trained as a behaviorist you know that only the person that types a post can get themselves banned. I can't do it. Only the poster gets the poster banned.

If this is the case...I am dying to know...What is your current count?

My count is 2. Both times myself. It is only the fault of the person in the mirror. No one elses.

You are pretty good at this. :bow:

As are you. :bow:

dawags you are a class act and ok in my book. You get it.



Let us continue our debates. We should also play a game.

Thanx!

Hawk