Ranged direct fire in WWI

[Liebchen]

Can anyone parse this out for me?

Direct fire at ranges greater than 1 is modified by the Range Effect
Parameter Data Va lue. For example, if the Range Effect value is 1/3, then the
fire value of direct fire at a range of 2 hexes is multiplied by 1/3.

What happens to direct fire at range 3 or 4 under this "rule"?

If fire at range 2 is 2x1/3, or .67 strength, then is fire at range 3 3x1/3, or 100% strength? This doesn't make any sense.

[Ricky B]

I imagine it would by 1/3 x 1/3 or 1/9 at range 3 rather than the range times the multiplier - by the way, range 2 is just x1/3 based on the quote you posted.

Turn off on map results to see the fire calcs, I imagine that will show at various ranges what the fire is at and you can try 2 versus 3 hex range.

[Eckerslyke]

Can anyone parse this out for me?

Direct fire at ranges greater than 1 is modified by the Range Effect
Parameter Data Va lue. For example, if the Range Effect value is 1/3, then the
fire value of direct fire at a range of 2 hexes is multiplied by 1/3.

What happens to direct fire at range 3 or 4 under this "rule"?

If fire at range 2 is 2x1/3, or .67 strength, then is fire at range 3 3x/13, or 100% strength? This doesn't make any sense.

It's more confusing even than that - in my current battle (Gumbinnen to Tannenberg), the Range Effect is 1.5, which suggests that the firing effect increases with distance, if I am reading it correctly.

The only parallel I can call to mind is in the Naval titles, when naval gunnery can cause more damage at the extreme edge of the range due to the trajectory causing shells to come down on the target at a steeper angle than they might at shorter ranges.  The shells are deemed to be more likely to fall upon relatively lightly-armored superstructure than to strike the heavily-armored hull.

Might this be a factor in our land battles?

[Ricky B]

I did not see the initial quote of the rule in the Serbia rule for that function, but what I saw wasn't specific. However, turning off on map results shows that this 1.5 value is divided into the firepower. A unit at range 1 had firepower of 27, at range 2 it was 18.

So ignoring the quote, which I wonder if it came from PzC, the actual calc is firepower/modifier, for FWWC machine guns, anyway. Same test could be done on artillery.

[Liebchen]

I did not see the initial quote of the rule in the Serbia rule for that function, but what I saw wasn't specific. However, turning off on map results shows that this 1.5 value is divided into the firepower. A unit at range 1 had firepower of 27, at range 2 it was 18.

So ignoring the quote, which I wonder if it came from PzC, the actual calc is firepower/modifier, for FWWC machine guns, anyway. Same test could be done on artillery.

The rule certainly needs some editing for clarity.

[ComradeP]

As far as I know, any fire value is divided by the Range Effect modifier for each hex beyond 1 hex range. I'm not sure when rounding, if any, is applied.

The manual is confusing because it doesn't explain the mechanic clearly.

The parameter data also doesn't use fractions the way they are shown in the manual example. 1/3 would be 0.33 and dividing by a value below 1 would multiply the fire value instead of dividing it.

The Range Effect modifier (the number itself) was decreased to make ranged fire more effective. I believe that was implemented with the release of Serbia '14 and subsequent patches for the other two titles.

[unonimus]

I did not see the initial quote of the rule in the Serbia rule for that function, but what I saw wasn't specific. However, turning off on map results shows that this 1.5 value is divided into the firepower. A unit at range 1 had firepower of 27, at range 2 it was 18.

So ignoring the quote, which I wonder if it came from PzC, the actual calc is firepower/modifier, for FWWC machine guns, anyway. Same test could be done on artillery.

I tested it for field artillery in France '14 (which has the same 1.5 range effect), and indeed it uses the same rule as PzC.

At range 1, fire value is normal.

At range 2 or more, you divide the fire value with 1+(range-1)*(range_effect-1), so you divide your normal fire value by 1.5 at range 2, 2 at range 3, 2.5 at range 4 and 3 at range 5 (and so on but anything over 5 is unnecessary to calculate since you cannot fire directly that far anyway).

I am not sure if it is intended, however.

[Volcano Man]

Sorry about the delayed response - busy here as usual.

Since its 0330 here, I can't make a very detailed reply, but basically (and this may have already been explained) --

The ranged-fire reduction does increase over range so that, for example, at 2 hexes you get the first ranged-fire reduction (as defined in the PDT data), and then it continues to be reduced for each hex beyond that. 

That said, this ranged-fire reduction has nothing to do with trajectory of shells, it simply has to do with the fact that if a target is further away (we are talking about 2000m and beyond here) then a target is simply harder to hit due to natural dispersion of rounds, and environmental conditions, and general difficulties with aiming. This is to make sure that fire at 2km is not the same effectiveness at <= 1km, and not the same effectiveness at 5km. Certainly though, in WW2 you could say that this ranged-fire reduction value could also take into account the loss of penetration for KE ammunition over distance against hard targets, but its all abstract of course.

[Volcano Man]

Oh, sorry, I think the question was specifically what the Range Effect Modifier does? Well, as far as a I can remember at 0400 here, the value is used as a divisor. So basically the at 2 hexes, the ranged fire is divided by that PDT value. If the value is 1 then the fire is full effect at all ranges. If it is 2 then its 50% at 2 hexes, then I think its 50% of that again at 3 hexes and so on.

Now if I recall, in PzC series this value started at 3. So, fire at 2 hexes is divided by 3.

In FWWC you will notice that it is half that (1.5 now). Why? Because my rationale was that in WW2 it certainly is taking into account penetration of KE ammunition decreasing over range (which if anyone knows anything about this subject, performance decreases quite a lot over range), which is fine, because in PzC just about the only thing firing at 2 hexes and beyond are tanks and AT guns. In FWWC however, we are talking purely about MGs and field guns firing HE -- essentially area fire, not point fire. So, I think it is justified that ranged fire is more effective in FWWC (and this is also why the hard attack value of field guns is reduced to 1 hex). Some thought went into it. ;)

(Also do not take the numbers I mention here as the gospel, its just what I recall at the moment with how it works, from memory - the goal being to give a general idea).

[Liebchen]

Oh, sorry, I think the question was specifically what the Range Effect Modifier does? Well, as far as a I can remember at 0400 here, the value is used as a divisor. So basically the at 2 hexes, the ranged fire is divided by that PDT value.  If the value is 1 then the fire is full effect at all ranges. If it is 2 then its 50% at 2 hexes, then I think its 50% of that again at 3 hexes and so on.

Now if I recall, in PzC series this value started at 3. So, fire at 2 hexes is divided by 3.

In FWWC you will notice that it is half that (1.5 now). Why? Because my rationale was that in WW2 it certainly is taking into account penetration of KE ammunition decreasing over range (which if anyone knows anything about this subject, performance decreases quite a lot over range), which is fine, because in PzC just about the only thing firing at 2 hexes and beyond are tanks and AT guns. In FWWC however, we are talking purely about MGs and field guns firing HE -- essentially area fire, not point fire. So, I think it is justified that ranged fire is more effective in FWWC (and this is also why the hard attack value of field guns is reduced to 1 hex). Some thought went into it. ;)

(Also do not take the numbers I mention here as the gospel, its just what I recall at the moment with how it works, from memory - the goal being to give a general idea).

Can you please look at the formula in the original post and tell me where the math went awry?