Jump to content


The old artillery problem - a solution using different mechanics

World of Tanks Artillery SPG Mechanics View Mode Switch

  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

Hurk #61 Posted Nov 05 2018 - 19:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 53060 battles
  • 17,373
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostUxi, on Nov 05 2018 - 11:17, said:

Love the binoc view idea replacing the drone like map.  

Less accuracy (perhaps aiming circles shouldn't shrink at all or at least maybe half of what they do now).

 

Perhaps some sort of combination... realistically they shouldn't have a view or the target area at all with no drones or satellites, etc.  Even aircraft spotting would be relayed by audio only without visual.  Requests for fire should basically be required (Forward Observer) and give coordinates and they aim on the map without seeing anything real time only their own vehicle.  Especially including if vehicles are poking or not. 

sorry for the potato quality, i havnt been able to find a physical copy of the book.  (eyes of artillery is the books name)

 

the "satellite" view of arty is a direct representation of American Air Observation, which is a major reason why our artillery was so massively successful throughout the later half of WW2. 

the primary job of the AO was counter battery, but general fire direction was done as well (and to great effect) 



Trauglodyte #62 Posted Nov 05 2018 - 21:31

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17043 battles
  • 2,695
  • [GSH] GSH
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016

View PostShortcult, on Nov 04 2018 - 21:11, said:

 

He's right.  I think arty should have a better method of detecting enemy arty.  Something only visible in satellite view.

 

+1 on this from a pro-arty player

 

View PostHurk, on Nov 05 2018 - 19:59, said:

sorry for the potato quality, i havnt been able to find a physical copy of the book.  (eyes of artillery is the books name)

 

the "satellite" view of arty is a direct representation of American Air Observation, which is a major reason why our artillery was so massively successful throughout the later half of WW2. 

the primary job of the AO was counter battery, but general fire direction was done as well (and to great effect) 

 

You could argue, then, that there should be a means of shooting down the spotter or obfuscating the area in which the spotter is,  um, spotting.  It would make for an interesting dynamic.  Though, people have been clamoring for smoke shells for a long time.  I wonder how successful WarGaming felt the smoke generators were in Front Lines and if that could be applied.  I don't remember the timer in Front Lines but I know that it was a consumable.  Would WarGaming be ok with the plausibility and the cause/effect of smoke shells being tossed around on normal arty cool-downs.  Should there be a consumable, say on a 90s timer that would occur in conjunction with normal shell characteristics.


Something to think about.



ProfessionalFinn #63 Posted Nov 05 2018 - 23:40

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 22401 battles
  • 1,087
  • Member since:
    02-23-2016

View PostHurk, on Nov 05 2018 - 19:59, said:

sorry for the potato quality, i havnt been able to find a physical copy of the book.  (eyes of artillery is the books name)

 

the "satellite" view of arty is a direct representation of American Air Observation, which is a major reason why our artillery was so massively successful throughout the later half of WW2. 

the primary job of the AO was counter battery, but general fire direction was done as well (and to great effect) 

Hurk, we agree and disagree.    

On the agree side, combined arms was the winning formula in WW2 battle-field success  Thank you for providing a 4th I.D. proof point.  With good reason, contemporaries referred to arty as either the "queen" or "king" in this combined arms formula and not a rook, pawn or knight.   Another source among many that brings this home is the book "Panzer Commander" authored by Hans von Luck.  Luck goes into great detail in this book about the devastating impact of Allied artillery against his 21st Panzer Division in Normandy.  He describes it to be like a destructive cyclone. Many other such documents and study supporting this position exist.  You and I also agree that indirect-fire from arty is one of the few constructs that has some basis in reality in this game.

 

Where we disagree is something sorta kinda reflecting reality, like SPGs, does not matter.  Unreal WoT armor constructs like death to life, equipment that heals itself, perfect 110 degree vision from inside a tank and 25X sniper mode are perfectly fine by me.  WoT is a game strictly built to entertain.  

 

Hurk, please keep posting.  Your sauce is strong.



Omega_Weapon #64 Posted Nov 05 2018 - 23:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 49136 battles
  • 2,105
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostUxi, on Nov 05 2018 - 13:17, said:

Perhaps some sort of combination... realistically they shouldn't have a view or the target area at all with no drones or satellites, etc.  Even aircraft spotting would be relayed by audio only without visual.  Requests for fire should basically be required (Forward Observer) and give coordinates and they aim on the map without seeing anything real time only their own vehicle.  Especially including if vehicles are poking or not. 

 

Wouldn't that be the same for all tanks that get to aim at other tanks based on an ally spotting for them? If you want realism, then the radio should only give audio information for all classes.

Omega_Weapon #65 Posted Nov 05 2018 - 23:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 49136 battles
  • 2,105
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostTrauglodyte, on Nov 05 2018 - 15:31, said:

 

+1 on this from a pro-arty player

 

 

You could argue, then, that there should be a means of shooting down the spotter or obfuscating the area in which the spotter is,  um, spotting.  It would make for an interesting dynamic.  Though, people have been clamoring for smoke shells for a long time.  I wonder how successful WarGaming felt the smoke generators were in Front Lines and if that could be applied.  I don't remember the timer in Front Lines but I know that it was a consumable.  Would WarGaming be ok with the plausibility and the cause/effect of smoke shells being tossed around on normal arty cool-downs.  Should there be a consumable, say on a 90s timer that would occur in conjunction with normal shell characteristics.


Something to think about.

 

Maybe put flak tanks into the game as a playable class so they could shoot down the AI spotter aircraft? Maybe AI strike aircraft too?

Edited by Omega_Weapon, Nov 05 2018 - 23:57.


1SLUGGO1 #66 Posted Nov 06 2018 - 01:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 24708 battles
  • 10,196
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012

View PostHurk, on Nov 05 2018 - 13:59, said:

sorry for the potato quality, i havnt been able to find a physical copy of the book.  (eyes of artillery is the books name)

 

the "satellite" view of arty is a direct representation of American Air Observation, which is a major reason why our artillery was so massively successful throughout the later half of WW2. 

the primary job of the AO was counter battery, but general fire direction was done as well (and to great effect) 

No it does not.  The only aircraft in this game are for aesthetic purposes.

 

artillery view is simulating the spotting tank reporting the enemy position.  This is why the overhead view is mocked as satellite view, because the arty of even current era is incapable of such a view.



Hurk #67 Posted Nov 06 2018 - 03:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 53060 battles
  • 17,373
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostTrauglodyte, on Nov 05 2018 - 13:31, said:

 

+1 on this from a pro-arty player

 

 

You could argue, then, that there should be a means of shooting down the spotter or obfuscating the area in which the spotter is,  um, spotting.  It would make for an interesting dynamic.  Though, people have been clamoring for smoke shells for a long time.  I wonder how successful WarGaming felt the smoke generators were in Front Lines and if that could be applied.  I don't remember the timer in Front Lines but I know that it was a consumable.  Would WarGaming be ok with the plausibility and the cause/effect of smoke shells being tossed around on normal arty cool-downs.  Should there be a consumable, say on a 90s timer that would occur in conjunction with normal shell characteristics.


Something to think about.

 

the allied spotter planes were soo feared (due to being able to call in arty on anyone shooting at them) that most enemy simply went to ground.  the book has a lot to say about that. they did suffer losses, but they were minor. 

View Post1SLUGGO1, on Nov 05 2018 - 17:19, said:

No it does not.  The only aircraft in this game are for aesthetic purposes.

 

artillery view is simulating the spotting tank reporting the enemy position.  This is why the overhead view is mocked as satellite view, because the arty of even current era is incapable of such a view.

 



BillT #68 Posted Nov 07 2018 - 01:38

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 27067 battles
  • 4,494
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostRG_Notch, on Nov 03 2018 - 11:56, said:

 

Why do people waste their time on these long drawn out changes that will never ever occur?

 

Same reason people write (and read) science fiction and fantasy stories.  We like to think about possibilities.  It's fun, stimulating, and even educational (because redesigning a game mechanic makes you think harder about how the whole game fits together). If that's not your cup of tea, cool.

Now answer me something: Why do people quote an entire wall of text in their replies, and then not even refer to it?   You could have omitted it, since it was the first posting in the thread and we all saw it.  Or you could have deleted most of it and just left some salient points that you wanted to reply to.  That behavior is lazy and shows a lack of respect toward the readers. 



BillT #69 Posted Nov 07 2018 - 01:45

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 27067 battles
  • 4,494
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostSquishySupreme, on Nov 03 2018 - 14:56, said:

The vehicles should have a dedicated movement mode, though.  Say, 10 seconds to lower the gun and lock it into place, then you can move at higher speeds but not fire.  ( see how quickly they move in real life when not deployed and just moving down a road ).  Then 10 seconds or so to go into firing mode.   Artillery should be constantly moving and redeploying in this game. ( and yes, being forced to take risks like the other players )  By faster, I mean roughly 50% faster than they are now for most of them.  Allow them to keep up with the slower tanks to get into position.
 

 

If you want arty to move after every shot, imposing a 10 second delay before they can move is a bad idea.  The SPG driver figures, "I can wait 10 seconds, then move, but then I can't move very far before I'm reloaded.  So if I want to maximize my DPS by not wasting shots, I might as well sit still."  Then add the fact that counterbattery becomes pretty easy if the target is frozen in place for 10 seconds.  If you see the tracer, you'll have plenty of time to adjust aim, let your reticle shrink, and drop one right on him.

And if you want arty to move closer to the front line, it's going to be spotted more often.  It has no armor and low health, so your "10 seconds freeze" is basically a death sentence.

 

It  would work better if you impose the 10 seconds as a set-up time, not a take-down time.  You can always start driving, but if you want to shoot you have to go into Siege Mode.  But that doesn't really work either; again, if the mode changeover time cuts into the SPG's rate of fire it will discourage moving between shots, and with a set-up time, the SPG can't  use TD mode -- which is something it's going to need if you move it closer to the front.



1SLUGGO1 #70 Posted Nov 07 2018 - 02:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 24708 battles
  • 10,196
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012
Just cap fire distance to 500 meters, don’t change anything else.

Problem solved.

Hurk #71 Posted Nov 07 2018 - 04:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 53060 battles
  • 17,373
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View Post1SLUGGO1, on Nov 06 2018 - 18:27, said:

Just cap fire distance to 500 meters, don’t change anything else.

Problem solved.

and this is why no one takes your posts on the issue seriously. this is like saying "just cap light tank spotting to 400 meters and dont change anything else". 


Edited by Hurk, Nov 07 2018 - 04:19.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users