.com.unity Forums - SA-6 movement rate

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- TO&Es (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=108)

- - SA-6 movement rate (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=41223)

Re: SA-6 movement rate

Yes, I know. Don't worry. We'll get it all sorted out.I've already given them the higher movement rate for all those same reasons

Don

Re: SA-6 movement rate

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weasel (Post 652739)

I was talking to some of the guys at The Blitz, SP ladder, and they brought up some good points. If the slow movement of the SA-6 is to represent setup time, then why are howitzers and such not reflected like that too. When guns move they have to be unlimbered, setup, and then surveyed in so accurate plotting of fire can be brought in etc.

I had never thought of this, but one of the players who is a reserve arty officer did...and it makes sense. Even setting up man packed ATGM should take more then two minutes.

What about "hipshoots" for artillery? Basically, a moving artillery battery receives a call for support is suppose to capable of unlimbering and sending rounds down range and reasonably on target:rolleyes: in less than six minutes.

In game turns, moving artillery can't receive a call for artillery. That would constitute the first turn since the unit has to unlimber. On the second turn, the call for artillery is actually plotted. Finally, at the earliest, the artillery hits on third turn. Game time, that should be 6-9 minutes.

Unless ADA units have a similar concept, I'm not sure it can be accurately be compared to artillery procedures.

Re: SA-6 movement rate

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weasel (Post 652739)

If the slow movement of the SA-6 is to represent setup time, then why are howitzers and such not reflected like that too. When guns move they have to be unlimbered, setup, and then surveyed in so accurate plotting of fire can be brought in etc.

Basic unlimbering and set-up (in order to just to be able to fire a few shots) shouldn't take all that long, depending on the weapon in question of course.

Surveying the exact positions (for accurate fire to take place) could be an issue (at least if you do not have a GPS locator for your position). However, if the movement has been previously planned, then there should have been an advance party sent ahead to reconnoitre and survey the positions for the guns so that they can be just driven in. And a unit might have a couple of such alternative locations previously mapped out.

Of course, if you go for the full set-up (fine-tuning surveying and gun set-up, camouflaging positions, filling in sand-bags, digging in telephone lines, unloading a lot of ammo, digging in positions for close-in defense with small arms etc.) then that would take much more time.

In-game, the advantages of a properly sited in artillery are represented by it having the "Dug in" status, making it less vulnerable to enemy fire. Probably an argument could be made that artillery units not in such status should be less accurate, but whether that would be feasible/worthwhile to model in-game is another issue. Then again, the same argument could go for most infantry weapon types - shooting from well-prepared positions tends to be more effective than from hastily taken positions or on the move.

Griefbringer