Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

All feedback is appreciated,

Should CMs destructive power be scaled down? In my opinion maybe a little. Any chance we can have a poll on this and vote whether to let it stay as is or scale it down? DON OR ANDY, What do you think?
I recently played a game against an opponent and this was his comment:They are too deadly -- they can wipe out a whole swath of troops in one blast and kill tanks. When u dropped them on me,I was lucky. There were three tanks in the line of fire. One was routed and damaged. In pbems I agree to limit them BUT not ban them from the game...

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

This has been raised before, at least by me. I too believe they are too destructive, if nothing else in radius. Others asked me to remove them from our PBEM games and after a while I started asking for the same from other players. Not only that but I have stopped using them against the AI too. You can easily annihilate an enemy AI force in just a few turns just with CM artillery. You don't even need much.

I don't even remember the last time I played a PBEM game with CM artillery.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Wdll,

I agree that their destructive power is too potent. Maybe if ENOUGH people agree on this Don and Andy may scale their power down some....

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

This discusion was had before, if you buy sensible forces no need to restrict even the Americans will not have every tube of arty with CM.

There does seem a minor discrepancy between 155 & rocket CM if talking the standard 60 pen.
155 seems more dangerous possibly because warhead size 8 vs 2 (I think)
Just a feeling I have not tested.

How dangerous is it really though assume you fire a full volley of say 4 shots from a 155 you might get 2 or 3 vehicles.
A tank firing the same amount of shots could do the same but nobody complains when a tank takes out 2 or 3 vehicles in a turn.
Remember it might not have killed the tank just stripped it of all firing aids etc which in game terms is a kill.

Hitting vehicles takes skill with arty troops less so.
If I lose vehicles to it therefore its my fault should have moved, they are a big deterent.
If you play WW2 with lightly armoured tops need to ban big offboard arty for the same reason it kills armour. Damn hard though with call times.

If there was going to be a change second class of ammo resupply would be nice if it were possible.
New ones cant reload CM possibly SAMs cost same as the ones we have now.
The present ones have cost bumped by 250 points.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Has there ever been an occasion in Real Life (shudder) when cluster munitions have been used against armour/troops? I presume this must have happened in the recent "wars" against Iraq? If so - what were the reults?

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Posted by IMP on 12/22/09 0134 "CM arty modeling" pg.2 TO&Es last entry by DRG ON 02/07/10. Most answers can be found on pages 2-3. The tables show that WINSPMBT models it down from real life look up "Steel Rain" from the Gulf War. Look deeply into the references provided, you'll find your answers and you won't like them. I simply ended with, An argument can be made that the CM modeling is not powerful enough., or close to that. But heres another and there's so much more...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ions/dpicm.htm Note para 4.
Regards,
Pat

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

MLRS CM as well a 155mm DPICM was devastating to Iraqi forces in Desert Storm. Just picture 8,000 DP munitions
(able to penetrate 4 in of armor) raining down on you in less than 60 seconds, now add a second launcher (we had 4 attached to our Task Force and they always fired in pairs) and thats a whole world of hurt.

The SP 155mm Arty we had was using DPCIM that was capable of 3 in armor penetration.

After seeing the results of a CM bombardment in real life
THE CM is not to powerful in the game.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Thank you. I hope this finally puts the entire issue to rest.

Don

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

A couple of years ago I did a round of extensive tests about this issue; I used american 155mm guns and MRLS, edited to shoot the same number of rounds per engagement, and cluster of M1A2s as targets.
MRLS lethality appeared to be correct, these weapons are about as devastating in the game as in real life.
Tube artillery DPCM on the other hand was a bit off, in that its lethality, round for round, exceeded that of the rockets, despite the latter carrying a much greater number of submunitions.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Thanks all for the feedback....
[b]Don or Andy,
Any chance you will consider adjusting the potency of the rockets more than the tubes based on Marcello's analysis? As always thank you for keeping this game so interesting....

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

No.

We had this round of discussions several years back, and the points values for the bomblet weapons was increased. Arty with that ammo is very expensive.

Against bomblet arty - don't bunch up, don't stand in one place too long, and get yourself MBT with anti-HEAT top armour (or ERA on top). Finally, apply counter-battery fires to the enemy bomblet-using arty.

Andy

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Andy,
Thanks for giving me an answer......:(

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

The base standard cost of a US 155mm LW off map section with 80x3= 240 HE rounds is 255 points.

The base standard cost of a US 155mm LW off map section that has 60x3= 180 HE shells and 20x3=60 cluster shells is 906 points so those 60 cluster shells cost an extra 651 points.

Don

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Most likely it is the tube arty that would need to be tuned down a bit. But I can't tell for sure without:
1) Verifying if it still applies in the current version (tests)
2) Collecting more information about tube arty DPCM (area coverage, bomblet density etc.).
3) Attempt to see if it can be fine tuned (tons and tons of tests).
It might even turn out that the issue cannot be corrected without impairing standard HE effectiviness, making the whole exercise pointless.In any case I will not have the time for the above untill the next winter if that, I am researching other things now.
As it is this issue has been addressed with cost increased.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Just my opinion Marcello but dont know if its worth bothering, you are quite likely to decide all arty should be if anything more not less effective, wouldnt you be popular.
Lots of stuff out there on it even a standard 155mm shell landing within 30m of a tank can cause huge damage to its systems.
Sure Fastboat Pat posted some good ones.
I did a breif test last time it came up which verified my play results, use it then follow up with an attack if its vs MBT there will be survivours unless you are very lucky.
In otherwords use like normal arty & hope the die fall in your favour
Luck/randomness play a big part in this game its what makes it tricky the unexpected happens that strike can be devasting or fairly innefective, chuck in dug in status ERA armour etc lot to test.
In fact did an AAR the unstopable T-80 this guy was a gun magnet hit buy everything ATGMs APCR multiple CM strikes & still zero damage. Got very very lucky with his ERA roles had virtually nothing left.
It was not the fact he survived the arty that surprised its fairly common & was just the icing on the cake, it was the fact he was still around when it fell that was amazing.
And you dont need an ERA equiped tank to survive recently hit a lowly M60 with it for 3 turns landing in or adjacent, managed to make it immobile but it still rallied & killed my tank with an innacurate shot, damn.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

It could be a lot worse if some of the newer US "smart" sub munition delivery systems were modeled in the game.

The aircraft delivered 1000lb CBU-97 Sensor Fused Weapon contains 10 BLU-108/B sub-munitions - each which in turn has 4 "skeet" projectiles. The CBU-97 dispenser opens and ejects the 5 forward, then 5 rear BLU-108/B sub-munitions in a pattern designed to cover a large overlapping area. Each BLU-108/B sub-munition uses a radar altimeter to determine the correct deployment altitude. Once reached it fires a rocket motor which causes the sub-munition to ascend and spin, releasing the 4 "skeets" in a pattern over the ground. Each skeet scans the ground with an IR sensor - if it detects a AFV, launcher, artillery piece, etc. it explodes firing a 1lb copper EFP down into the target. 1 CBU-97 has 40 skeets.

An A-10 can carry 10 CBU-97. An F-16 can carry 4. An F-15E can carry 12. A B-2 can carry 30!

So picture a massed armor formation - say a battalion of Iranian Zulfiqar MBT moving across the desert at night. A B-2 can glide on over, and drop it's 30 CBU-97s at 20,000 feet, cruising at 600 knots, covering the area with 1200 smart skeet projectiles onto 40 something tanks. Not a good day to be an Iranian tanker.

There is also the artillery (155mm, MLRS and ATACMS)deployed SADARM sub-munition which while no generating the volume of projectiles a CBU-97 can, is far more lethal than the standard "dumb" artillery delivered sub munitions.

Adrian

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

They are modelled - a "CM" warhead may well be SADARM or similar. Game result is the same, whether a hundred 40mm HEAT grenades or 3 or 4 MMW guided thingies.

Andy

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

SADARM production has been cancelled after less than one thousands of 155mm rounds were procured (800 or so IIRC but don't quote me on the exact number). The smart submunitions variant of the ATACMS was cancelled in February 2003 before becoming operational.
I have not heard anything about something similar for the MRLS, but I doubt it fared better.
I don't know about how the aviation bombs fared, but at least as far the US Army goes the ax fell on these projects in the early 2000s. There has been only low priority R&D work since then as far as I can tell.

Multiple reasons for the above. First of all masses of enemy armor are not a priority now. Then there is the issue of high cost and, related to that, complexity.
It is one thing to build a bomb and program it to go after a set of coordinates, it is a relatively simple task for a machine.
Building a bomb and program her to recognize and find a tank is a far more demanding taks. It can be done of course, a few of those SADARM rounds were issued to some units during OIF and about 120 were actually fired with some success.
However there are ways a tech savy enemy can use to throw off the submunitions targeting, something you cannot do with conventional submunitions or Excalibur/JDAMs style PGMs.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

CBU-97's were used in OIF with some success and AFAIK are still in production and USAF inventory. The biggest problem these days is a lack of appropriate targets worth expending a CBU-97 on.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

That would make some sense, as noted if the **** really hits the fan a bomber can be armed with them, take off from the USA and drop them in Iran, Korea or whatever. This way the most can be made of a limited stockpile of specialized weapons.
On the other hand artillery rounds would need to be stored ready at hands, which would require a larger number of them to cover all possible fronts or limit them only to campaigns like OIF.
SADARM worked too, by the accounts; nevertheless it was cut in 2001. Lack of urgent threat is certainly the primary issue, but cost and technical reasons may have played a role.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

AT indirect (artillery) fire

I know that this matter has been discussed yet, in this and other threads and so I hope not to bore you; I've read your opinions about that matter, but, analysing the database (v.6.0) I found - IMHO - some incoherent records.

Let's start, as a benchmark, from the AP/HEAT penetration of a 120mm shell.

Modern tank gun HEAT round is generally defined with a capability of 60 (=600mm) or more; modern 'conventional' 120mm mortars, like EFSS, IMI, etc. have no HEAT but a AP Pen of 21. All these shells are 'single' ones; no bomblets at all. But the AMOS e Nona gun-mortar types, having also AP ammos, are granted with CM with, respectively, a 21cm (AP) or 60 cm (HEAT) capability !!! (go to point c)

Now let's go to the MLR class, with CM : MLRS, BM-27 Uragan and BM-30 Smerch. Somebody in the thread said that they have an effect, on tanks, similar to that of the 152/155mm cluster munitions. But, in the database, noone of the above mentioned MLRs have an AP Pen : value = zero; so :

a) they are considered as having only HE bomblets (DPICM, like the M77/M85)

b) they don't damage modern tanks, but only harass / damage them : in my tests, with heavy MLR bombardment vs modern tank formations, I never had a real-complete kill; in the best cases the suppressed crews left the vehicle and/or the vehicle itself was immobilized.

On the other side, there is the issue related to the 152/155mm class CM.

All of them (M109, MSTA, PzH2000, towed variants, etc.) have been granted with a 60 AP pen capability ! I.e., they have sub-muni with the same pen-capability of a whole 120mm HEAT shell.

c) why an AP pen, for submunitions, with so a high value : a 155mm sub-muni with about three times the capability of a EFSS, IMI mortar single round and equal to the standard 120mm HEAT ? It's obvious that with this value (vs the top armor), no tanks could have a chance to survive, if hit.

Note :

d) the standard DPICMs of the standard 152/155mm CM shells (like the M42/M46) are small bomblets like the ones in the MLR rockets - or smaller - with the AP pen value of a 40mm grenade (so in terms of game data, about 5-7, not 60!)

e) only Sadarm like (or the CBU-97 SFW) 'skeet' submunitions could have such a pen value; but they are exceptions (and they had limited production), and not the rule. Moreover, the Sadarm like munitions were deployed in the mid '90, but in the database the "60-AP-pen" is available from mid '80 (M284 & 2A65 with AP
rounds, for ex.).

f) the game engine manages these 152/155mm AT sub-muni rounds as :

- AP for the western gun-mortars like AMOS : AP Pen value = 21; HEAT value = 0

- AP for the US/Western guns : AP Pen value = 60; HEAT value = 0
- HEAT for the RUS gun-mortars like Nona : AP Pen value = 25; HEAT value = 60 (???)

- HEAT for the RUS guns : AP Pen value = 60; HEAT value = 60.

and so the ERAs have effects only vs the Nona / 2A65 CMs; no defense in the case of the AMOS & M284/FH155 ecc.. Why ? One of the russian T-72/80/90s atout is just the ERA's top armour protection. In this way, the CM capability seems to be modeled as the ultimate T-xx killer.

Indeed, I tested 155mm CM vs T-90A and I had a kill/hit ratio of about 90%, but always without any reaction from ERA (and no message like in the ATGM/AGM cases). On the other side, Merkava 4 have good chances (with their ERAs, that generally defeat the sub-munis) vs MSTA+ CM, due to the HEAT value if the russian shells.

IMHO, the AT capability of the 120/152/155mm CM sub-muni seem to be over-estimated, by about a 10 factor (60cm vs probably a 5-7cm in real world, in the DPICM cases), with heavy consequences on the simulation mechanics and on the game play, and - in the case of western guns - thet are treated as AP and no HEAT, without any defence chance by modern ERA. In the case of the gun-mortars, if the AP/HEAT simulates the single-shell, it would be necessary to avoid the CM effect.

thank you in advance for the attention and for any explanation

regards

PS 1 : will it be possible, in the future, to model NLOS missiles (like NLOS Spike) ?

PS 2 : please note that the PzH2000 in the german and in the italian OOB are different, and the german one has a wrong range.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

My 2 cents.

Maybe instead of changing the distructiveness; the number of shots should be limited and with max the cost.

Also, if you play against someone you should set battle conditions and limits. Otherwise you are asking to take a beating.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

These two MRLs use separate weapons for cluster warheads, with weapon class 14 ("Cluster Bomb" - they treat "HE" ammo as bomblets).

Please make sure you didn't test the "standard" version (with class 3 weapon - has normal HE) instead of the "CM" version (with class 14 weapon - "HE" is really cluster, and has higher HE Pen value)

edit: just dropped a bunch of BM-30 on a clump of Abrams, and a bunch of BM-30 CM on another bunch of Abrams - the unitary rockets destroyed some tanks, while the bomblets only immobilised them.
Interesting...

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

I checked and tested both 227mm M26CM, M26A1CM, M30CM (slots 293,206,214) and the russian 220mm CM, 300mm 9M531CM (slots 106 & 102) and all have no AP pen value (=0), nor HEAT, so the bomblets are not able to penetrate armor, only to damage or immobilise (and/or to harass).

regards

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

No, that's not the problem - some experimentation with Mobhack shows they are using the HE value, just as they should.

But with Pen 18 and Warhead Size 2 or 3 they are simply not very destructive.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

AFAIK, the way the game is coded, all AP rounds given to artillery represent cluster rounds. If they have an AP pen but no cluster rounds that just means they aren't issued any AP rounds.

I've seen rockets and howitzers kill tanks, it's just rare because they don't cover the wide surface area that cluster munitions do.

Good point but I think it's irrelevant in practice because real life cluster munitions can penetrate any tank's top armor anyway.

AFAIK the HEAT rounds are only useful in direct-fire. You can't plot indirect fire missions that use HEAT. 60 PEN is similar to some of the better RPGs.

I thought indirect fire never uses HEAT rounds. Only the HE and AP pens matter for fire missions. But then again I haven't checked.

Even if cluster munitions can't penetrate armor, and I'm pretty sure they can in real life, they can knock out optics and send shrapnel into any air filter or viewport on the vehicle, totally wrecking the interior. Any tank would be trashed under a cluster barrage. The problem is the Russian weapons not being powerful enough. Just my humble $0.02.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Perhaps I was not able to underline the, IMHO, BIG issue.

Apart from all my considerations about the values attributed to the different weapons and my evaluations about their realism and the balance between MLR, howitzers and mortars, the BIG issue is very simple : the 152mm russian CM (and 120mm Nona/Vera) are managed like HEAT (due to the HEAT value present in the records) and so the ERA armour of the Merkava like MBTs destroy them, defending the tanks; on the opposite side, the 155mm CM of the western guns are not treated like HEAT (because of the missing HEAT parameter) and they can easily destroy all the ERA top covered T-72/T-80/T-90s.

In the real life, the stratified ERA layers on the top of the AFVs' hulls & turrets have been built to cover exactly that threat.

I think that the present database approach create a not realistic unbalanced situation.

Moreover, it's true that, indipendently from the correctness of the pen-value, the CM submunis in any case have a great possibility to damage/immobilise the AFVs. But it's different (in real life and in the game) to be damaged or to be killed.

regards

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Please compare USA weapon #75 and Russian weapon #111 then look at the "CM" units that use them...

USA Unit #524
Russian Unit #806

..... and then explain to me how they differ as you discribe

??

There IS NO DIFFERENCE in the way they are set up. Both have AP and HEAT values. FH-70's however, only have AP values EXCEPT in the Italian OOB where both values are present . That *may" be an issue and we are checking that but so far the only weapons I have found that is seriously in error is the Russian weapon #229 ( 203mm 2A44 CM ) that has neither AP nor HEAT values BUT DOES have an AP kill value WHICH IS OK AS LONG AS THEY ARE SET UP AS WC14--- however, Russian weapon #229 is set up as a gun that fires both HE and cluster and has now been corrected and we are searching for any others like that ...so far.....none





Don

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Please, compare :

- USA # 042 - M109 Paladin - weapon = 104 (155mm M284) - ap pen = 60, ap kill 48, HEAT = 0

- USA # 678 - M109 PIN ... - weapon = 104 (155mm M284) - ap pen = 60, ap kill 48, HEAT = 0

- GER # 106 - PzH2000 .... - weapon = 112 (155mm FH155)- ap pen = 60, ap kill 48, HEAT = 0

- RUS # 506 - MSTA ....... - weapon = 228 (152mm 2A65) - ap pen = 60, ap kill 48, HEAT = 60

- RUS # 600 - MSTA+ ...... - weapon = 228 (152mm 2A65) - ap pen = 60, ap kill 48, HEAT = 60

and all the system that uses these weapons (and/or similars)

the difference are, as said and as you can easily see, in the HEAT values and in the consequences.

Please, test all these vs top-covered-ERA-AFVs (like Merkava Mk4) : for guns with HEAT value, you will have in the most cases the message : "ERA defeats HEAT"; for guns without HEAT you will have no ERA reactions and quite always a penetration.

IMHO, it's unbalanced, because, as I said

- or the sub-munis are DPICM (very small penetration capability, not in the range of 60cm)

- or the are SFW-Sadarm-like, but with HEAT-like-effects, that could be defeats by ERA.

Moreover, it seems (to me) very strange that MLR in the class 220-300mm (MLRS, Uragan, Smerch) have sub-munis with AT capability incredibly lower than those of the 155mm CMs shells.

regards

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Cluster munitions use the AP pen value for AP ammo (HEAT bomblets) and HE pen for HEDP (also HEAT!) - like class 14 "HE only" weapons.

So any HEAT value is totally irrelevant for indirect - as on map artillery need a HEAT (or sabot) shell for direct-fire anti tank ammunition, because AP is cluster and HE can be as well.

So HEAT is for the full-calibre AT round (if any) for howitzer X when it is used on the map for shooting direct fire at tanks.

We are now reviewing the data for those things for the next release.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

I thought I would share the changes I made to my USA cluster munitions, which I thought were too destructive for my liking (purely a personal preference) in the default OOB, based on the following presumptions about how the system might work:

1. Every hard target in the 7-hex zone is liable to be hit;
2. If hit, the AP-Pen value is applied to each hit;
3. Targets in the centre hex may or may not have a higher probability of being hit;
4. Even if a target is hit twice, each hit is evaluated separately rather than as one hit with double the AP-Pen.

On this basis, I changed the AP-Pen to 7, representing the HEAT penetration value of a single bomblet.

4. Every soft target in the 7-hex zone is liable to be hit;
5. The AP-Kill represents the maximum cumulative damage that can be inflicted on targets in a single hex;
6. This AP-Kill value may or may not be adjusted by the system - the centre hex having greater value than the outers.

On this basis, I changed the AP-Kill to 17. The regular HE-Kill value is 21. I reasoned that 72 bomblets spread over 7 hexes should significantly reduce the explosive and flying metal content per hex relative to a 95-lb HE shell, but that (a) the multi-location explosions in a single hex would partially offset that and (b) such occurring in multiple hexes would still result in a far superior product.

I have absolutely no idea how the system would know how to adjust the probability of a hard target hit if the CM bombload were to be redistributed across a differently sized area, but with my limited experience, I can't see how increasing the AP-Pen would be the way to do it (unless of course my presumption 2 is out-to-lunch).

My corresponding values for the MLRS 227-mm M26 are 7 and 55, based on 644 of the same bomblets distributed over 20 hexes, and I limit my MLRS ammo to one round only.

And the bottom line is that my changes work for me, and Mobhack allows me to make them. Thanks.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Sorry John just felt it had to come back again?!? Left you guys something in the TO&E Thread I think you'll find useful to this "never ending" but I suppose sometimes necessary topic. Sort of kind of like did the East Germans use the T-62 tank(?). Got caught in that one to and got "cured" by someone here to look back into a couple of old threads until I found the final answer myself and posted it. Sometimes the answers are right in front of us or at least the road map to get there. I really think the data will surprise you as it did others who've been here much longer then me. I ask only you keep an open mind, understand there are game limitations and that this doesn't necessarily cover some of the newer more deadly types of rounds out there though most are unitary now. Again the first set of answers are right here in the first couple of pages of this thread. Most post refs to back they're discussion points and not to add "decorations" to them.

Regards,
Pat

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

The bottom line is there will be changes made to CM in the next release. There have been some code tweaks and the penetration values will be closer to reality. The changes will mainly affect newer high end MBT's. If you're T-55's get caught by "steel rain" though, they will be just as dead as before

Don

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

If there are any really overpowered weapons in the game it's the infantry weapons, which are hundreds of times more effective than they are in real life if you take each turn to be 3 minutes worth of fire. I've come to learn that MBT doesn't obey Newtonian mechanics and time and space are relative to what's necessary to create a functioning game.

MBT is an abstraction, if you think that something is severely incorrect you can always play Combat Mission. And even if you were to nerf cluster munitions, that wouldn't fundamentally change gameplay, it just makes artillery cheaper to buy because in WinSPMBT exchange-value equates with use-value.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

We are NOT going to "nerf cluster munitions" The will work just as they always did on soft targets and light armoured vehicle. The only change players will notice will be that tanks that have top protection to counter the affects of cluster bomblets will be far harder to kill and the bomblet penetration numbers will better reflect reality

As for "infantry weapons, which are hundreds of times more effective than they are in real life".....well , it's easy to log onto a forum and make a sweeping generalization like you actually know what you are talking about and it's another to prove the point.

So..... really ?? "hundreds of times more effective" based on what exactly ? US army ammo expenditures vs enemy dead ?

Don

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

I seem to recall a study of wounds made during WW II by the US Army that concluded that 70% of combat wounds/kills were made by fragmentation type weapons (artillery, bombs, mortars, etc.).

So if anything I'd say the game under-rates indirect fire weapons.

*ducks for cover*

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

That's what I thought as well until I've played Vietnam War scenarios and WinSPWW2. Plus in most Cold war scenarios tank rounds are the most common killing weapon (which is also explosive).

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

I actually agree with the changes, I was just referring to the original post and its suggestion that CMs should be toned down. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) I don't think there is any combat experience to examine regarding cluster munition effectiveness against modern armor so we just don't know how well ERA works against them.

Pretty much. In Afghanistan the US is expending 250,000 bullets per kill. Rifle ammo expenditure isn't much better. If you say that's 25,000 per casualty, and a typical section carries 10,000 rounds, then an entire rifle section should run out of ammo before getting a single hit. Either that or assume there's an ammo Humvee following it around.

Likewise during World War II before automatic rifles, ammo was spent a little more efficiently but it was still thousands of bullets per wounded. A US division spent tens of thousands of Garand rounds during a day of combat.

I'm no expert on this stuff but it doesn't seem to click with what I've heard when a typical MBT infantry section carries enough rifle ammo to kill/casualty 20 people (100 rounds at 20% hit chance).

However, it doesn't that much actual difference because of the morale system. If infantry weapons were significantly weakened then it would just be a matter of suppressing the target until their morale breaks and they "retreat off map". If you assume that most WinSPMBT "casualties" represent broken/demoralized/looking after wounded soldiers then I don't know, perhaps the mechanics are realistic. Either that or assume Z-fire is supposed to be used a lot more.

For what it's worth though I think armor and aircraft are two things the game simulates very well.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

A "casualty" in these games is assumed to be anything from an outright kill to a soldier cowing in a shellhole unable to function and everything in between. It represents "Non combat effective" so every man removed from an infantry unit in the game is NOT a "kill" .....that was THE FIRST thing I changed with a hex editor in 1998 when we produced SP2WW2 when a hex editor was the only way to change the EXE.

As well, NO other army expends ammunition like the US Army. They are the exception not the rule.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Important day in MBT history. Thanks for the fix.

Good point. I learned something.

At the same time the game underestimates just how bad some guerilla/insurgent type forces are. The Taliban and Northern Alliance soldiers often went into battle against each other with about five bullets in an AK magazine and nothing else.

It's a world of difference in ammunition expenditure, but perhaps if most armies are reasonably conservative with their ammo they reach ingame accuracy rates. Sorry again for my ignorance.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

As a former US Marine even we found US Army logistic system almost unbelievable in both efficiency and size (mostly size *chuckles*). That's a part of the reason they expend ammo at prodigious rates, they can afford to.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

For armor it's always been use another tank or some sort of anti-tank weapon, they're fairly invulnerable to fragmentation type weapons. That is rather the point of them after all.

Also till about the 1960's almost all armies had far more infantry in them then most "modern" armies do. Less infantry obviously means less infantry casualties.

A good example to look at is the Arab-Israeli Wars of the 60's and 70's. Much smaller highly mechanized forces vs considerably larger less mechanized ones, both armed with fairly similar technology.

Re: Is CM Artillery too destructive?
 

Man, I thought going up against Abram tanks was a *****, but CM artillery is a mega ***** squared! All thoughs that want tactical nukes on the battlefield: in effect, CM artillery isn't much different.