It seems from the discussion that area fire is unrealistic and so efficient that it upsets the game balance. Area fire from artillery must have an effect identical with that of a regular bombardment from the same unit. Area fire from non-artillery guns should be calculated using the same rules and algorithms as that from artillery, but
MGs and rifles can be processed otherwise.
How easy it is for a
HMG team to inflict casualties to an unseen 10-men rifle section in three minutes if all they know is that the enemy is hiding within a hexagonal area of 2165 square meters, compared to the same situation when the enemy is visible?
In reality, I believe,
HMG's were considerably less efficient than artillery as area weapon, for two reasons:
- HE shells have a higher chance of getting through or around cover
- A gun firing HE shells covers a wider surface than an HMG. For example, the casualty radius of a ZIS-3 HE shell is 15 meters, which is quarter of a hex area.
These factors are amplified when the enemy is unseen. When the enemy is in cover the fire is more focused but its effect is alleviated. Imagine an unexposed¹ soldier lying on the bottom of a trench or behind a building wall without a direct-fire line by which a bullet could find its prey except by a lucky ricochet or secondary splinters.
It seems, therefore, that balance and realism can be improved by decreasing the area-fire efficiency of
HMG and rifles, the latter by a higher factor than the former, while keeping the effects of
HE the same, e.g.:
Code:
Weapon Area-fire efficiency modifier
HE 1.0
HMG 0.7
Rifle 0.5
These numbers are only for illustration, because these factors require careful balancing and testing.
¹How to model the unexposed/exposed states of a unit in cover is stand-alone question worthy of a separate discussion.