.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Air Assault Task Force- Save $8.00
Bronze- Save $10.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > The Camo Workshop > WinSPMBT > TO&Es
Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 16th, 2014, 05:17 PM
FASTBOAT TOUGH's Avatar

FASTBOAT TOUGH FASTBOAT TOUGH is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Kingsland, GA.
Posts: 2,867
Thanks: 809
Thanked 1,368 Times in 1,024 Posts
FASTBOAT TOUGH is on a distinguished road
Default Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur

VT Fuzes have been used extensively since WWII with the British leading the way with first their AA weapons. For the U.S. it would be the USN leading the way with wide spread use by 1942 with shore bombardment and AA use. The first real use in the USA to any extent was at the Battle of the Bulge were Pattons quote in the first ref. below is related to. Over 22 Million VT fuzes would be used by the U.S. alone in WWII. This does not include the ones used by the UK, Germany and Russia. The "dumb" artillery shell pretty died with the end of WWII. You want a ground impact shell then you set one of the variety (This means many types thus more expensive to use. VT fuzed shells to that purpose. Very simple to do just not cheap! The 50's but more importantly the 60's with advances in technology would improve performance and consolidation (Meaning multi-purpose adjustable VT fuzed shells.) with again the affect being...you're correct lower cost because your reducing manufacturing requirements, labor and logistics (Money.). The 80's and more importantly the 90's would see the greatest impact and in regards to R&D the field an increase in the functionality of the VT fuze mostly in performance. Again doing what? Reducing cost of operations as described above. In my last post how many fuzes were replaced by the M787 fuze? About 9 I believe from memory. Perspective: My uncle after a career in the USA worked at the Picatinny Arsenal until about the mid 80's at that time I believe he said they had around a thousand employees that number is less than 450 now-see the website in my last the one I recommended if you looked at it said check out the "About Us" section. By the way that's where the EXCALIBUR is made. Does anyone see the trend here? The biggest advances came in the 2000+ era. To where we and others have EXCALIBUR now: and I've already posted in here on the cost reductions concerning it in this thread from the USA to include by extension the USMC.

What are we left with...

1) VT
is nothing more then a "term" to describe a type of and family of fuzes used today and in the past (i.e. India started developing their own in the mid-60's.) and has been in widespread use since post WWII and certainly by the 60's in widespread practice. The height adjustment allows for very effective targeting of troops, soft targets (Transport, AA/SPAA, FH/SPA and CB ops.

2) The artillery cost calculus is flawed; the fuze family has gotten much smaller therefore the cost of artillery should progressively be reduced over the decades at least from the point of the mid to late 90's (Or simply 2000.) to present at minimum. Even in CM we're seeing a major reduction in the number of munitions required to be carried onboard a shell because todays munitions are much more effective now than say COPPERHEAD was in it's day. For game play CM works fine on the board but as pointed when last this was a hot topic it is much more effective in terms of coverage then modeled in the game. But again CM is good in my opinion overall for what it's worth. We need to find a lesser cost amount something in the 3/4 area of current cost. CM arty is good as is. VT as I've said is not a specialized round it's an adjustable fuze type on all shells therefore VT should not be in the same price range as CM arty all your getting is a shell set for an airburst.

3) A more realistic cost approach is to attach organic supply units to all artillery as is done in real life. I'm not saying for all types as most off-map arty has sufficient rounds assigned to it to get through even very difficult games but certainly on-map ones should be modeled this way. A mortar platoon would be supported by at least 1 or 2 ammo carriers. SPA/FH for decades has had it's own dedicated organic supply unit like the FAASV or the Prime mover for FH arty which also should be assigned to each FH unit. Real life in this segment is the true cost equalizer. And the beauty of it is all the equipment is already in the game.

4) This arty penalty issue I wish would go away, however, I feel it's here to stay. I think it should still be reduced by 1/4 min. from current levels and maybe by 1/2 if we go real world.

5. I really don't like some of what I see about the AI. When I have time play and much more so in the past the AI can be a tough opponent. It'll take armor or infantry through areas that have already been "pacified" (Or so I thought.) and the next thing I know I've got flags belonging to the enemy well behind my lines, or use airmobile troops later in the game assaulting my rear area flags. Except to get used to the game mechanics for a handful games I always played against it at the hardest level with other adjustments made for a higher level of challenge.

6. This is the core issue also that ties in here with the AI. Where this notion that the AI won't buy this or that because "it costs too much..." is false. My first battle in my campaign SWEDEN vs. RUSSIA I saw the new T-72B3 on the board we just got in the game this year (Again Don looks good and performed very well in combat.) but I think the revelation here is that; yes the AI likes armor however I generally see a good mix and it likes mech troops and here's the kicker a fair amount of arty as well. And this is really my main problem with the arty penalty; the AI is getting hit with it as well (And mind you I had no artillery of any kind.) and quite frankly I see a degradation in the types of units I'm playing against in later in a campaign. It feels like it's getting away from some of its core force make up just a personal observation. This is why I hope some consideration will again be given to 3 and 4 above. I want the AI to play hard the penalty is hurting it's ability to do so.
http://pages.jh.edu/~jhumag/0400web/10.html
http://www.inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa6/fuzes/index.html


Well I'm going to enjoy my delayed Fathers Day at a nice restaurant with the family soon so have a great evening!

Regards,
Pat

Last edited by FASTBOAT TOUGH; June 16th, 2014 at 05:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FASTBOAT TOUGH For This Useful Post:
  #2  
Old June 16th, 2014, 08:45 PM
shahadi's Avatar

shahadi shahadi is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: I ain't in Kansas anymore, just north of where Dorothy clicked her heels is where you'll find me.
Posts: 878
Thanks: 584
Thanked 277 Times in 191 Posts
shahadi is on a distinguished road
Potion Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur

Getting rid of the VT munition opens up another slot, and that in my mind is a good thing.

Generally, I approach the Mobhack and OOBS with the idea of what can I do to simulate munitions that I need for a scenario. What the AI has to work with is frankly, not really of concern to me, as I take the people supporting and researching OOBS and the game's TO&E do a really good job.

Now, I thought the Excalibur has increased range over the FH shells but more importantly, that munition is GPS guided. We really do not need "eyes on target," either a FOO, a UAV, or some other FO vehicle with GPS classed munitions as the Excalibur in real life. I am researching the impact of increased Artillery Command of unit and formation leaders, and crew experience to 255. Thus far, it appears to have improved accuracy without a spotting unit.

However, after reviewing the comments here, I am not confident GPS munitions would enhance the gameplay. So, I strapped a Maverick AGM65L, air to surface, accuracy 115, in the M777. The result was much improved accuracy over the FH munitions without a FO.

The M777 FH munition with ROF at 5 scatters rounds all about a target, rarely hitting the intended HEX without "eyes on." However, accuracy improves dramatically with a FO, and incrementally more with increased experience of the spotting unit.

What I am getting at, it is possible for a designer, and that is my focus, to modify weapons to affect certain desired results. In the case of the Maverick it is far too lethal for a GPS munition Excalibur, but a guy could modify the OOB (not what I like to do) reducing the HE kill, range, and WH, and changing the name to something other than AGM65L Maverick as he releases a scenario.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old June 17th, 2014, 12:42 AM
Suhiir's Avatar

Suhiir Suhiir is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,829
Thanks: 542
Thanked 797 Times in 602 Posts
Suhiir is on a distinguished road
Default Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur

Quote:
Originally Posted by shahadi View Post
...but more importantly, that munition is GPS guided. We really do not need "eyes on target," either a FOO, a UAV, or some other FO vehicle with GPS classed munitions as the Excalibur in real life.
While Excalibur can hit the living room of a house 20 miles away someone still has to have had some sort of "eyes on target" or you have no idea if the living room you want to hit is in house #1, #2, or #3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shahadi View Post
The M777 FH munition with ROF at 5 scatters rounds all about a target, rarely hitting the intended HEX without "eyes on." However, accuracy improves dramatically with a FO, and incrementally more with increased experience of the spotting unit.
This is true for any/all indirect fire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shahadi View Post
What I am getting at, it is possible for a designer, and that is my focus, to modify weapons to affect certain desired results. In the case of the Maverick it is far too lethal for a GPS munition Excalibur, but a guy could modify the OOB (not what I like to do) reducing the HE kill, range, and WH, and changing the name to something other than AGM65L Maverick as he releases a scenario.
That's the advantage/power of the editor.
While you can't modify individual weapon stats with the editor you can use any existing weapon to represent whatever you desire. You can also use existing weapons from ANY OOB (that specific unit must however use ONLY weapons from that specific OOB).
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old June 17th, 2014, 12:28 AM
Suhiir's Avatar

Suhiir Suhiir is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,829
Thanks: 542
Thanked 797 Times in 602 Posts
Suhiir is on a distinguished road
Default Re: M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur

Quote:
Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH View Post
The "dumb" artillery shell pretty died with the end of WWII.
My understanding as well, but as you pointed out India didn't really get "smart" artillery till it started making their own in the 60s. While a good many nations buy artillery itself from whoever is selling, a fair number manufacture their own ammunition because it's cheaper then buying. And this the stickler.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH View Post
2) The artillery cost calculus is flawed ... cost of artillery should progressively be reduced over the decades at least from the point of the mid to late 90's (Or simply 2000.) to present at minimum.
WinSPMBT unit costs have basically nothing to do with real money costs. It's a measure of relative value vs other units in the game.
Since players have a birds eye view of the playing field they can see smoke/dust from firing/moving units and use indirect fire/aircraft to much better effect then reality normally allows. For this reason certain "game balance" features have been incorporated into the design and most importantly game engine updates.
While they ARE annoying to those of us that "play fair" they're needed to "reign in" that ever present minority that don't let little things like reality influence them, then complain LOUDLY the game is broken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH View Post
A more realistic cost approach is to attach organic supply units to all artillery as is done in real life.
100% correct, but unfortunately the AI has absolutely no clue what to do with ammo resupply units. This is why they're never included in default formations. Players however can buy and use them correctly and to great effect.
And even here some updates to the game code have been needed; once upon a time it was possible for a helo to hover over an ammo resupply unit and have unlimited ammo, these days they need to land to rearm. Again, not something those that "play fair" are really bothered by, but it was another point the minority used to claim the game was broken and unplayable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH View Post
This is the core issue also that ties in here with the AI. Where this notion that the AI won't buy this or that because "it costs too much..." is false.
The AI won't generally buy expensive unit types WHEN THE SCENARIO POINT TOTAL IS SET LOW, say 2500 points.
Since I like to field an entire MEU I set the scenario limit to 50,000 points, thus I see the AI field mostly of "first line" unit types. Or when playing vs infantry centric opponents (PLO, Mujaheddin) hordes of infantry that would make Chinese proud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH View Post
It feels like it's getting away from some of its core force make up just a personal observation.
Unless you're playing a player-made campaign the AI doesn't have a "Core Force", it buys entirely new units at the start of each and every battle.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Suhiir For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.