Is there anyway to get "indirect" fire?

[Palantir]

Hey all,

I have a question I've been meaning to ask.

Does anyone know if there's a way to get real "Indirect Fire" out of on-map SPA's like Hummels & Priests etc?
Some maps are big enough to support this action.

As I can determine it doesn't look like it. Setting an SPA up in command range of a HQ "spotter" for them doesn't seem to work.

It seems to be direct LOS or nothing.

Thanks.

 

[ER_Chaser]

I am afraid you are right, boss

There is no way to set up indirect fire for SP guns.

They are not mortars. There is also no way to set up indirect fire for towed guns either. Only mortars can.

This is really something very limiting in CM engine.

But I can understand the reason, otherwise, those guns would be too powerful and affect game balance. (infantry would be too vulnerable)

 

[Palantir]

Good point, affect balance- maybe & certainly in the time on target aspect.

But, "On-Map" SPA's have way fewer rounds (Max 20-30 usually) than the equivalent guns when used by a Spotter which can have 10 times that number of rounds (which is realistic anyway).

I guess if you want to recreate a situation / formation pretending to have SPA's on a map (that used them as in-direct fire units) you just have to give them spotters with the same guns but include a good number of "Target Reference Points" (TRP's) to give that player some flexibility with their targets, and TRP's only have a 1 minute "time on target" delay.

I wonder which "in-direct fire" option players would rather face (on a large map of course), 2-150mm SPA's with 30 total rounds or 1 Spotter with 100- 150mm rounds?

I'd rather take my chances against the 2 SPA's myself.

 

[The Purist]

Somewhere around here (CMX, I think) I got into this debate with one or two others. The jist of my arguement was that even if the maps is 3 or 4 kilometres wide/long, the guns would be too close to the FEBA to be safe and would probably be displacing to the rear.

The crew specialization training and importance of the assets make them too valuable to be this close to the front. Also, the equipment necessary to establish a battery position (to tie all the guns together) is quite involved and would involve FOOs anyway.

When I was bouncing around in a tank as a young fella, the guns (SP 155s) were waaaayyyy the hell to the rear. They just aren't designed for 'up close and personal' except as a last resort and then they would be firing over open sites.

Cheers.

 

[Palantir]

That's true, but makes you wonder why they put them in (US & German SPA's) if the odds of them ever being used is 1000:1. The Russian SPA's were used as assualt guns as well as ARTY units so I can see their inclusion.

 

[ER_Chaser]

Well, I think basically it is still a play balance and availability (i.e., they are there but you do not have to use them) issue.

As for the efficiency between FOO and SP guns, the difference is huge and they have very very different roles in CM (BB) missions. Comparing mortar with HQ as indirect fire and 80mm FOO, you can see the difference (of accuracy directly and of course, reaction time another).

 

[Redwolf]

Somewhere around here (CMX, I think) I got into this debate with one or two others. The jist of my arguement was that even if the maps is 3 or 4 kilometres wide/long, the guns would be too close to the FEBA to be safe and would probably be displacing to the rear.

The smaller infantry guns were used in indirect fire (as well as direct fire) and have a max range of 3500 meters, even in the CM database.

I think this argument is bogus.

On one hand they hide all kinds of guns from us arguing they were only used indirect, but then they disallow indirect use of guns on the map. Inconsequent.

 

[Lurker]

That's true, but makes you wonder why they put them in (US & German SPA's)

AFIK the Germans would often use anything at hand to get the job done, and occasionally that would include Hummels and Wespes in an AG role. They often used smaller flak guns (20 & 37) as inf support as well and I read somewhere that when putting timed fuses on these rounds for head-level airbursts that the effect was quite nasty.

 

[Palantir]

In cases of emergencies I can see everything being used in any role.

To have players "realistically" using USA/German SPA's in direct fire roles & or as AG's would probably only fit scenarios dealing with surrounded or breakout actions.

But to see them clash in an ME would certainly not be historical.

To have them appear then in a tacical CM scenario with some sense of historical usage & not withdrawing could be resolved by saying that the enemy is moving in the rear and thus they are stuck where they are for better or worse...

But they still should be able to fire indirectly for crying out loud, after all that is what they were built to do. Heck I'd even settle for them only being able to use a BATT level HQ unit as a spotter.

 

[ER_Chaser]

LoL ... Then the accuracy of these indirect fires must be hard to define, boss

Otherwise, it will make them toooo powerful against any soft targets. hmm... maybe it is not that bad either ...on a second thought. They are ALREADY extremely powerful against any soft targets now.... well, maybe ... ok

 

[Wolfleader]

AFIK the Germans would often use anything at hand to get the job done, and occasionally that would include Hummels and Wespes in an AG role. They often used smaller flak guns (20 & 37) as inf support as well and I read somewhere that when putting timed fuses on these rounds for head-level airbursts that the effect was quite nasty.

Ayup. I've even seen pics of Germans using quad 20mm flaks for anti inf role, I'd hate to be on the recieving end of that.

That said though, aside from the wespes I don't find much use for German SP's in anti inf roles (be it direct or indirect fire) since they pack too few ammo in the game and there's no ammo dumps or any means of replenishing their ammo. I find the towed infantry cannons or even the 105mm howitzers to be more worth the purchase points. It'd be nice if we could use indirect fire for these (I'm keeping myself from drooling at the thought of having 8 or more cheap large cal arty pieces with 50+ rounds of ammo apiece capable of firing from a nice safe location) though I've gotten the hang of finding good spots to deploy those pieces where they can bombard enemy units in the direct fire role while keeping a relatively safe distance from the enemy. Particularly on nice hilly maps and where I can put them on a good overwatch position hunkered down in wooded areas or rough terrain.

 

[ER_Chaser]

hehe.... you sure? Leader of wolf? ... They are different, hard to say which is more useful ... but the mobility offered by the SP guns absolutely compensated its small # of ammos :devil:

 

[Wolfleader]

You would get the same mobility by packing the howitzers and field guns on halftracks also. Besides the Stugs, or the very expensive Brumbars, Elefants and SturmTigers, SP guns are still too vulnerable to light AT weapons and anything stronger which further limits their use especially if that involves getting close to blast entrenched inf like say in urban combat or in wooded areas. (Yes, I've lost quite a large number of hummels, Sig 150's and Wespes to AT rifles, light AT guns and bazookas). IMO if you need to blast enemy inf up close your better off using tanks (I find the PzIV's very useful for the anti inf role since they're relatively cheap but not as vulnerable). They pack more ammo and their MG's can frighten off inf units.

 

[Lurker]

aside from the wespes I don't find much use for German SP's in anti inf roles (be it direct or indirect fire) since they pack too few ammo in the game

I'd take a Stuh over a Wespe, but a Hummel packs a terrific punch, even at 17 rounds. Two 150 direct fire rounds going off near a cluster of infantry could have a greater effect then 10-15 75mm rounds. One time (in cmbo) I pounded a single regular rifle squad with 12 rounds of 75 before it finally broke. On the other hand, cmbb and ak are more realistic in the effect of HE on infantry, so a tank might suffice. Still, a 150 causes terror unlike a 75.

Too bad cmbo didn't model Brumbars - wonderful beasts!

 

[The Purist]

Its a matter of doctrine and cost.

Gentlemen,

Whether you wish to accept the reality of the situation is up to you. Yes the 75mm infantry gun used by the Germans was used, on occasion, in an indirect fire mode. Consider, however, that an infantry regiment possessed only 3 platoons (6 guns) of these weapons and their normal role was direct fire in support of the rifle battalions. The same regiment possessed only 2 150mm infantry guns and again, direct fire was the normal method of use.

Of the three combat arms, the artillery requires the most complicated equipment and training and a rifle company or even a battalion did not normally carry on their roles the men or equipment to allow the use of artillery in the manner you would propose.

Artillery is grouped into batteries for the simple purpose that they are 'area' weapons. The men running this battery are highly trained in the necessary mathematics and use of the trigonomic equipment. For this battery to be effective there needs to be a large store of ammunition on hand and this creates a problem of its own when you consider the use of these guns "upfront" The high level of training (to say nothing of the cost) and the expense of the guns and ancillary equipment makes these assets too valuable to be used in a direct fire mode. They're loss in the front line would remove the asset from the entire division

I'll admit it looks very cool to see a Hummel blast a building, but. Consider, also, that a panzer division would only have 1 batery of these SPA (perhaps 6) and that total production totalled a mere 714 pieces and you can see why they would not normally be seen in the front.

Realism and at least a nod to actual doctrine is what sets the CM games apart from the the rest of the RT rubbish out there that claims to be 'tactical' or 'strategic'. A CM player has imperfect knowledge of the situation and imperfect control over his forces,...known to all as "Fog of War". I much prefer the realism, otherwise we might as well all play 'Doom', 'Donkey-Kong' or 'Age of Empire'.

 

[Palantir]

Hi, Some good points Purist, :thumup: but just to create some discussion:

The high level of training (to say nothing of the cost) and the expense of the guns and ancillary equipment makes these assets too valuable to be used in a direct fire mode. They're loss in the front line would remove the asset from the entire division.

The short reply is "SO?" :laugh:
CM is after all just a 30 minute action with no future consequences so why not use everything the "tac commander" has on hand to win the battle. Non-historical sure, but so is the entire 30 minute action (most likely).

Realism and at least a nod to actual doctrine is what sets the CM games apart from the the rest of the RT rubbish out there that claims to be 'tactical' or 'strategic'. A CM player has imperfect knowledge of the situation and imperfect control over his forces,...known to all as "Fog of War". I much prefer the realism, otherwise we might as well all play 'Doom', 'Donkey-Kong' or 'Age of Empire'.

Good points and completely historical. However, why do you think the designers put them on the units purchase screen and not omitted as other units were except for some possibilities they might be used? :hmmm:

I'll admit it looks very cool to see a Hummel blast a building, but. Consider, also, that a panzer division would only have 1 batery of these SPA (perhaps 6) and that total production totalled a mere 714 pieces and you can see why they would not normally be seen in the front.

Yes it is quite a sight to shoot a few rounds into a 2 story building and then see it disappear in a cloud of smoke! And if you're lucky it will be burning too!

But now you have a problem, as you are in fact playing a game. In a "game" why can't you simulate such rare "possibilities?"

Most such games (historical time period games anyway) are simulations of historical actions, not exact recreations of an action. Most said exact recreations are in fact boring as the historical outcome was that way for a good reason.

I assume that players want to play challenging & balanced games where their skill determines the outcome, not an already preset list of conditions that guarantees them victory. And yes most want to change history through their own actions & plans.

But how many players want to play EXACT recreations of battles and play the lossing side knowing they are going to lose? Is the fun in not losing as "badly" as they lost historically? But then you still lose anyway.

"Kursk" & "Stalingrad" were Russian wins for good reasons, so were the Indians victory at the "Little BigHorn," and the Germans victory in Poland. The losing side is historically and realistcally going to lose everytime.

Take the small battle of the "Little Bighorn" playing as Custer suppose the player doesn't divide up his meager forces- {note you have just lost the game as you did something not "historically" done.) Suppose he takes along the Gatling Guns he turned down (note you have just lost the game as Custer did not historicaly take them along.)
So you are not truely "recreating" those battles historically you are "simulating" what might have happened.

Once you change the historical setup, units composition, weather, reinforcments etc. you are no longer recreating the action but simulating it. And once you go off of one historical "thing" who says that by adding a broken down Hummel just now repaired and ready to fight that you are destroying historical accuracy?

The games are meant to be fun to play and if by adding a big caliber SPA that realisticaly say "probably" wouldn't be on the front line can add some fun why not include it?

I know the first time I ran into an opponent using a Brumbar fighting in a town was quite a surprise! :scream:
But it was also fun as heck running around trying to stay alive while at the same time figuring out a way to stop that beast. (Eventually a heroic Engineer ran out and threw a "mine" on it & bang!! It was dead.)

I'd rather play a fun / balanced "semi-historical" scenario than a historical lopsided one where one side cannot win- only "lose less."

I design scenarios (I hope) to be fun first, if you don't have fun playing why would anyone else play it? Then I modify it in all the "semi-historical" aspects.
Setting: could the units I want have been there, was the terrain "there," is the desired situation possibile?
Note- I didn't say "probably" there but, possibily there. And that is what adds the fun elements.

I enjoy getting to use those "rare" and "unqiue" units: there are just so many T-34's and PzIV's that I can run before boredom sets in. And if once in a while I get to run a Hummel or Kingtiger I'm very happy & pleased.

I'm sure everyone has his own ideas and set conditions for playing CM. There are the posted "Rules" about which units you can buy when etc and that is all well and good. As long as you and your opponent agree there's room enough in the CM world for everyone to have good, fun competition!

 

[The Purist]

"However, why do you think the designers put them on the units purchase screen and not omitted as other units were except for some possibilities they might be used?"

Oh, I am not against a Hummel being in a QB or a scenario designed on an actual situation I was simply trying to explain why a Hummel, Preist or whatever cannot and probably should not be able to use indirect fire when 'on map'. I am fully aware that there may have been instances where weapons were not used in their traditional roles, but one should careful not to make it appear common.

"Most such games (historical time period games anyway) are simulations of historical actions, not exact recreations of an action. Most said exact recreations are in fact boring as the historical outcome was that way for a good reason."

Very true. It is incredibly hard to design a scenario based on what was actually present. The one problem I have found with the CM system is you cannot tweak VCs very easily. In a historical situation, an outnumbered or overmatched defending force that lost historically, could have a chance for victory by giving the attacker a strict time limit to win a victory. It would far more interesting to play as the defender if you can hold that crossroads and deny the enemy victory.

Example: The Ardennes Offensive (1944) is full of instances of small roadblocks or groups of engineers holding a crossroads or bridge just long to allow reinforcements to get into a psition further back or other units to withdraw. They were overrun and wiped out in the end but their mission was to delay the enemy, not defeat him. To "re create" this sort of action the designer would probably use a smallish map and a short time line (10 - 20 turns). The time limit would prevent the more powerful attacker from simply standing off and shooting the defense apart at his leisure.

Even using a QB, players can recreate or simulate historical actions without destroying historical accuracy. All it takes is a little reading on what was or was not available to either side, deciding on the action to simulate and sticking to historical equipment. Not difficult to do with the resources available (web and hard copy) including people here on the forum.

The upcoming CMAK Joust is a different situation again. In this case we will be throwing 'history' to the wind with the exception of the terrain and the equipment availbale. It will be done for the pure bloodymindedness of a 3000-5000 point all armour dust-up!!! :horse: :horse: :horse: Great fun, indeed, but not something I want to do all the time.

 

[Wolfleader]

I'd take a Stuh over a Wespe, but a Hummel packs a terrific punch, even at 17 rounds. Two 150 direct fire rounds going off near a cluster of infantry could have a greater effect then 10-15 75mm rounds. One time (in cmbo) I pounded a single regular rifle squad with 12 rounds of 75 before it finally broke. On the other hand, cmbb and ak are more realistic in the effect of HE on infantry, so a tank might suffice. Still, a 150 causes terror unlike a 75.

Too bad cmbo didn't model Brumbars - wonderful beasts!

Ah...yes yes how could I forget the venerable Stuhs. That armour's escorted many of my inf platoons and companies into numerous successfull assaults.

I agree, the 150's are nifty arty pieces for clearing tough entrenched enemy infantry and for taking out those pesky AT and AA guns. All you need to get is AT or AA gun sound contact, just pick the likely spot where that weapon will most likely be (usually rough or wooded terrain) and just bring down a rain of 150mm shells on that spot. Have someone poke around and check to see if that weapon is still alive (re: You get another sound contact of the gun being fired) and repeat again as required (though usually a bombardment of around 4 guns lasting a turn is sufficient.) Only thing more niftier than the 150 is the SturmTiger's 380mm cannon. I remember taking out AT guns and crews with a single shot with the SturmTiger's main gun at close (200 to 300 metres) range.

 

[Wolfleader]

I'd rather play a fun / balanced "semi-historical" scenario than a historical lopsided one where one side cannot win- only "lose less."

I once had a match of Tigers and Panthers in CMAK versus those light 1940 era British tanks. :laugh: :devil: :freak:

And yes it was just a non serious game game to blow of steam and kill a 20 minute break while working on an assignment.

 

[Palantir]

I once had a match of Tigers and Panthers in CMAK versus those light 1940 era British tanks.

In fact your words are still ringing in the air from that match- "DIE! DIE! DIE you pesky little buggers DIE! HAHAHAHAHHAHA!" :devil:

:laugh: :laugh:

I've done that sort of deal to kill time as well, but it was with few great German beasts like the Brumbar, Strumtiger & Stu H42 destroying a town occupyed by a Soviet SMG formation.

They could run but they couldn't hide! :devil:
:laugh: :coolban: