M777A1 vs M777A2 Excalibur

[Suhiir]

I stand corrected, seems the values were changed since last time I looked (yeah, yeah I know...LOOK don't REMEMBER).
Seems VT "just" has 2x the HE Kill of regular now, at a 33% cost increase (30 vs 40).
Damage in WinSPMBT is a factor of Warhead Size, HE Pen, HE Kill (or AP Pen and AP Kill when appropriate) and only Don/Andy have the formulas (and from some things I've heard about the code even they may not know the EXACT formula).
Nevertheless, so you're suggesting that we make ALL artillery/mortars in the game 33% more expensive?
How about we just get rid of VT instead, a lot easier.

[shahadi]

No I am only suggesting that the VT munitions graphic in our game should be that of an airbust not a ground impact as it is now.

[Suhiir]

The only "airburst" graphic that I'm aware of is the one used for MLRS (one of you graphic guru's can correct me if I'm wrong) and it covers a large area rather then the current "one shellburst" graphic used for artillery.

Not even sure how the game could possibly know to use an alternate graphic for VT ammo as I believe the one for MLRS is tied to it's "Weapon Class", 14, and all 155mm artillery is Weapon Class 7.

[Mobhack]

The original VT battery I did by nature of an experiment way back in the DOS days (it was in the UK OOB) - had the cluster graphic, nil or 1 AP pen, and an upgraded HE kill. I think it had to be the same weapon class as HE cluster MRLS. That all seems to have drifted away as the OOBs got updated.

Quite frankly, nobody used the VT batteries, not even me - and I started the idea off!. They are for punching grunts and most SPMBT warfare is high intensity armoured warfare where you want the HE pen. and IIRC, they were rather expensive as they were cluster ammo?.

So probably the best thing to do is to delete the pesky things - less maintenance and all...

Andy

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

VT is a part of the game and the AI is not as predictable as some seem to think. I don't know if I see more of that because my campaigns tend to run from 19, 21, 23, 25...to 31 games/battles in length; but I'll probably see 2 infantry heavy battles in what's my normal range for a campaign of 19-23 battles. VT for modern armies still exists just by different names and mode of operations to include the modern EXCALIBUR as shown in the You Tube video already provided. Below is a portion of the ref that follows from Dec. 1988 which was a very important transitional year and time period for U.S. artillery. So what did in the traditional VT fuze? The XM773 MOFA fuze. You might not like it and think it to expensive bu in the case of the second a recalculation might be required for the era of the mid-nineties to present based on the below and already submitted refs provided for EXCALIBUR (This includes Russia, UK, FRANCE, GERMANY etc. etc. yeah it's getting ugly fast. From Page 65 of the ref. below.
"XM773 MOFA fuze
The XM773 MOFA will perform four fuze actions now provided by several fuses used with burster-type projectiles. It will provide up to a 199.9-second electronic time fuze, a variable-height proximity fuze, a delay function and a penetrator for up to 12 inches of mortared brick. It will be compatible with all fielded and developmental bursting projectiles for the 105-mm, 155-mm and 203-mm howitzers.

The Field Artillery currently uses 17 different fuze types and models. The XM773 multi-option fuze artillery (MOFA) will reduce this number to two, easing our logistical and operational problems. (MINE: Logistics is also MILSPEAK for MONEY also. For EXCALIBUR they just flat out say it's cheaper.)

The MOFA will replace the following fuzes: mechanical time super quick (MTSQ) M564, M582, M557, M739 and M739A1; proximity (VT)
M513, M514, M728 and M732;and electronic time M767. Fielding for the MOFA should begin in the middle of FY 97."

http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbullet...LL_EDITION.pdf


Now let's get current...
http://www.pica.army.mil/picatinnypu...products19.asp
You might find the "About Us" section useful as well.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

The original VT battery I did by nature of an experiment way back in the DOS days (it was in the UK OOB) - had the cluster graphic, nil or 1 AP pen, and an upgraded HE kill. I think it had to be the same weapon class as HE cluster MRLS. That all seems to have drifted away as the OOBs got updated.

Quite frankly, nobody used the VT batteries, not even me - and I started the idea off!. They are for punching grunts and most SPMBT warfare is high intensity armoured warfare where you want the HE pen. and IIRC, they were rather expensive as they were cluster ammo?.

So probably the best thing to do is to delete the pesky things - less maintenance and all...

Andy

I agree 100%, just get rid of them.

CM munitions cover what VT does pretty darn well and the cost is similar, and with CM you always have the option to fire normal shells.

You could add CM to everyone to represent VT, but that would be a LOT of work.
Or maybe increase the HE Kill ratings of artillery after a certain date to represent the availability of advanced VT fuses, again a LOT of work.
The easy, smart, option would be to not mess with it and just assume artillery automatically uses various ammo types and that's built into the current artillery stats.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

... from Dec. 1988 which was a very important transitional year and time period for U.S. artillery.

You might not like it and think it to expensive but in the case of the second a recalculation might be required for the era of the mid-nineties to present based on the below and already submitted refs provided for EXCALIBUR (This includes Russia, UK, FRANCE, GERMANY etc. etc. yeah it's getting ugly fast.

VERY ugly.
Researching and updating 92 OOBs would be akin to cleaning the Augean stables in the Labors of Hercules.

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

The XM773 MOFA will perform four fuze actions now provided by several fuses used with burster-type projectiles.
The Field Artillery currently uses 17 different fuze types and models.

Fortunately for Andy and Don's sanity WinSPMBT doesn't, and can't deal with such things as fuses except in VERY abstract terms.
Trying to include Copperhead, laser/GPS guided, VT, illumination, chemical, etc. etc. while a GREAT boost to game "realism" would be impossible.
As I mentioned above someone could perhaps research when VT becomes readily available for each nation represented in the OOBs and increase HE Kill ratings to represent it. But I'm sure not gonna volunteer.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

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

[shahadi]

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.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

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.

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

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.

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

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.

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

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.

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

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.