I think the best of both worlds would be to have historical photos for the Battle Group screen ... and TLD style icons for in game.
The small black silhouette icons work well for identifying Teams in game (F5).
I think this is the best, and I think it was used in GJS 4.3, with photos on the BG screen and small but easily identifiable icons on the team info panel.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 12:20 am Post subject: Re: GJS for tLD
Thx again Cathartes but the only round that got close killed the gun thats a worry in it self...in both vids
nice sounds firing and landing of the rounds sweet.
IMHO a min range of 450m! even with large maps is way to big...i am always barking about WW2 data accuracy but in this case there needs to be a balance.
a more realistic approach to mortar behavior sure but 450m worth?
i dont want to be a bad guy here your doing a Fantastic job...just 2 cents
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:56 am Post subject: Re: GJS for tLD
2 cents are what forums are for.
Why should a player always be able to use mortars to instantly fire on almost anything/everything?
You missed the round that landed close and killed a crew member. Also, gun crew/ infantry on ambush and/or prone= less vulnerable to mortars/shrapnel. AT guns operating in the open get their crews killed more often by nearby rounds.
Two narrow examples here don't tell the whole story, but was hoping it would spark some comment.
Universal truth in CC: universal agreement on mortars is impossible.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:22 am Post subject: Re: GJS for tLD
Looks good to me - maybe decrease the shells flight time a tad. With GJS, Meuse and probably Stalingrad coming to TLD, I'm gonna be a very very happy CC player in the next few months years.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:19 am Post subject: Re: GJS for tLD
Many of newer CC games Mortars have been a problem mostly over powered knocking out open top AC and AT guns in a few rounds, anyone who knows anything about these weapons knows without Line of sight your just shooting in the dark (unless you had a spotter with a Radio)and killing of Halftracks and Armored Cars ....was very few indeed...Mortars were a surpressing weapon mostly only useful with LOS.
The US 81mm M1 mortar Minimum range 200 yards German and Russian much the same
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:11 pm Post subject: Re: GJS for tLD
for medium mortars:
capable, stated range of a mortar in no way equals practical employment and effective range in combat, and misinformation abounds.
terrain, tube and ammunition logistics, spotting & fire control, all required employing medium to heavy mortars dug-in from an un-obstructed position. British/Canadian 3" mortars employed in NW Europe were typically kept 500-2500m behind intended targets. Flight time of the shell was realistically between 10 and 20 seconds. Minimum range of mortars was rarely employed unless a desperate, last-ditch attempt to defend a position was required.
Is the flight time decreasing the longer the mortar is firing on a single target?
no, might just be confusing because of the tubes joining in the fire at different times. Flight time is fixed in data regardless of target range or acquisition. But if there could ever be a CC engine that could better incorporate indirect mortar and arty... (we can wish).
regarding mortars:
Dima's mortar data is GT2.0 works very well in my opinion ... please give it a try for comparison. It's effect on Infantry, ATG, HT, AC, and Tanks seems very reasonable.
As for min range ... 200 yards for Medium Mortars and 100 yards for Light Mortars seems to work well too.
Mortars also provide smoke cover, so that needs to be considered. An attacking BG sometimes has a very small deployment zone, which limits the ability to deploy mortars far enough back to provide suppression fire and smoke cover for an attack.
In my opinion ... if you can limit the accuracy and damage of Mortars at min firing range of 200 yards for Medium and 100 yards for Light ... then that is the best solution. This way further distances will be less accurate, but smoke and suppression are still capable at 200 (med) and 100 yards (Light).
Also limiting mortar selection quantities is important. I've put together a selection rules overlay based on Platoon formation. You are welcome to use it as an extra option for players to use.
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: GJS for tLD
Quote:
Dima's mortar data is GT2.0 works very well in my opinion ... please give it a try for comparison. It's effect on Infantry, ATG, HT, AC, and Tanks seems very reasonable.
As for min range ... 200 yards for Medium Mortars and 100 yards for Light Mortars seems to work well too.
Mortars also provide smoke cover, so that needs to be considered. An attacking BG sometimes has a very small deployment zone, which limits the ability to deploy mortars far enough back to provide suppression fire and smoke cover for an attack.
In my opinion ... if you can limit the accuracy and damage of Mortars at min firing range or 200 yards for Medium and 100 yards for Light ... then that is the best solution. This way further distances will be less accurate, but smoke and suppression are still capable at 200 (med) and 100 yards (Light).
Also limiting mortar selection quantities is important. I've put together a selection rules overlay based on Platoon formation. You are welcome to use it as an extra option for players to use.
I like how GT2.0 and Dima have employed mortars--I will take another look. I recall them being fairly benign against infantry in the open, and this is where mortars should shine. There are many ways to skin this cat considering a CC engine that significantly abstracts the use of mortars. I think that limiting mortar selection is one way to go, but I like to option to gamble in certain tactical situations/battles and trade out BG slots with more mortar tubes in order to deliver an unexpected, old-fashioned "stonk".
My criteria for finding a solution to the "mortar problem" have been the following:
1. preserve the impressive power they could deliver against infantry.
2. eliminate their ability to consistently, quickly, and accurately destroy open-topped AFVs and ATGs
3. make their effective employment cost something.
4. limit universal convenience without eliminating threat.
My criteria for finding a solution to the "mortar problem" have been the following:
1. preserve the impressive power they could deliver against infantry.
2. eliminate their ability to consistently, quickly, and accurately destroy open-topped AFVs and ATGs
3. make their effective employment cost something.
4. limit universal convenience without eliminating threat.
Sounds well thought out. I've of course commented without knowing exactly how your mortars work, but since I think mortars need special attention in CC ... I'll add some more.
* = comments
1. preserve the impressive power they could deliver against infantry.
*
in GT2.0, mortars are powerful against infantry in the open and when upright, but much less affected when prone
2. eliminate their ability to consistently, quickly, and accurately destroy open-topped AFVs and ATGs
*
two med mortars should:
a. very rarely disable Tanks, rarely wound crew, low morale loss
b. rarely destroy HT/AC, occasionally disable vehicle and wound crew, medium morale loss
c. rarely destroy ATG, occasionally kill but consistently wound crew, high morale loss
d. always kill/wound moving infantry, occasionally wound prone, high morale loss
3. make their effective employment cost something.
*
a. no paired mortars for one slot
b. limit of three, and available only in slots where higher value assets are selected from (as in Platoon overlay). Forces a player to consider their use via trade off reasoning ... rather than just replacing infantry teams with mortars, while at the same time keeping Tanks, ATG's, HT/AC, MG's .
4. limit universal convenience without eliminating threat.
*
a. limit accuracy and damage, so at least two are needed to be effective
b. min firing range
I understand if you don't want to include the Platoon overlay ... some players don't want to have limits and most aren't familiar with the active roster representing one (real life numbers) Infantry Platoon with weapons platoon ... supported by tank platoon assets. But I prefer using the overlay, and have found it to be effective at generating what I believe is more realistic and balanced game play. Although I realize why the CC active roster is designed as it is ... it could be argued, that with the inherent limits of CC (soldiers per team and 15 slot max) that CC should have been from the start portrayed as a single rifle platoon with weapons platoon assets supported by Company/Battalion assets (Tank Platoon or combination of other support ... Med Mortar, ATG, HT/AC).
just a suggestion anyway ... but will be glad to play without it too
Thanks again for TLD GJS
Last edited by davidssfx on Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:12 am; edited 2 times in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
Illumintion rounds for the night?
