Shell arcing

True enough I suppose, its still worth talking about in my opinion, even if its just to cover every base.

Tanks having an angle from 0 to 40 degrees, Artillery having an angle from 35 to 75 degrees.
Tank shells travel faster, Artillery shells have a batter AOE.

This sounds like it might be a batter idea, giving artillery the option to throw out a shell to a target at a lower attitude so it gets there faster, and tanks the ability to arc over smaller obstacles like buildings and such.

+1 to the OP's idea of artillery being able to lob shells in a high trajectory to go over high terrain; that is a feature that is well overdue. For a fixed force, there are two trajectories that will get a shell to a location (except for the trajectory for maximum range) and both are equally valid.

As for artillery units being able to switch between indirect fire and direct fire, that ability has existed for a long time and still exists in current artillery. Suggesting that PA artillery shouldn't have that abillity is just plain silly. Some examples:

"While the doctrine discouraged direct fire, U.S. artillery was always equipped with a sight for direct fire." (Article at http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/ ... 80115.aspx)

M109 self-propelled artillery doing direct fire exercises: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV6TQYLNQdQ

Towed artillery doing direct fire exercises: http://www.military.com/video/guns/arti ... 311202001/

jap, the OP wants ALL units to be able to use a high arc Traj, not that just arty can switch.

Mike

Really? That sounds like a bad idea, then.
Having some (most?) artillery units being able to do both makes sense and is quite nice to have, but it would be a bad idea for units like tanks. For one, it would look silly.

Oh, another “real life” chump, lol.

I see a lot of users arguing here from the perspective of Supreme Commander's method of unit balance and why it wouldn't work in that game. It's important to keep in mind that this will be a different game wth a likely different method of unit balancing.

I agree with this; for sure we dont want units which idiotically fire into a hillside and I think that better pathfinding/terrain detection would go a long way towards this.

I think it is important to have pretty well defined tasks for units and not have too much overlap in their niches on the battlefield, otherwise it risks becoming too homogeneous.

Well I now do mean more of a "high" angle for normal units, like 45 degrees.

With artillery having a minimum angle of something like 35 degrees.

Of course tanks will preferably direct fire their guns, but giving them the option to arc their shells over small terrain features but at lower speed.

Doesn't that sound like a fair idea?

No. It blurs the line between unit roles and is a hack way of stopping units from firing into hills, as I said earlier, better terrain detection and pathing to avoid it is a better solution.

Mike

Are not the roles of tanks and mobile artillery already different?

With tanks being direct combat units and artillery being long range AOE attackers (Shell using artillery)

I don't see how it would blur the line between them, if you would care to elaborate as I don't quite understand the problem.

Did you not read the thread or something? it's been made very clear several times, allowing direct fire units to fire over obstacles using a higher arms trajectory does start to overlap with artillery units, which use low and high arc trajectories to fire over obstacles.

This isn't about range at all, it's about trajectories and how it affects the weapons usability when considering different terrain limitations.

Mike

Exactly, I don't want hilly terrain to eliminate the effectiveness of normal units, I want them to have some leeway over small terrain obstacles.

At no point did people say how to counter the problem of small terrain obstacles blocking a units shot when really a short arc would be perfect.

Artillery's purpose is not its arc, even mobile artillery in TA had the same arc as normal units, its purpose was to deliver long range AOE attacks, the angle of fire is typically height then normal units so large obstacles are no longer a problem to its range.

:| I still don't get the problem with this, please understand that I honestly think this is a good idea.

Il start by admiting that i havent read the whole thread.

Artillery is a long range support that mostly ignores terrain (Kinda its point).

For normal direct fire units, wouldent it be better to improve the AI so that the units move so that they can fire (Moves into a position were they can fire on the enemy without hitting a hill)?

That would mean severly limited range for direct fire units in hilly areas, but thats a good thing in my opinion, gives you a strategic option to fool direct fire units into a area were they are weaker (or flee into a hilly area to avoid getting easily destroyed by a large amount of direct fire).

Also, let's remember that a lot of 'direct fire' units will have straight line projectiles ('lazors'). I see most tanks as having a ballistic projectiles with a very short arc, so it almost works like a lazor. Also, I see them as having very fast projectiles, to better hit moving targets. If they can fire at 45°, it would mean that they would have either a huge range (then they're artillery, not tanks) or that projectiles have a limited duration (meaning that it would still have to use direct fire anyway).

Well just because it can fire at 45° doesn't mean it has to have a huge range.

No, but a high angle combined with fast projectiles means huge range.

It would be nuts if they could fire a projectile realy fast in a straight line but they cant when at a angle (I will even go so far as to say that it would realy break immersion for me).

If you slow all there projectiles down and add a angle its basicly the same as artillery.

In function, but not purpose, and the kick starter video showed the shells moving quite slow as I recall.

Artillery is designed for fire support not its angle, the angle just helps its purpose.

But most projectile weapons in games like this travel quite slowly, so even a 30 degree angle would be a great benefit in rough terrain.

Jesus H Christ. It’s not a “problem” it’s a FEATURE. There is no point having simulated projectiles if terrain ISN’T going to block shots. The whole point of this is to make terrain dynamically important (as opposed to say, SC’s minor range buff or DoW’s static cover buffs). If your shitty idea came to pass, terrain would become virtually pointless.

Bad and wrong.

But the terrain will, small bumps in the road shouldn't, especially at the level that PA will be playing at. Terrain will still impede visual range, and will make hitting moving enemy units much harder.

This 'feature' is not an especially good one if intended, as it would make firing up a hill impossible as well.

So it is still a problem.

Don't you get it. If you're in extremely bumpy terrain don't bring direct fire units. That's your strategic choice to **** up. If you make every unit capable of parabolic shots then you're removing another strategic element.

SHEESH.