Shell arcing

Doh! Well I reread the original post; it turns out it wasn't suggesting free arcing for projectiles that arc, but for all direct fire units to have a high arc weapon. Well, yes, in that regard, the poster is wrong. Apologies. (Although, probably not for the same motivation.)

BulletMagnet's post seemed to be concerned about the effect of artillery being able to fire in a low trajectory.

Historically, the purpose of artillery is to engage or weaken the enemy from extreme range. How it goes about this has little relevance.

Yeah, my gaff there. I misinterpreted what was said.

That said, if an obstacle is blocking a low-arc projectile, making the range longer won't fix it.

I do notice one immediate problem if we allow direct fire weapons to arc.

Levels of terrain: Group of tanks in a large, sheer cliff-faced pit. Tanks on the top. Tanks on the top can't point their turrets down beyond horizontal, therefore, can't shoot those at the bottom. The ones at the bottom can.

The Abrams tank has a max angle of 45 degrees. That firing arc is there to make the most out of the guns range. It doesn't arc in the sense that is described here ie shooting really high to hit something behind an obstacle.

As for everything else you said, I generally agree with you.

One thing that I don't get about this thread is the notion that a hill is going to be sufficient enough to block a tank shot. I have played supcom1 and 2, although not recently, and I cant recall any situation where this was a problem. Can someone point out a map where this was the problem? Also you do realise that the angle you would need to shoot at will probably be upwards of 70 degrees? At that angle you have an over-armoured, under-powered, under-ranged artillery cannon. You should factor it into your strategy when planning your attack or defence.

Tanks can lower their barrel. Not much, but, with conjunction of lower propelling power it should be enough to hit targets at some range from cliff. "Some range" should be balanced that way so both sides should not be able to hit each other. Also please note, that even modern tanks are using quite "smart" shells and sometimes rockets, so it should be much problem to use some kind of "air-breaks" to fall on target, as primary damage is from shell blast and not from kinetic strike.

It was a problem with small terrain distortions, but not for high cliffs. Probably height-map for calculating line of sight was just too crude.

Sounds more of a map design issue than anything. Interestingly, this is something that alpha and beta testers should keep an eye on. With the proposed procedural generation this might be a problem that will needed to be factored into. It's one thing to have a tactical advantage on hills and another to cripple entire unit types on what is otherwise ordinary terrain.

Technically in your described scenario, the tanks on the top of the cliff would be able to fire in a high trajectory and have their shots come back down just below too. But assuming they couldn't shoot back, are you sure it's a bug and not a feature? If you know you're moving your tanks to a location where they can't shoot back, maybe they shouldn't be there.

The ones at the top can also raise their barrels to shoot down.

In any case: as was just said, don't confuse bugs and features.

Fyi, tanks can angle down (eg Abrams min angle is -5), so direct fire is still possible.

so, a lot of debate here. My 2 cents.

Keep direct fire as is, it works great, units behind a hill are nicely defended.

Allow artillery units to have a very high arc angle, up to 80 deg, obviously, not 90!

However, what i really want is that when i put my artillery on a tall hill, i want much greater range, when firing on things in valleys.

I.e. two identical artillery pieces, could be placed, such that the one on high ground and reach the lower, but not the other way around, that would make high ground tactically advantageous.

i am not sure if SC did this, i don't think it did, i recall trying it and see an exact circle for its firing range, that is obviously wrong.

In that same vein, high artillery pieces would als9 have a longer minimum range, when high up.

As for distinguishing tanks from artillery, i think tanks should be able to drive and shoot, independently. Drive north, shoot west.

Whereas artillery should need to stop, and deploy stabilizers, then shoot, this stopping, and slowing down a mixed group, would be the price for the tactical advantage of range and arc ability of the unit.

Slim

Most of the big tanks in TA do have an arch with their plasma shells.

it would be neat if high ground extended range, i dont know that it would be good in a strategy game or if uber would consider this

Supcom didn't really do anything interesting with it's terrain at all other than having a few mountains/cliffs to block here and there. A downside of that game.

I think what would be really interesting is if units could target other units based on a number of parameters instead of just "range" and "layer". Like, is the gun capable of angling correctly? Is anything inbetween? Is the muzzle velocity/gravity high/low enough? Can I track the target? Does the gun have enough accuracy? Etc.