Phalanx weapon system.

[poonblaster420]

I feel there arent many ways to fairly defend your front lines or your reserve locations from huge arty barrages. what if a air defense system like ciws or phalanx could be implemented?

[TwixWaffles]

its already there with pivaads

[Your Guest This Week]

Insane, stop talking.

[Van]

C-Ram?

[busboy999]

I'm 90% sure that those weren't fielded in 1989. Dispersion and survivability moves are historically appropriate.

[EK4892]

Please for the love of god, YES. I refrain from using arty until someone else does. Once they do it is my sole purpose to remove theirs and make them beg for mercy. I get it. Artillery is important. Arguably the second most important aspect of modern combat behind infantry. But it is so tedious how, whether its your push or the enemies, it will instantaneously be shut down by ungodly amounts of artillery. The argument against this however is whether or not such defensive systems fit into the time frame. I don't know if they do.

[busboy999]

Even in modern warfare, there isn't a "shield" against indirect fire. Yes, if you combine C-RAM and Iron Dome you can down a lot of munitions, but it becomes a logistic and attrition issue. Survival against artillery (which is the #1 killer on the battlefield) requires dispersion, survivability moves, counterbattery fire, etc.

Compared to W:RD, the way WARNO addresses it is the ability to call in fewer tubes/launchers.

Counterbattery matters a lot. If you do a good job and kill the enemy's shooters, you can reduce your problems a lot.

[EK4892]

Originally posted by busboy999:

Even in modern warfare, there isn't a "shield" against indirect fire. Yes, if you combine C-RAM and Iron Dome you can down a lot of munitions, but it becomes a logistic and attrition issue. Survival against artillery (which is the #1 killer on the battlefield) requires dispersion, survivability moves, counterbattery fire, etc.

Compared to W:RD, the way WARNO addresses it is the ability to call in fewer tubes/launchers.

Counterbattery matters a lot. If you do a good job and kill the enemy's shooters, you can reduce your problems a lot.

The issue is that any competent player will not allow you a chance to counter battery them. It is very easy to keep your artillery on the move. Just set a waypoint so it moves automatically after it finishes shooting. Even better, set the target, put them on return fire until all guns are aligned and aimed, salvo fire them so they all finish at the same time, then they move via waypoint. Its not hard or complicated.

[busboy999]

Right. Counterbattery against decent players isn't about shooting where the enemy is. Its about shooting where they are going to be. You have to do pattern analysis.

[EK4892]

Originally posted by EK4892:

Originally posted by busboy999:

Even in modern warfare, there isn't a "shield" against indirect fire. Yes, if you combine C-RAM and Iron Dome you can down a lot of munitions, but it becomes a logistic and attrition issue. Survival against artillery (which is the #1 killer on the battlefield) requires dispersion, survivability moves, counterbattery fire, etc.

Compared to W:RD, the way WARNO addresses it is the ability to call in fewer tubes/launchers.

Counterbattery matters a lot. If you do a good job and kill the enemy's shooters, you can reduce your problems a lot.

The issue is that any competent player will not allow you a chance to counter battery them. It is very easy to keep your artillery on the move. Just set a waypoint so it moves automatically after it finishes shooting. Even better, set the target, put them on return fire until all guns are aligned and aimed, salvo fire them so they all finish at the same time, then they move via waypoint. Its not hard or complicated.

I mean this is true, but its not effective. Im not going to establish a pattern with my artillery. Yeah if you manage to get a force attack on my stuff as soon as it shoots and manage to guess which direction im going to send it, you might damage some, but all of that is highly unlikely. I cant tell you the last time i lost any artillery to counter battery. Its just not effective man.

[EK4892]

I feel like this is all a moot conversation. I highly doubt eugen will add them, even IF they are in the time frame. If they did the ciws would have to be short range and only engage rockets or something. Not traditional shells.

[busboy999]

In 1989, I'm pretty sure Phalanx was a ship based system. Land based systems weren't there. Patriot as an ATBM system wasn't tested. THAAD wasn't a thing yet. Etc etc,

1989 was a different era in warfare. Even today no nation is equipping a "shield" against indirect fire in large scale combat. Low intensity combat is a different beast.

So, yes, I wouldn't expect or recommend Eugen model such a capability in this game.

[poonblaster420]

well I am glad at the very least i managed to start a discussion about what is "arguably" a game play issue.