Feature requests for 2019
 

1. Can we get a GoTo button in the Campaign Editor? For use when you need to add scenarios to the campaign node. It would be nice to have a GoTo to click and then select the scenario slot to choose from, similar to the Scenario selector, and also the Editor scenario selector and map selector's GoTo button.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

I'll put it on the list but the list is already long

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

While we're at it could we please allow arty below 155mm (down to, say 105mm) at least an outside chance of causing casualties to dug-in units? As it now stands it's pretty much pointless to have even 152mms blasting away well beyond the beater's advance in an assault. Even if they manage to suppress enemy units into retreat or rout the craters they create usually give the exposed squads, teams or crews time enough to recover. Thanks.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

...on the long list as well for discussion......BUT arty needs to be liberally applied to dug in troops. Lots of historical examples of long arty barrages that did not do what they were intended to do.... Now if you can stonk the area and get armoured infantry in there while the smoke is still clearing and the dug in troops are in route/retreat.... then you can do some damage but the timing has to be just right

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Didn't mean to suggest that arty was a panacea which can drive out dug-in troops by itself. Just to relieve some frustration attending repeated mass barrages which have no effect at all save increased suppression. Even a medium mortar (81/82mm) can get lucky once in a blue moon, although setting the floor at cratering 120mm might be more reasonable given the game's shorter time limits.

Anyway thanks for taking it under consideration, along with your (and Andy's) ceaseless efforts to improve this already wonderful game. Cheers!

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Would it be possible to get a delete button for the scenarios page like the one for saved games? I have downloaded a lot of scenarios over the years that I don't care about playing again or no longer work with the current version and this would be an easy way to clean them out.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

I will add it to the list that's only a promise to consider it

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Sort of see where you are coming from but causing the odd casualty will not make much difference overall unless perhaps its a crucial team.

Long barrages do work, talking 5 plus turns if you can afford it & the time but as mentioned best bet is to throw everything at an area for 1 or 2 turns and assault.

MBT later dates you have other options due to the lethality and accuracy of some weapons allowing stand off when assaulting but WWII arty is absolutely your best friend when assaulting. Needs planning due to call times and there is never enough but works well enough if get it right.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Personally I have not found this to be the case. To the point I have been playing a small US infantry company with attached Sherman platoon campaign game, and when I can afford 155, they are devastating to the Germans, its almost like cheating when I hit a dug-in area for 3-8 turns and then walk up and kill off the rest. Arty is pretty powerful when you use it correctly, even 80mm+ mortars are great at not only suppressing units they also usually have smoke.

Just my observations.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Artillery is an attritional weapon - in order to achieve killing effect, especially on dug-in troops, it needs to be applied over a significant time. In the game, that means like 5 moves plus of application. And quantity has a quality all of its own WRT arty, and size does matter.

Lesser applications will produce a significant suppressive effect, which can be exploited with an assault into the stonked zone within 1 move, maybe 2 in order to sweep up the stunned troops who will likely be cowering in their tranches in "retreat" status. That is effectively "neutralised" in army parlance - routed (or severely suppressed) troops in trenches will tend to stay in these, rather than run out into the barrage. They may run if they know of enemy within 5 hexes or so though.

So if I am assaulting, I lay on the arty where I think the enemy is, and either run tanks with riders or mech inf into the zone, even walk in sometimes. The key here is control of the arty since you are "leaning into the barrage" by keeping very close behind it, so stray shells may wander into your assault group - so it is best to have a FOO right up with the attackers, using an AOP AFV (APC or FOO tanks say). In MBT you have FOOS with Thermal Imagers, or Ground Surveillance radars who can spot through the smoke and dust of the barrage - very useful.

Mechanised infantry,or tank riders, have the advantage that the carriers can stay that bit further behind the barrage compared to walking grunts, and then run in and poach the objective.

But if you just pound the ground and expect the enemy to be slaughtered - that wont happen. See WW1 for days-long barrages that left surviving defenders able to get their act together when the barrage lifted and set up a "reception committee". German storm-troop tactics, and the Canadians who were prime exploiters of "keeping right up with the barrage" tactic and so got in while the enemy were still neutralised did better in WW1 with quick neutralising barrages and then in with the bayonet ASAP.

So combined arms - neutralise with shed-loads of HE bricks, which do not have to be high-calibre "cratering" ammo, smaller sized HE is better for the troops leaning into the barrage in fact since drop-shorts are less lethal and the blast circle is smaller so letting dismounts get closer to the barrage line (which is why the 25 pounder was designed post WW1 by the UK). Then in with bomb and bayonet for the kill, using mechanised transport if you have it.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Just an observation, why not just increase the artillery effectiveness in the preferences? That would seem to be the solution right? I play at 100% but for some people it can be different.

It says in the manual...

This game cannot be all things to all people. There are far too many differing opinions on what is 'realistic' and what makes a fun playable game. Satisfying one segment of gamers is sure to alienate another. Also, please define 'realistic', that is one of those 'how long is a piece of string' debates. To some folk, realism is micro details of millimetres of armour and exact slope angles, or how much extra water an Italian division needs to boil pasta (as factored in one actual cardboard wargame!), or the exact model of bolt action rifle carried. Generally, those who worry about micro details like armour angles and exact thickness in millimetres tend to be from the civilian 'armchair general' side of the fence. Those with real military experience tend to define realism in terms of command and control, and how much intelligence is given away for free, 'fog of war' factors. Military-experienced folk worry less about exact rifle type, and more about morale, training and leadership of their men. Armchair types worry about exact TO&E charts, and declare a game 'unrealistic' if the supplied formation is not to the exact field regs, and not at 100% strength. Military folk would be amazed to find a unit anywhere near 'paper' strength, and with all its vehicles present on the battlefield as 'runners' rather than being in the repair shop, broken down in a ditch on the approach march, or just plain lost or skiving!

During playtesting we encountered this on more than one occasion where some would say a game feature was too little, some would say too much and some would say it's just right. (We knew we had finally reached middle ground when 'angels on pin heads' type debates started).

When SSI originally released Steel Panthers 2 they included a Preferences Screen to allow the end user the ability to modify various elements of the game to suit individual tastes and abilities. We have noticed from our e-mails that many people quite simply do not understand the functions of this screen or how it can change the game to suit your particular style of play, or even that it exists, in some cases. We have had a multitude of "suggestions" ( or in a couple of cases "bug" reports!) for code changes that can actually be made simply by adjusting a control in Player preferences.

We have made the preferences screen available from more points in the game now, this is both because it can be handy to turn some things, for example- individual unit ID tags, on or off, but also, some end users may just notice the new buttons :-> !

Reality settings are your call, not another person's. Tweak these settings until you get the game performing the way you like it, should you find the default settings unrealistic, or too easy or too hard. Of course, in a PBEM game, you may find you may need to discuss these matters with your prospective opponent!

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Arty is fine against troops NOT dug-in IMHO so wouldn't want to upset the balance otherwise. The advice given by yourself and others is sound; the game cannot be all things to all people and there are ways to use arty below 155mm effectively to suppress, possibly rout dug-in units.

No doubt I'm being persnickity but my particular objection is to a mere 3 millimeters of difference which excludes the Russian 152mm from that caliber of arty which CAN cause casualties in this situation. As zovs66 notes, "when I can afford 155, they are devastating to the Germans, its almost like cheating when I hit a dug-in area for 3-8 turns and then walk up and kill off the rest." So if 155mm is devastating, 152mm is not?

At any rate the game is great the way it is, wouldn't want to mess it up with incessant fiddling over personal pet peeves. Thanks for your kind consideration folks and have a great day. Cheers!

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

When playing as the Germans I like to buy 105s and as the Brits it’s 25 pounders and as Russians I buy 122s they all work well for me. Perhaps you can run a test and try upping the arty to 125% and 150% to see what devastation that can cause?

I use it at 100%, and for 4-8 or more turns.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Not interested in upping arty (also use it at 100% as with all other preferences) since IMO it's fine against infantry in the open or in regular terrain cover and buildings.

Since dug-in infantry, often armor, come out of their foxholes or prepared positions in most assaults once you've taken enough VPs, the case for under-155mms being able to inflict casualties on dug-in troops is rather moot. Just a suggestion that nobody else seems to support.

Feedback wins the day, and I concede the point.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Here is another request.

In the editor can we get some added functionality for the visibility button?

Like when you hold down or click up to change the value it scrolls up and down for a value without releasing the button.

So for example it starts at 70 by default but I have to press it 61 times to set the visibility to 11.

Or a field to key in a value?

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Important future ability in scenarios

Weather effect’s

That is possible now of course by manipulation of visibility during scenario creation but will be great to have button in editor with some prepared weather configurations now we need table. Something like rain, sunny day, night with fog etc. During play of the game will be great to have small part of panel showing what type of weather we have as a graphics or as text for example: rainy day short visibility 30hex or as a sound played on the beginning of every turn. The best will be to have dynamics weather effects like scenario designer can for example prepared rain after turn 12 until turn 30 that will be a game changer in some scenarios. Of course that last will be not trivial task to coding but will made game more interesting and challenging if will be used.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Well I would really enjoy a slider in preferences to adjust artillery suppression I think casualties is about right at 100.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

I have a feeling that unspotted AI units are completely unaffected by artillery fire. I have several times put a barrage in an area, and when I reach it the next turn with my troops, I spot enemy infantry in ready status. Is it my imagination or could it be a bug?

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

No bug. Countless times I've bombarded certain hexes "blind" just ahead of forward infantry ("beaters). Most of the time, if my infantry haven't been too suppressed by their own barrage, they advance to find mostly suppressed enemy units. This generally occurs with a rolling barrage along a specific frontage. The arty is plotted about every 100 meters about 150-200 meters ahead of the forward infantry along the front. (That's with medium mortars; 81/82mm. Heavier stuff is targeted further ahead.)

Of course there's always the chance that an unspotted plot will miss its intended destination, in which case there's a fair chance the enemy will still be OK. Stuff happens. Hope this helps.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Just a note on artillery fire effects. Have a good look at this site.

http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm

table 5 is what we are talking about here.

For a 25 pounder the table says that BEFORE you begin to have ANY effect on the Morale of troops you need to drop 100 rounds per minute of 25pdr for 15 minutes in 10000 sq yds. That is 25 shells per hex per turn.

I did this, I put 1945 German infantry in trenches and shelled them with a light batterie (48) this gives an average of 13 shells per 4 gun 119 artillery troop landing in the target hex, this gives the required weight of shot.

All the target squads were at 99 suppression at the end of 1 turn, ie 3 minutes, There should be NO morale effect until they have sat out 5 turns of this shelling.

The site also says this,

The morale and neutralisation data need to be treated with caution; the evidence for achieving the defined demoralisation in 15 minutes was based on a single operation, at Wesel, during the Rhine crossings. Before this it was thought that at least 4 hours were needed.

Artillery suppression effects (Or maybe suppression effects in General) in the game are WAY too high can we please have an artillery suppression effect adjuster in preferences or maybe make Artillery suppression conform to some real world Data?

This Super Suppression means Artillery is the answer to every problem in the game. I think it makes the game far too easy, Shell mop up, shell mop up.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

I do not think suppression is too high, after all, there has to be a meaningful way to use combined arms in the game without waiting for 5 turns of artillery fire.

What I do think is too deadly with artillery I the game is its effect on light armored vehicles. Half tracks and SP guns are dead meat when caught by artillery, which is one thing that makes these units much less survivable in game than in reality.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

The recent fighting in the Ukraine shows what happens to light APC caught in an artillery concentration. And these modern APC are not open-topped as WW2 ones tended to be. Even T-72 are disassembled. The survivability of armoured vehicles to some extent is their ability to move out of a falling concentration, rather than stick about and get attrited.

If you think arty is too good, then you can reduce the arty effectiveness in the preferences screen.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

As Mobhack says artillery is lethal to light vehicles in real life, look it up if anything the game could be slightly more lethal against them. Near miss will do it no need to hit it. Big artillery and tanks can get wrecked by a near miss never mind light vehicles. Check photos on the web light armour protects only from a distant strike, close strike will shred it and could even throw a light vehicle like a rag doll.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

https://imgur.com/gallery/gIjCo

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

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Thanks for the links. Interesting.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

...we are discussing ( discussing....not committing to ) adding further damage affects to targeting and RF subsystems along with bringing back running gear ( tracks, wheels ) damage . "Track" hits were allowed in the original game but the code for it created odd situations and if ( IF ! ) we do summon the enthusiasm required to make this work it will in the next update...and if not...not. The first focus would be arty effects..if that works out maybe it might be expanded. If your billion dollar hi tech tank catches a full burst of 30mm autocannon there should be a chance that million dollar RF might be shredded... but as I said this is only at the " to discuss" phase for Andy and I when we work up the interest to start code work again.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Another feature request (understand it just may not be possible, but throwing it out).

From within the game and it seems from with in ScenHack we have the following data points:

29 chars in Scenario Location Name in ScenHack in the Scenario Data dialog box
32 chars in the Scenario Name in both ScenHack and the Editor in game
32 chars in the Scenario title name in both ScenHack and the Editor in game

Here are some screen shots:

ScenHack (29 chars):
https://i.imgur.com/FqUC9iV.png


When saving a scenario (32 chars):
https://i.imgur.com/QHC2clq.png

In the map editor (29 chars):
https://i.imgur.com/THMqjgY.png

From within the editor (29 chars and 30 chars from two different spots):
https://i.imgur.com/dvIr5Wo.png


So my first request or question is could we get more than 29/32 chars? 40, I don't know (what I am doing for my scenario creations is using the name of the scenario followed by the month/year, so Some Scenario Test Title 4/44 for example). Second question is why is it different from one to the other, more I am just curious, and guessing it has something to do with screen size or space.

I think the biggest issue I have is when I use a location that is very, very long (yes I know don't use it) then it won't show up quite correctly.

One scenario as a case in point uses: Along the Chemery-Bulson Road, France and I understand that I can just omit the 'Along the' part but I have some scenarios where it may (or may not) look cool within the game to see: Along the road, 7 kilometers SE of El Agheila, Libya and yes I also put this information in the text file as well, hence why I am using this post as enhancement request type of thing.

Anyway thanks for listening.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Changing a field means a new save game format, so every save game, scenario etc would need remastering. It also has code issues since various screens will new rewriting to allow th extra characters. And then the new long string likely wont fit into some user displays, requiring user interface rearrangement, which is one of the most tedious things to get right.

Changing namestring[30] to namestring[40] is a 2 second job in C, but that leads on to a heck of a load of consequences in an existing code base and data set. Trivial if it was done right at the games inception, but not when its existing ossified code and data.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

The way I understand it is this:

The code reserved a space up to the limit ( lets say it's 25 for now ) and after that is more code probably unrelated to that previous code and that code expects to find the info it needs at that spot.....if we allow more text then NOT ONLY do we have to make sure every place that text string is used still fits in the old space available with the increased number of characters but MORE IMPORTANTLY...... now that code that comes afterward that expects to find code starting at a specific point......now finds the tail end of the expanded text string .......and then things go downhill from there.

We could try it as an experiment to see what goes wrong but sometimes what goes wrong doesn't show up right away. I have MANY times wished the unit name could be 16 characters instead of 15 so I have heard the reason why many times in the past 20 years

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Thanks fellows! I figured there were some kind of coding madness involved. If it free and easy yeah, if not I get it, many thanks.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Is this supposing direct hits only or to simulate near hit because the tests quoted in the article seems to envision a caliber and rounds per fire mission count that only a few game units would qualify for...


"The first test was conducted in 1988... An M109 155-mm howitzer battery...The test was fired three times using 56 HE rounds..."

"...The third test was against a simulated US mechanized infantry team in defensive positions. The target area consisted of a forward defense area with a tank ditch 250 meters long...For this test, a 24-gun 155-mm battalion ...achieve the Soviet criteria of 50 percent destruction...three iterations of the test required 2,600 HE rounds ..."

Such levels of fire concentration require a target not leaving the beaten zone. Armor's traditional reaction to arty is to move, a reaction the AI does not seem to emulate well when in a defense game. Defensive tank positions are usually open in the rear so a unit can simply pull back a few 100 meters before returning to their firing positions when the barrage ends.

Several of the pics in the article seem to be from the tests, not actual on the battlefield occurrence.
Also, in my humble opinion articles published in Branch orientated journals are written my mid-grade officers to get academic credit for their career development and usually envision their chosen specialty as the primary force upon the battlefield.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

This sounds like a great addition. Thanks for the info!

Maybe a stupid question. Tanks can already be immobilized by artillery. What will the difference be?

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

As I said this is at the " on the list to discuss". Yes tanks can be immobilized and occasionally lose their main weapon to damage. The idea that will be discussed involves damage / degradation to FC and RF systems IF a way can be found to simulate that damage so that it is something that happens occasionally, not regularly and it would be by necessity, an abstraction and something that could occur along with immobilisation and main weapon damage OR as individual events unrelated to immobilisation or main weapon loss.

Those articles were presented to illustrate that tanks ARE vulnerable to artillery as already simulated in the game NOT as a template to further changes but the idea is to make some of these other subsystems vulnerable that are not now and probably should be.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

I know it was posted somewhere but I can't find it now. We were discussing the Allied/Axis type of Victory Hex markers as a possible thing.

I just wanted to throw that here so it was not lost.

I have an upcoming scenario set in North Africa where it looks like:

Axis [Germany/Italy] (Advance) vs. Allies [ANZAC/Great Britain] (Delay)

If we did have split icon's that would be really cool for this scenario. (just cosmetics)

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=52027

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

If possible this would be a great addition with modern equipment.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

If anyone has experience with the robustness/ fragility of some of these systems let us know what you know so we can fine-tune it ( IF we decide it's feasible ). I'd be especially interested in knowing if with these high-end systems that something like FC or RF degrades .....or just quits

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

So been editing scenarios a lot and here is a useful (at least for me) feature I'd like to suggest.

In the Set OBJ screen
When you click move cursor to next victory objective (or using the 'n' (hot key) same functionality with previous victory objective), could we get it so that the red hex outline automatically indicates/surrounds the just selected next or previous objective hex?

Note that the Move Cursor to Victory Objective Location does have a hotkey ('o') but it's not displayed on the bitmap icon like the n, p, v, a and s are. Just discovered mr. 'o', after 100 scenario edits...lol

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Yes but when you mouse over it , it does tell you...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/attac...1&d=1540576923

Yes, doing the N+O as one press probably would save some time and make more sense. I'll put that on the code list

However, now that you've learned the N - O "trick" is it really necessary? I learned to N+O and just do it as a natter of course when I move around V hexes

That said also consider that you have done more of that in the last few months than most do in a lifetime:D

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

I'd say fry the bigger fish and if it easy to pop in then yeah, if not, I (now lol) know the N/P + O trick and am happy camper.

Hopefully I'll have more lifetime to create/build more :D

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Dunno about targeting and RF subsystems but IMHO the frequency of mobility kills is fine as it is, especially when considering the possibility of "odd situations" when coding for running gear damage. Just my two centavos. Thanks.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

My feature requests (though over the years I've heard them dissed by the dev/owners of the game/brand):

1. One, I've requested in kind a few times over the years, an online Hotseat format. If that means a formal hosting service affiliated with Shrapnel or whoever hosts or some player group together and are able to host it securely themselves. I WOULD value being able to log into a hosted game and play my turn on a system where players CAN NOT have any access to the game files. I'd value highly playing this game where myself or others can finagle/look inside of/mine/etc with the game files at all. I'd also like a simple messaging system to generate an email or text message when it's my turn as well as other well thought out features. But above all, PBEM play where players DO NOT have access to game files.

2. Secondly, I'd like to see it possible for immobilized vehicles to "repair" themselves and become mobile again given some time/turns.

The next two harken back to a previous incarnation of Steel Panthers: @JEB Davis

3. I'd like to have an option to play the game with the old fashion but fun at times Command and Control feature.

4. Lastly, I'd also like to see the return of platoon leaders and individual artillery pieces be able to call in artillery strikes, even their own if applicable. And I believe that feature gave the artillery pieces calling in their own strikes a time bonus (reduction). And of course spotting target hexes would still be beneficial as with other spotting units.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Am I missing something? Platoon leaders and Artillery CAN call in artillery strikes...

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

An artillery unit can't call in it's own missions unless the Spotters button is turned off in Preferences.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

@Felix Nephthys Thanks for pointing out that supplemental point. To be clear to others, I was aware of the 'Spotting' option to be toggled on an off and value playing the game with spotting option turn on. My earlier point made was more for ALL arty pieces to be able to call in strikes from their own side's forces including their own unit. Memory also recalls that when an arty unit calls in their own unit's strike that a time advantage was afforded.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Artillery can already call its own fire missions and does so quickly by Z firing a spotting round, now switch to the bombardment screen and plot it.
Main use for me is mortars with a LOS or supporting troops in close proximity.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Just came to think of this. We had spare prisms for the main sight and for the observation ports when I was in tanks (Centurions). So even if the optics are damaged by splinters, they are easily repairable. Replacing the prism can be done from inside the tank. Just slide the old one down and insert the replacement. Of course there is not an endless supply of prisms, but still, there is redundancy against splinter effects.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

In reply to

1/ The reply to this request..which only you make..is the same as it has always been......we are NOT interested and AFAIK nobody else is either. To make something like that work needs a very large pool of potential players and this is a niche game not WOT.

2/ Tanks that have become mired or disabled are normally IRL abandoned as crews have little interest in sitting in a stationary target. Stories of crews repairing tracks under fire are few and far between. So you may be interested but few others are otherwise we would have heard constant requests for it and neither Andy nor I consider it worth adding. I would be more willing to have crews automatically---- or have to pass a morale check every turn and if they fail bail out of disabled tanks... that would be at least more accurate

3/ You are referring to a game not ours....it was a mod development of SP3 so although a "previous incarnation of Steel Panthers" it is not one we strive to emulate for which the majority of the players of our to games are generally grateful. SP2 did not use a "Command and Control feature" and although every once in awhile Andy and I toss the idea around of adding one it's not something we can get all that excited about.

4/ As noted if you want that in this game simply turn Spotters to OFF in Preferences and you can call arty with arty units.

Don

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

Well Damage to Fire Control and Rangefinder systems, define system! In a WWII tank isn't Fire Control just the sights nothing more nothing less? vision slits and prisms can always be replaced by popping ones head out of the cupola I guess? The gun sight is usually well protected behind the mantlet looking through a golf ball sized hole anything less than a direct hit will have no effect. Schrapnel from a near miss has to travel up from the ground so the h ull of the tank will block it. Basically the sights are internal, so safe.

WWII tank rangefinders are very rare those tanks that have them have them mounted on the roof. Again the tank body will protect the instrument from blast and scrapnell unless the shell actually lands on the roof. What is the chance of the shell landing on the roof, about zippo.

Look at figure 4 from

http://nigelef.tripod.com/errorsmistakes.htm

Figure 4 and 3 show that the game 25 pdr dipersion over about 7 hexes is about right at 8000yds, notice the modern gun 155 mm FH70 is much more accurate, look at the dispersion of the 6-inch Gun Mk 19 you would be lucky to get a shell to land on the map!
So comparison of ww2 guns and modern guns is misleading. Modern guns shells are landing in a much tighter group. Chance of a direct hit or near miss using WWII ordinance is negligable even with observed fire fig. 3 shows this for a 25 pdr. In WWII As already pointed out, direct hits only result if really big numbers of guns are committed. If direct hits were as common as they are in the game in real life then the many open topped vehicles would have had a lid put on, quick smart.

Help on RF and FC I find confusing, Range Finder is about range finder, OK, but help also says it is about the gun sight. Shouldnt sights be part of Fire control? if not then what is Fire Control? Help just describes the effect FC has not what it is. It would look much neater to me if RF was RF and FC was the gun sight. After all Stabiliser is Stabiliser, Accuracy sits with the Weapon. What is left to be in FC except gun sight?

Personally I would move sights out of RF into FC, leaving RF for RF. RF value would be then be 0 or so for most units and those units that actually have a RF would get the appropriate value.
FC could be related to sights magnification, bigger better, and possibly sight design. The fineness of the traverse and Elevation gear is relevant but no doubt too granular for this game.

Re: Feature requests for 2019
 

This is a good read on Artillery.

https://history.army.mil/html/books/...hPub_70-27.pdf