HOMING-INDIRECT flight trajectories seem ridiculous!

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

Take a look at what NoQ posted at the screenshots thread:



Doesn't that seem unrealistic for, say, a cruise missile to fly so close to the ground like that, even if it had homing capabilities? They'd most definitely seem unrealistic for, say, a Howitzer that fired shells that home in to their targets. In that case, wouldn't a ballistic arc (like with INDIRECT weapons) be more appropriate; only adjusting direction when needed, and only adjusting pitch when the target is close, or when the target is "above" relative to the round's current pitch?

[aubergine]

I kinda like the way they work as shown in the pics above - it makes it really obvious that they are changing direction/altitude mid-flight. Maybe if they could start to gain altitude a little sooner (further look-ahead at the terrain) it would smooth things out a little, but I wouldn't want to see HOMING-INDIRECT start turning in to INDIRECT.

[Lord Apocalypse]

Doesn't that seem unrealistic for, say, a cruise missile to fly so close to the ground like that, even if it had homing capabilities?

No, as most cruise missiles are programmed like this anyway. Not sure what normal altitude is, but if you think about it a cruise missile is supposed to hit a target at long range as quickly and quietly as possible. So, radar avoidance is built in as is terrain hugging software. Just download x terrain package into the computer and it will fly low to the ground following the contours of the earth.

They'd most definitely seem unrealistic for, say, a Howitzer that fired shells that home in to their targets. In that case, wouldn't a ballistic arc (like with INDIRECT weapons) be more appropriate; only adjusting direction when needed, and only adjusting pitch when the target is close, or when the target is "above" relative to the round's current pitch?

This is more accurate. While i'm not sure of the exact nature of homing shells for normal artillery (they do exsist) it is probably more of a directional change at the top/bottom of the trajectory arc. So the shell would make adjustments as it nears the target could (probably) not using a true homing package to follow the target beyond a certain radius beyond the original target zone.

[aubergine]

Missiles should be HOMING-INDIRECT, but rockets (eg. ripples) and artillery (eg. howitzers, hellstorm, etc) should be basic INDIRECT arcs, possibly making minor trajectory changes when they get close to target.

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

Without homing capabilities, they won't be able to adjust their course to hit a target that suddenly changed its velocity, even if it made a successful accuracy roll.

[Emdek]

Shadow Wolf TJC, I've never seen (at least in campaign) rockets chasing units after firing (except some AA of course ), I was able (enemy too) to avoid hits sometimes by simply moving a bit...
And the only change in 3.x is that artillery is now able to calculate how many ammo is needed to kill enemy so it shouldn't waste all ammo to kill one weak unit (at least in theory).
For me current behavior of those particles is good enough, but yes, there is probably room for improvements (though there are more important things right now probably ).

[Shadow Wolf TJC]

I have an idea!

What if we made the HOMING-INDIRECT weapons fire at parabolic arcs like INDIRECT weapons, BUT we also add a new movement type called, say, CRUISE MISSILE, and HOMING-CRUISE MISSILE, in which the projectile flies low to the ground like the HOMING-INDIRECT weapons do now. Everyone wins!

By the way, what happens when a HOMING-INDIRECT weapon fails in an accuracy roll? Does it land near its target, or does it fly off harmlessly into the sky?

[Stratadrake]

In the original retail WZ there was barely any perceptible difference between homing-indirect and regular indirect - both result in shells/missiles raining down from the heavens. The only difference is exactly where they land - Archangels impact right on top of you, whereas Howitzers (if far enough) could impact 1-2 squares away.

I can however support there being a separate flight type for cruise-missile trajectories.

And the only change in 3.x is that artillery is now able to calculate how many ammo is needed to kill enemy so it shouldn't waste all ammo to kill one weak unit (at least in theory).

This applies to all salvo-fire weapons, actually, not just indirects; I've seen plenty times where my Lancers split up their rockets between target A and B. Now if only I could get my Bunker Buster squads to do something like that....

[Stratadrake]

And today I realize:

Please explain how "counter battery" sensors are expected to function against these cruise-missile-like trajectories. Seriously.

[Lord Apocalypse]

CB shouldn't, at least not realisticly. For rocket or some missile artillery it would, same with shell artillery, but considering the distances traveled by a cruise missile CB would be useless.

As far as WZ is concerned... it probably should as a true cruise missile could be launched from much farther out than even the largest map allows. Son is wanting attention so have to cut this short...

[Cyp]

And today I realize:

Please explain how "counter battery" sensors are expected to function against these cruise-missile-like trajectories. Seriously.

Simple, check which direction they came from (their horizontal direction is constant), and check exactly how much fuel is left. Or just check the return-to-sender address stamped on the back.

[themac]

I have seen that shortly by fireing archangle missiles. First I saw the missiles only and thought if that would come from a rocket bastion or from a missile fortress. Then I saw that they flew half over the map, so it must be something different. Later I saw archangles fireing missiles that fly onto the ground until they reach the destination. That is not the way the archangle missiles should look or work like, isn´t it? O.o

[Stratadrake]

I agree. it really makes them look like direct-fire weapons. And it just doesn't have the same 'feel' as getting hailed by an epic rain of death FROM ABOVE.

Or just check the return-to-sender address stamped on the back.

Hehe... But seriously, I realize that gameplay wise CB simply reveals the attacker to you, but in a 'realistic' sense there's no practical way you can tell (at a mere glance) where those cruise-missiles or coming from. Or, for that matter, how you can hit a moving artillery unit with CB fire.