Why can't German Arty be assigned to DIV!!!

[CarnageINC]

AHHH, this is driving me nuts. I've gotten into customizing my attacks, pioneers and other assets to DIV for attacks and defense. I horde all my heavy arty at higher level for my breaching Corps, then when I give them to the Corps, they DONT USE IT!!! The Soviets can have their arty, yes I know its historical, but come on the Germans are handy capped enough by dealing with the Red Masses. I know its not historical that ARTY was not permanently attached to DIV but can't this be overlooked and help out the Germans some???

[vinnie71]

I believe that according to German doctrine, most of the heavy artillery was actually corps reserve, so maybe that's the reason why it can't be attached to divisions. What is disturbing though is that LW flak units can't be directly attached to German divisions and that minor Axis Allied divisions don't even have an option to attach anything to them as well.

[apd1004]

I'm glad somebody finally made this post, because I was about ready to start it myself. I totally agree with the concept that the player needs to have more control over the use of artillery. After all, we are given control over all other SU's and air units, so why not the artillery? We are able to shift-right click during air attacks to manually assign air units, why can't we do the same with artillery and other SU's? I can actually assign non-artillery/non-construction SU's directly to divisions. Why not the artillery?

15.4.1 SUPPORT UNIT COMMITMENT

For each support unit attempting to be committed, the leader of that headquarters must pass an initiative check. The support unit must then pass several checks, with the checks becoming more difficult based both on the number of support units already committed and the total number of non-construction support units attached to the headquarters unit. This means that Headquarters units with large numbers of non-construction support units will have more opportunities to commit support units; however the overall probability of each support unit being committed will be less than if the headquarters units had fewer non-construction support units. Support units directly attached to eligible combat units will be automatically committed to a battle involving that combat unit and do not count against the HQ unit maximums discussed above. Note that the only combat units that artillery support units can be directly attached to are fortified region and zone units (7.5.2).

What is the purpose for artillery SU's & non-CU assigned SU's being forced to random chance based on a corps commander & SU initiative check? I would imagine there is a modifier applied to the SU initiative check that makes it easy for the more mobile smaller caliber artillery units (105mm/150mm/210mm) to commit as opposed to some of the larger, less mobile artillery like the Karl-Gerat 600mm mortars, which is why I hardly ever see the Karl-Gerat committed but other SU's seem to make multiple appearances.

...I know its not historical that ARTY was not permanently attached to DIV but can't this be overlooked and help out the Germans some???

I believe that according to German doctrine, most of the heavy artillery was actually corps reserve, so maybe that's the reason why it can't be attached to divisions.

Operationally speaking, the Germans had organic artillery at the divisional level, which is reflected in the game TO&E's and is always available to the division because it is part of the TO&E of the division. Then we have the independent artillery units, which are reflected in the game as SU's, and historically these were for the most part under the control of the corps commander or the army commander, and for the more exotic hardware (such as the Karl-Gerat mortars), the army group or even OKH would assign as the operational/strategic situation required. So far so good, the game allows us to do all of this.

We all know how adept and flexible the Germans were at warfare at the operational level (corps and army) and below, but how sometimes they didn't always see things the same way at the army group or strategic level, mainly due to ineptitudes at the high command level, but that is a topic for another thread or forum. The Russians also became quite adept at operational warfare in their own way, which is also reflected in the game with the ability to form corps out of divisions for the Russians. We also have the ability to designate hasty attacks and deliberate attacks, both with their own cost in MP for the participating CU's to reflect the planning & preparation time necessary for each. Again, so far so good as far as the game allowing us to simulate this.

Where the game loses me is my lack of ability to use artillery units in a deliberate attack if I want to use them as a corps commander. In the blitzkrieg phase of Barbarossa, when the Germans were constantly moving forward on the offensive, the corps commander most likely assigned his corps-level artillery units in the "general support" role, or that is on an "as needed/as available" basis, and there was probably a bit of leap-frogging of some artillery units emplaced and ready to fire while some are moving forward and unable to fire. Obviously, the more mobile artillery units could spend more time set up and ready to pull lanyards when the call came in, while the less mobile units most likely spend most of their time moving and getting into position to be used. This is the current way the game operates with the initiative check & other formulas for committing artillery to an attack, which in my opinion works well for the hasty attack, although I think the chances of committal for some units is way to low and could be adjusted.

If I am a corps commander (or an army commander for that matter), and I am planning a deliberate attack involving several divisions and corps-level supporting units (artillery, StuG, pioneer, etc), then I am going to take my corps/army-level assets and assign them where I want them, and I am going to have more time to get the less mobile artillery units in place, and then I am going to assign them as "direct support", which means that the combat division on the attack has access to them just like they were organic to them.

There are a number of ways to skin this cat. We could simulate this in the game with the "shift-right click" for the deliberate attack, the same way we do with air attacks, and allow me to pick SU's for the battle (to include artillery). We could have a limit to the number of times certain SU's could be used in this situation, simulating their mobility/availability of ammo. Again referring to the Karl-Gerat mortars, which had a very limited range, a more limited supply of ammunition and took a month of Sundays to get set up into firing position, so maybe they are only able to be used when attacking fortified locations or urban areas during a deliberate attack. We could limit committal of some SU's to a deliberate attack used as the very first attack of a turn, or some other way of limiting their committal while at the same time giving me control over them through the shift-click. Or, let me pick the artillery units and then have a possibility that they fail to commit, which would reflect that maybe that artillery unit was unable to get into position or find enough ammo.

[Pawsy]

Like the idea of arty committed from Corp in a deliberate attack. Would not support permanent attachment at Div. Arty at Div level is as you say already in its orbat.

[vinnie71]

I stand to be corrected but if one launches a deliberate attack (as opposed to a hasty one) the whole corps artillery reserve is engaged. At least that's the impression I get.

[ComradeP]

The main problem I have with the way Axis artillery works is that historical concentrations are essentially not possible. The best example remains Sevastopol in the 1942 campaign. Lots of artillery in the HQ's, but when you attack you're lucky if 3 battalions/36 guns make an appearance. The Axis are essentially being penalized for having to use battalions, yet still not being able to assign them to divisions. A battalion takes up a support "slot" when it comes to leader calculations of whether another support unit will be committed. The Axis need to make 3 checks in order to get the firepower of a single Soviet artillery regiment involved in an attack, which both makes the Axis artillery less efficient and Soviet artillery more efficient than historically.

[CarnageINC]

I'm sure ComradeP you and the testers have debated about this with the programmers, is there any way to influence this decision not to be able to attach German arty to DIV?  Can we start a poll or something to tell the developers what needs to be done, IMO, to help even out the arty issue?  Is it possible to fix within the game engine?  I know you feel that this is a issue, can you give us some advice on how to let the developers hear our cry's of equality?!?

[karonagames]

I think each of the testers has had an itch that they needed to have scratched during the testing phase, but for me attaching artillery directly to divisions has never been one of them. On a "bang for buck" basis, if you pardon the pun, I have never seen a huge difference in modified CVs when artillery is or isn't added ( apart from when I missed capturing Moscow by one measly CV point!)

I can see the benefit for directly attaching the big guns in siege situations, but I feel pioneers are of more value.

The topic is in the suggestions section, but I think we are waiting for Joel to return from vacation before we can have a worthwhile debate.

[ComradeP]

I've personally not debated it with the developers yet, as only Don and Flavio replied to the suggestion thread. The developers are currently a bit swamped by trying to keep up with bugs and fixing them in a timely manner, so the suggestions will have to wait. This was already indicated pre-release and I'm perfectly fine with that.

I played mostly as the Soviets in my 3 months of pre-release testing, and didn't really notice the lack of Axis force multipliers until I started playing the 1942 campaign, where especially the artillery issue can be painful to watch. Allowing the Axis some more flexibility through allowing them to assign normal artillery battalions to divisions (Karl units and the like could be restricted in some way, I'm only talking about attaching 105mm's, 150mm's and Nebelwerfers) would at least allow the Axis some "guaranteed" force multipliers. Similarly, allowing the minor Axis to attach support units would also be nice.

I wouldn't go as far as saying the game's balance is broken, but based on my experience with the Soviets I can say that they have advantages that the Axis can't really compensate for in 1941-1942. As soon as the Soviets start to attack, things might change.

[CarnageINC]

Good to hear BigAnorak that at least its in a 'suggestible' situation with Joel.  Please join forces with us unhappy us GAE'ers.....'Germany Arty Equality' [:D][:'(][:D]

[CarnageINC]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I wouldn't go as far as saying the game's balance is broken, but based on my experience with the Soviets I can say that they have advantages that the Axis can't really compensate for in 1941-1942. As soon as the Soviets start to attack, things might change.

I quite agree that the balance in not broken, but would help a little in the long scheme of things to have more flexibility as you had suggested. Personally I would like to have that ability to use Hvy Arty in attacks I need to succeed, just as they would of used in reality. You too will have to join the GAE'ers [:D]

[Manstein63]

Here's a thought. Why wouldnt it be possible to create artillery units like the soviet ones but no more then say 5 or six you can fill them out with the Korp artillery units & if you can ammend the 3 unit rule add it to your attaking stack(s) this would allow you to use the artillery historically as they did in Lenningrad & Sevastopol. you could also put restrictions as to there use ie in deliberate attacks only by units of the same Korp that they have been assigned to.
Manstein63

[Flaviusx]

For whatever it is worth, I'm ok with these attachments and in fact think that eventually if and when War in the West comes out the Western allies ought to be allowed to attach them as well. The existing rule makes the best sense for the Soviets but less so for the Germans and much less so for the Brits or Americans.

A limited ability to form Arkos to represent a seige train is also a worthwhile suggestion. I don't think the Germans should be able to form too many of these, but a handful would be fine imo and go a long ways to represent their efforts in Sevastopol (and theoretically also Leningrad.) 5 is perhaps too many, I'd say 2-3 at most.

In the long run, German artillery SUs get overwhelmed by Soviet artillery divisions, btw. I was killing these battalions by the dozens in my last 43 PBEM with Bob. Once the Soviet achieves massive gun superiority it may be in the German's best interest to disband these things altogether.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

For whatever it is worth, I'm ok with these attachments and in fact think that eventually if and when War in the West comes out the Western allies ought to be allowed to attach them as well. The existing rule makes the best sense for the Soviets but less so for the Germans and much less so for the Brits or Americans.

A limited ability to form Arkos to represent a seige train is also a worthwhile suggestion. I don't think the Germans should be able to form too many of these, but a handful would be fine imo and go a long ways to represent their efforts in Sevastopol (and theoretically also Leningrad.) 5 is perhaps too many, I'd say 2-3 at most.

Actually the problem in WitW is much worse IMHO. By 1944, the US Army had created the best artillery doctrine/process in the world. Instead of attachments, Corps was able to not only target Corps artillery assets at will, it was able to switch Division assets' fire from one Division to support another Division.

[Flaviusx]

Yes, I expect it's going to be a significant design challenge to properly represent the amazingly effective US artillery doctrine. The game does an excellent job showing how the Soviet doctrine works via artillery divisions, but American artillery doctrine doesn't lend itself to this kind of brute force representation.

In game terms, you could almost say US artillery automatically makes their commitment check. Possibly we will need to give the American player some kind of manual control of artillery commitment: they decide how much gets thrown in, and having done so, it will get thrown in, no ifs ands or buts.

[FredSanford3]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I think each of the testers has had an itch that they needed to have scratched during the testing phase, but for me attaching artillery directly to divisions has never been one of them. On a "bang for buck" basis, if you pardon the pun, I have never seen a huge difference in modified CVs when artillery is or isn't added ( apart from when I missed capturing Moscow by one measly CV point!)

I can see the benefit for directly attaching the big guns in siege situations, but I feel pioneers are of more value.

The topic is in the suggestions section, but I think we are waiting for Joel to return from vacation before we can have a worthwhile debate.

I have a problem with this- artillery caused something like 60-70% of all battlefield casualties in WW2, but it doesn't make a difference in CV? That sounds wrong.

On another somewhat related note, I think infantry is too strong in the attack. It's SOP in the game to use the infantry divs to blast holes in the line for armor to exploit. While armor certainly has/had an exploitation role, it was also crucial for the initial penetration phase due to the infantry's vulnerability too...you guessed it...artillery. So maybe its not that infantry is too strong, but artillery is too weak in the game.

[Flaviusx]

Yeah, I don't quite agree with Bob's read on that and am rather surprised he feels this way.

Artillery is not too weak in this game. Not Soviet artillery, anyways. I'm continually surprised that people think this -- a lot of the testers thought this, too -- but massed artillery acting in concert with other formations is absolutely devastating.

Very few players thus far have gotten their hands on artillery divisions. (And the few that have are mostly using them wrong.) Me, I think they are game winner. No fortified line can stand against them.

[FredSanford3]

I haven't gotten to arty divs, but I have two questions-

Are the arty divs useful in defense as well?

Doesn't the piecemeal way the engine allocates arty other than in seperate divs negate its effectiveness?

[CarnageINC]

So Flaviusx does this mean your for German arty being able to be attached to DIV?  I'm all for as many testers getting on this band wagon to get this thing turned around.

I also quite agree with your analysis of US arty doctrine and how it needs to change for any future WitW game.  Those assets need to be just as powerful if not more so than Soviet arty corps.  It would be interesting to see what they have to say about all this.

[karonagames]

but it doesn't make a difference in CV

I said it did not make a huge difference. Everyone has a different view on the amount of micromanaging they want to do. Whether I get the support from the corps HQ or the division directly has never seemed an issue to me compared to the direct benefit I see from pioneer, Stug and 88mm flak support units.Having Arty at the corps level always seemed fine to me - it was never a gam ebreaker if the BFGs didn't support every single attack on Leningrad/Moscow etc.

I have no problem if people want this extra level of control, but as noted above, the relative strength of Axis artillery vs Late war SU artillery strength will probably make the 105/155 battalions redundant. In the 1943 campaign mentioned above, I was on the verge of disbanding them before the game ended.