Artillery after the beta ground combat changes

[Beethoven1]

This post is regarding the ground combat changes that were introduced in the v01.01.15 beta patch. The patch notes for that say:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... E15�

• Changes made to ground combat. Increased the range at which the opening direct fire shots are fired, while increasing the amount of fire at these longer ranges. Increased the number of rounds of combat between opening range and 50 yard combat. Opening ranges will be longer for clear and less dense terrain. Net effect of combat changes increases overall losses slightly

I bolded "direct fire" in the quote for emphasis.

As far as I am aware, this is the main significant change that has been made to ground combat in recent beta patches (but it is possible the results we will look at might also be affected by other things changed in recent patches). One of the main effects of this seems to have been to buff Germany in 1941 substantially. However, in particular this (or maybe some other change?) seems to have buffed German artillery substantially. Which is strange, because I thought artillery is indirect fire, not direct fire.

Anyway, a friend on discord (IDGBIA, who posted in this thread a few posts below this post now) was testing this, and did some comparisons of the same battle in the current public beta patch and in the last public non-beta patch (1.01.09) and looked at the combat results.

This was tested across multiple different battles, but we will start out illustrating this with screenshots from 2 different versions of a single battle to make it easier to follow.


First, here is a battle on the current v01.02.06 public beta patch:



And here is the same battle on the 1.01.09 patch:



Multiple different battles were run on the same tile run from a quick save in turn 1 of the Operation Typhoon scenario, with a Soviet level 1 fort on a light forest, with axis ground support off. This was also tested on clear terrain and the same results occurred.



Look at the 210 mm M18 Howitzer. You can see these same patterns for other artillery/mortars, but it is clearest for the biggest guns, it seems:

a) In the beta patch, that gets 2.0 FPE and 10.2 HPE, with a total of 102 HE hits at a range of 11880

b) In the official non-beta patch, that gets 2.0 FPE and 6.6 HPE, with a total of 66 HE hits at a range of 11880



So, here are some questions/observations about this.

1) The range is apparently the same in both patches. The combat changes are supposed to make direct fire occur at longer ranges. It seems that this longer range is not applying to artillery? The patch notes say that it "increased the range at which the opening direct fire shots are fired." If the increased range is not applying to artillery, did something else change with artillery?

2) The FPE is the same in both patches, but the HPE is nearly double in the beta patch. It seems like something in the beta is making the indirect artillery fire result in more hits. Was there some sort of change buffing the accuracy/effectiveness of artillery, and if so was it documented somewhere and/or was it intended, or accidental?

By contrast to what we see for artillery, FPE does seem to be higher for direct fire elements, but not for indirect fire elements. The range of direct fire units is seemingly increased as intended.

For example, the 75mm leIG18 Infantry gun engaged at range of 122 in the official patch with 5.16 FPE and 2.0 HPE, but in the beta patch it was range of 199 and 20.44 FPE and 8.72 HPE. So it is clear that the direct fire infantry gun is firing more in the beta patch (and also hitting more), whereas for the indirect fire artillery it is seemingly not firing more, and not firing at longer range, but is instead hitting more while firing the same amount as it did in the old patch.

The trend of direct fire working seemingly as the patch notes indicate is also more visible with elements such as rifle squads and machine guns. For example on the rifle squad, the range is higher and the FPE is higher, and consequently the HPE is higher.

Whereas for artillery, it seems to not be shooting more, it is shooting the same amount but for some reason is now hitting more and disrupting more elements.


Overall, is this working as intended at this point? German artillery seems to be very powerful indeed, in 1941 especially. It is not uncommon for battles to have 30 German casualties as compared to 3000 Soviet casualties, with the Soviets routing. Battles that would have been retreats in the old (non-beta) patch are often routs in the new patch. And battles that would have been holds in the old patch are often retreats in the beta patch. Soviet units typically will get very large numbers of their ground elements disrupted by artillery fire and rout as a result. In recent AARs (even one started under the old patch before these combat changes) we have seen Leningrad falling in the middle of blizzard (Gunnalf's AAR) and there are plenty of similar sorts of cases of Germany seemingly doing extremely well. Here's another example from Darojax's team game AAR, with battle results like this which seem to be quite common in battles now:



Similarly in my own AAR/game against jubjub, on turn 5 I had so many depleted units as Soviets in the center that I made an entire army full of just depleted units refitting near Vyazma:





So, is this all WAD/intended?



Finally, to show that this is not simply anecdotal results from a single battle, is another battle, tested 3 times with each patch. The German 256th Infantry division is attacking the Soviet 252nd Rifle division and 29A Mot. Rifle Brigade in heavy woods, in rain, with no fort. If you test this yourself by running the same battles in both patches, you should find similar results.

With the old patch (3 holds):







Same battle 3 times with the beta patch (1 hold, 2 results where 1 Soviet unit retreated and the other routed):







You can see the practical difference the combat changes make (with no AFVs involved in this battle on either side), in this case often turning a hold into a rout/retreat result.

Comparing the 3 battles, you can see the change in effectiveness of artillery/indirect fire does not apply only to German artillery. However, the effect of it in practice seems to help Germany mostly in 1941, especially because of the artificial limits on Soviet artillery ammo.

Soviet 82mm mortars in old patch are:

41.56 FPE 0.31 HPE
41.53 FPE 0.30 HPE
51.75 FPE 0.36 HPE

Whereas in the beta patch they are:

40.00 FPE 0.70 HPE
40.01 FPE 0.60 HPE
40.01 FPE 0.61 HPE

So it seems like Soviet mortars are something like two times as accurate/effective as before, while they are only firing the same amount (or slightly less).

The Soviet 122mm M-30 Howitzer is likewise,

Old patch:

12 FPE 0.25 HPE
12 FPE 0.25 HPE
12 FPE 0.25 HPE

Beta patch:

12 FPE 1.0 HPE
12 FPE 0.75 HPE
12 FPE 0.50 HPE

So, FPE are the same, but HPE are higher in the new patch, in this case more than double in some of the battles..



Soviet 152mm M-10 Howitzer

Old Patch:

0.5 FPE, 0.12 HPE
2.3 FPE, 0.9 HPE
1.93 FPE, 0.12 HPE
average of 3 battles: 1.58 FPE, 0.38 HPE

Beta patch:

2.3 FPE, 0.57 HPE
0.48 FPE, 0.9 HPE
0.48 FPE, 0.6 HPE
average of 3 battles: 1.09 FPE, .69 HPE

In this case, the results seem to be more noisy, with more variation in FPE. However, on average it is clear that HPE were higher in the beta patch, while on average FPE were slightly lower.


So, what is the deal with artillery? Is it more effective now? Is that intended? Is it documented somewhere that we missed? Did some of the combat changes alter indirect fire and not just direct fire?

[AlbertN]

The artillery change is a manifest buff in '41 for Germans but you missed out also on the other big change that is the OOB change of Soviet formations, starting with older and less efficient guns en mass pratically.
I feel it will be the opposite once Russians can muster thousands of modern guns and pack them in sectors.
You must have missed out the notion that there are more rounds of long range fire. It does not just start at more appropriate distance but also guns fire more often.

I believe to have read of another change about having morale / experience affecting combat more; and / or a 'radio bonus'.

But I'll leave more precise answers to who knows the game better - after all I am a rather novice and mostly casual game; in fact I only occasionally invest time in inspecting percentages and values and go by the 'feel and vibe' the narrative of the game has.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

You must have missed out the notion that there are more rounds of long range fire. It does not just start at more appropriate distance but also guns fire more often.

The patch notes say:

Changes made to ground combat. Increased the range at which the opening direct fire shots are fired, while increasing the amount of fire at these longer ranges.

I think you are referring to the underlined portion. However, it sounds to me like that is only meant to apply to direct fire. If it only applies to direct fire, presumably that is not the explanation for artillery seemingly being more powerful? Or is it, and it also applies to indirect fire (and that is WAD)? I don't know, maybe that is it, but that is not what I inferred from reading the patch notes.

[IDGBIA]

If there are "more fires" why is the FPE the exact same on both patches and if its a radio buff from morale and experience why are soviet guns also hitting twice as often, obviously not to the same devastating effect as Germans but still twice as often compared to the old patch. this also can be seen on everyone, Romanians Hungarians, probably Italians but I didn't specifically test. everyone shoots the same amount at supposedly the same ranges but hits 2x as much compared to official patch. does everyone just stand closer together in the beta patch?

[AlbertN]

Us as player know the difference between direct and indirect fire.
But I am quite confident there cannot be 'direct fire' by howitzers and the like due to how they're mounted on their supports!

Pretty much I doubt the game has a difference in mechanic between direct and indirect fire. Each weapon system fires and some weapon systems have a splashing damage.

So that line to me it is just semanthics.

My interpretation is that if earlier in an attack of a clear hex the firing range was starting at 5000 meters, and each round was every 1000 meters now it can start at 10000 meters and maybe there is one round each 750 meters. (Numbers are at random, the idea is that there is a better system to determine how oft artilleries will fire).

But my interpretation can be quite wrong. Loki rightfully corrected me on a logistic misinterpretation for instance. Of which as reminder I ought to thank him.

[Beethoven1]

So artillery is 2x more effective now than it was before, and nobody knows if that is intended or not? Doubling the effectiveness of artillery seems like a pretty big change, I would have thought there would be more discussion about that, and whether it is more balanced and realistic being stronger like this, or less so. Unless really nobody does know, in which case I guess it sort of makes sense, because then there is not much to say except "I don't know, hmm"

[jubjub]

Pretty much I doubt the game has a difference in mechanic between direct and indirect fire. Each weapon system fires and some weapon systems have a splashing damage.

This is just not true. It's very obvious which guns are firing in direct/indirect fire roles. Look at the ratio of damaged and destroyed to disrupted elements. It's much, much higher for direct fire units.

[Sir.Arnold]

I also think there is a serious problem in this. The indirect artillery is too powerful. Infantry and tanks are now completely dispensable. The production team needs to explain whether this is deliberate or a WAD problem.

[IDGBIA]

Inf and tanks aren't dispensable you need them to spot for your arty and capture all the routing soviets hiding in the shell holes

[DeletedUser44]

IMO, the noted enhancements to the artillery, especially the German 10.5cm le FH 18 howitzer, is warranted and historically accurate.

... it almost certainly inflicted more military casualties than any other singular weapon system in human history! This is because the Soviet-German war from 1941 to 1945 was easily the most costly military campaign in history, with the Soviets suffering considerably more military casualties than the rest of the WWII combatants combined (and far more than all the casualties sustained from WWI) Hence, without even considering the Western Allied casualties due to this weapon during WWII, the 10.5cm le FH 18 howitzer easily inflicted more military casualties than any other weapon system ever built.

For the German 10.5cm le FH 18 howitzer not to be at the top of some of the combat charts would be another trip down fantasy-land.

Additionally, I personally served in a US M109 155mm self-propelled howitzer unit (Battalion Fire Direction Control). I know, 1st hand, the overwhelming firepower of a well-trained/equipped artillery unit.

The specs of the individual weapon system only begins to tell the full story of how deadly they are. But it involves a host of other factors.... some of which are briefly touched on here: http://www.15thfar.org/fire.html

I can also attest to the fact that US Artillery FDC is trained in both computerized and manual(WWII era) fire direction computation methods.

In WiTE2 game terms, an artillery unit's experience and morale would have an overwhelming impact on their overall effectiveness. (not unlike some aspects of air combat)

[thedoctorking]

Artillery should be the queen of battle. Artillery inflicts most of the casualties in high-intensity combat in the 20th century. The role of infantry and tanks is to hold or capture territory so that the guns can be protected and advance so as to fire effectively on the enemy. Air support is a highly mobile alternative to artillery, but with much less punch. I have always paid enormous attention in these games to the distribution of my artillery assets, and sought to have as many guns in any fight as I could manage.

[malyhin1517]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

Artillery should be the queen of battle. Artillery inflicts most of the casualties in high-intensity combat in the 20th century. The role of infantry and tanks is to hold or capture territory so that the guns can be protected and advance so as to fire effectively on the enemy. Air support is a highly mobile alternative to artillery, but with much less punch. I have always paid enormous attention in these games to the distribution of my artillery assets, and sought to have as many guns in any fight as I could manage.

+1

[Great_Ajax]

As a retir3d US Army Field Artillery Officer, we always called the artillery "King of Battle". The infantry is the Queen of Battle.

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

Artillery should be the queen of battle. Artillery inflicts most of the casualties in high-intensity combat in the 20th century. The role of infantry and tanks is to hold or capture territory so that the guns can be protected and advance so as to fire effectively on the enemy. Air support is a highly mobile alternative to artillery, but with much less punch. I have always paid enormous attention in these games to the distribution of my artillery assets, and sought to have as many guns in any fight as I could manage.

+1

[Zovs]

King = infantry
Queen = artillery
Knight = tanks

Think chess.

[jubjub]

Wouldn't infantry be the pawns?

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: Great_Ajax

As a retir3d US Army Field Artillery Officer, we always called the artillery "King of Battle". The infantry is the Queen of Battle.

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

Artillery should be the queen of battle. Artillery inflicts most of the casualties in high-intensity combat in the 20th century. The role of infantry and tanks is to hold or capture territory so that the guns can be protected and advance so as to fire effectively on the enemy. Air support is a highly mobile alternative to artillery, but with much less punch. I have always paid enormous attention in these games to the distribution of my artillery assets, and sought to have as many guns in any fight as I could manage.

+1

I think it needs to be treated with caution, because this is likely to be a problem, the production team should explain

[Joel Billings]

I'd like to see more results of games to see what impact all of the changes have had. The artillery firing in the direct fire combat rounds may be doing too much now, but it's hard to say given as many have said artillery caused the majority of casualties in WWII. As Gary and I looked over your results it does seem that the infantry guns have gone up quite a bit in their number of shots and hits. Their high rate of fire may be combining with recent changes to give them greater importance than they should have. Let's see how some games play out.

[Zovs]

ORIGINAL: Sir.Arnold

ORIGINAL: Great_Ajax

As a retir3d US Army Field Artillery Officer, we always called the artillery "King of Battle". The infantry is the Queen of Battle.

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517



+1

I think it needs to be treated with caution, because this is likely to be a problem, the production team should explain

I disagree, during WW2 65% of the casualties were caused by artillery.


Reference:Office of Medical History

Quote:

A report on the causative agents of battle casualties in World War II showed the comparative incidence of casualties from different types of weapons for several theaters. Compilers of the report believed that, while the more detailed subdivisions within their three major classes were open to question, their findings on the percent of total casualties due to small arms, artillery and mortars, and "miscellaneous" were reasonably accurate.

From these they drew the following conclusions:

1. Small arms fire accounted for between 14 and 31 percent of the total casualties, depending upon the theater of action:

The Mediterranean theater, 14.0 percent

The European theater, 23.4 percent

The Pacific theaters, 30.7 percent.

2. Artillery and mortar fire together accounted for 65 percent of the total casualties in the European and Mediterranean theaters, 64.0 and 69.1, respectively. In the Pacific, they accounted for 47.0 percent.

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I'd like to see more results of games to see what impact all of the changes have had. The artillery firing in the direct fire combat rounds may be doing too much now, but it's hard to say given as many have said artillery caused the majority of casualties in WWII. As Gary and I looked over your results it does seem that the infantry guns have gone up quite a bit in their number of shots and hits. Their high rate of fire may be combining with recent changes to give them greater importance than they should have. Let's see how some games play out.

I think the power of artillery is too absurd at the moment

The HE hit caused by 24 105mm guns in Romania is more than the sum of nearly 1000 infantry squads. With the current artillery power, there is no need for infantry and tanks at all. This is completely different in version 1.01.09. At that time, the power of artillery was about 25% of the current power, and infantry and tanks were the main sources of HE hit.

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

ORIGINAL: Sir.Arnold

ORIGINAL: Great_Ajax

As a retir3d US Army Field Artillery Officer, we always called the artillery "King of Battle". The infantry is the Queen of Battle.

I think it needs to be treated with caution, because this is likely to be a problem, the production team should explain

I disagree, during WW2 65% of the casualties were caused by artillery.


Reference:Office of Medical History

Quote:

A report on the causative agents of battle casualties in World War II showed the comparative incidence of casualties from different types of weapons for several theaters. Compilers of the report believed that, while the more detailed subdivisions within their three major classes were open to question, their findings on the percent of total casualties due to small arms, artillery and mortars, and "miscellaneous" were reasonably accurate.

From these they drew the following conclusions:

1. Small arms fire accounted for between 14 and 31 percent of the total casualties, depending upon the theater of action:

The Mediterranean theater, 14.0 percent

The European theater, 23.4 percent

The Pacific theaters, 30.7 percent.

2. Artillery and mortar fire together accounted for 65 percent of the total casualties in the European and Mediterranean theaters, 64.0 and 69.1, respectively. In the Pacific, they accounted for 47.0 percent.

You can look at the pictures I sent

24 Romanian 105mm Mle 1936 Field Gun caused 147 HE hits

642 German infantry squad and 362 Romanian infantry squad caused 145 HE hits

This is ridiculous. It is equivalent to the casualties caused by the infantry of three divisions, which is not as good as the Romanian 105 field artillery of two battalions