Why Is This – Artillery With Zero Range

[rhinobones]

Been looking at the Korsun 44 scenario (getting ready to get a good PBM butt kicking) and noticed that Russian 122mm artillery is in the TO&E of infantry divisions (artillery range zero), infantry divisions with infantry artillery icon (artillery range 4) and pure artillery regiments (artillery range 4). The artillery and infantry artillery unit icons are hard coded as ‘ranged’ weapons, therefore they can support/attack from a distance. The 122mm guns in the pure infantry divisions have zero range because the infantry unit icon is hard coded as not having a range. Seems to me that artillery should be ranged no matter what type of icon the parent unit is assigned.

I don’t think the solution to this problem is to separate the artillery from the infantry divisions. Think the preferred solution would be to make units ranged based on the TO&E rather than the unit icon. As in the case from Korsun 44, possibly the artillery in infantry divisions could support attacks/defense with a limited effectiveness. Maybe 25% instead of the usual 50%

Thoughts?

Regards, RhinoBones

[larryfulkerson]

This example by RhinoBones reminded me of the situation in FitE where the fighters ( short range ) are grouped in with the bombers ( long range ) in some aircraft units so the use of that unit is kinda schizophrenic....do you use it as fighters or bombers. If you use it as a bomber you risk getting your fighters shot down at long ranges ( they have 0 def at long ranges, is my understanding ). If you use it as a fighter the bombers get shot down 'cause they just don't make good fighters.

Maybe the designer(s) of things like this SHOULD separate the different types out of the group so that they can fill the function they are best at and not try to be something they are not ????

[Veers]

Yes, the different types of aircraft should be seperated out by the designersof the scenarios.
 
And, yes, units should have a range, no matter what type of unit they are. Also, that artillery should be able to bombard from a raneg of one, without commiting themselves, so that you could use your arty inside your Infantry division could soften up a target without falling back in say pahse 1 and then phase 2 you could commit the whole of the infantry division.

[Bloodybucket28th]

An interesting question regarding design, game capabilities and historical TO/E. 
 
In a perfect world, the infantry/artillery or bomber/fighter formations should use all those assets in a logical and historical way.  Since they don't, we either hope that a future patch makes them work or "fudge" the formations so the cannon cockers and fighter jocks are segregated out.
 
In a conventional paper wargame, the designer would probably just factor the organic artillery or fighters into the attack/defense strength of the unit (depending on scale) and be done with it.  Since TOAW has so much going on "under the hood" when the hood is lifted there is no hiding an abstraction in a vague "combat strength" rating.
 
By seperating the unit types out so they may function as intended without being limited by Icon designation, it becomes the job of the player to follow historical doctrine, if they wish the tubes to be always dedicated to the unit they were "stripped" from, or the fighters to always escort the bombers instead of flying seperate air superiority missions.
 
Is that fudging history too much? 

[larryfulkerson]

In the one ROTC class I took ( small unit tactics ) it seems to me ( this was many many years ago ) that the Heavy Wpns section was considered " part of " the headquarters group since the part of fire and maneuver that the Mortars served was fire while the foot platoons served the maneuver part and having the mortar section next to the radio could shorten the overhead time to sending rounds outbound toward the folks that needed them the most.  I suppose this is modeled in TOAW by having the HQ unit have a range and having weapons that would justify having that range.  I cannot for the life of me see why a unit that has ranged weapons shouldn't have the range of those weapons in that unit.  It just makes logical sense to me.
 

[Bloodybucket28th]

Larry, I agree that it makes logical sense, and if if a loyalist clerk-typist regiment in the Spanish Civil way had a battery of 8 inch guns and the ammo to make them go boom, then by golly, TOAW should let the Remington Raiders bang away at range.

HOWEVER, it looks like the game doesn't support this...so what is to be done? If it can be changed, then we can lobby for it to be changed.

I don't know that artillery fire at range is denied to units with the infantry icon (I'm assuming so from the info on this thread, as I still don't have my copy yet, curses) but if it is, then it's up to the scenario designer to either seperate the guns or decide that the loyalist clerks are really an artillery unit, and change the icon.

Perhaps this refinement will have to wait for "TOAWIV, Elmer's Revenge".

[LLv34_Snefens]

The earlier versions of FitE actually had the airformations sorted according to type. To save units we had to bundle I-16 together with later types such as yak-1 and 9, which again forced us to keep a production of I-16 throughout the game, to allow the unit to keep reconstituting. The current organization was instead chosen knowing perfectly well the impact it will have on the early VVS. From the Scenario Description:

-The Soviet Air force now starts WITH types combined in division units (bomber, fighter, attack). These divisions is actually quite close to history in terms of types and numbers, so it’s not because of some sick sense of humor we have put fighters in the bomber divisions, and the attack divisions have up to 5 or 6 different types of planes. This of course WILL make them perform very badly, in accordance to point #2 above, but then again the VVS had a hard time in the early war.
-Now #1 comes into play, as these obsolete types, which are the primary equipment in the divisions, eventually will run out. This means that the unit eventually won’t be able to reconstruct anymore as the game progress.
-Instead new units arrive in a steady stream. Units organized more appropriate, with just one type for each unit. The units are a combination of 3 regiments, put together not because they were historically, but because at one point the used the same type of plane. Now of course most of the regiments changed the type of plane they used during the war, but to take that into account would use up unit and event space not present.

[larryfulkerson]

If I could disband such chimeras I would.

[jimwinsor]

There is an "Infantry Artillery" icon that can be used to give an infantry unit ranged power. It looks almost like a regular infantry symbol in fact.

ORIGINAL: TheBloodyBucket

Larry, I agree that it makes logical sense, and if if a loyalist clerk-typist regiment in the Spanish Civil way had a battery of 8 inch guns and the ammo to make them go boom, then by golly, TOAW should let the Remington Raiders bang away at range.

HOWEVER, it looks like the game doesn't support this...so what is to be done? If it can be changed, then we can lobby for it to be changed.

I don't know that artillery fire at range is denied to units with the infantry icon (I'm assuming so from the info on this thread, as I still don't have my copy yet, curses) but if it is, then it's up to the scenario designer to either seperate the guns or decide that the loyalist clerks are really an artillery unit, and change the icon.

Perhaps this refinement will have to wait for "TOAWIV, Elmer's Revenge".

[Catch21]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones
I don’t think the solution to this problem is to separate the artillery from the infantry divisions. Thoughts?

I do think it's better to separate them, but obviously depending on scenario scale. And that's pretty much what the Soviets did as the war developed, to the point where they had huge concentrations of artillery in discrete formations to support particular assaults. The Seelow Heights for instance.

I'd also argue it's useful for air also, separating fighters from bombers so you can use them for specific missions.

At the end of the day, it's a designer decision and will either add or detract to a scenario's popularity from a player perspective. You can always check the stats.

FWIW I think Korsun 44 is a very interesting challenge as Germans, and desperately imbalanced against them as it was back then. Since the Germans start turn 1 and assuming you're heading vaguely west from the pocket rather then trying to hold out, one option is to use your arty in direct fire mode against Soviet units that are not dug in at start and hammer them as hard as you can to give yourself a head start.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Been looking at the Korsun 44 scenario (getting ready to get a good PBM butt kicking) and noticed that Russian 122mm artillery is in the TO&E of infantry divisions (artillery range zero), infantry divisions with infantry artillery icon (artillery range 4) and pure artillery regiments (artillery range 4). The artillery and infantry artillery unit icons are hard coded as ‘ranged’ weapons, therefore they can support/attack from a distance. The 122mm guns in the pure infantry divisions have zero range because the infantry unit icon is hard coded as not having a range. Seems to me that artillery should be ranged no matter what type of icon the parent unit is assigned.

I don’t think the solution to this problem is to separate the artillery from the infantry divisions. Think the preferred solution would be to make units ranged based on the TO&E rather than the unit icon. As in the case from Korsun 44, possibly the artillery in infantry divisions could support attacks/defense with a limited effectiveness. Maybe 25% instead of the usual 50%

Thoughts?

Regards, RhinoBones

This is not a good idea because it takes control of this issue away from the designer. Currently, if one is designing a division-scale scenario and wants the division artillery to provide ranged support then you can just separate out the artillery into a separate ranged-iconed unit. But if you don’t want it to be ranged, then you leave the artillery in the non-ranged unit.

Just because the equipment has sufficient range to warrant an artillery range doesn’t mean that the artillerists have the skill or the unit has the command-and-control to provide support at range. For example, in my “Soviet Union 1941” scenario (Corps/Army scale), Axis corps-level artillery has been folded into the Axis army HQs so it can provide support. Soviet artillery has not been. This is a qualitative edge the Axis have over the Soviets in this scenario, modeling poor handling of artillery by the Soviets at this stage of the war. If all units had artillery ranges this qualitative edge would be lost.

And there are technical problems with any simple implementation of the effect due to the way TOAW now works. Note that in any division-sized unit, the artillery component is only a small fraction of its overall strength. But each time the unit supports, it will expend supply as if the entire unit was supporting. In fact, note that the minimum range for a ranged-iconed unit is one, not zero – even if it has no ranged equipment! So this change will provide another vector to rapidly suck supply from defending ground units. It’s possible this could be addressed, but it will make the change much more complicated to implement.

[PDiFolco]

I had a look at the units in Korsun44 and I was surprised to see that Soviet Inf Div with attached arty (122mm guns) had zero range, whereas the Germans Inf Div with 105 guns *had* a ranged attack. I can't understand where does the difference come from ? [&:]
 

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Just because the equipment has sufficient range to warrant an artillery range doesn’t mean that the artillerists have the skill or the unit has the command-and-control to provide support at range. For example, in my “Soviet Union 1941” scenario (Corps/Army scale), Axis corps-level artillery has been folded into the Axis army HQs so it can provide support. Soviet artillery has not been. This is a qualitative edge the Axis have over the Soviets in this scenario, modeling poor handling of artillery by the Soviets at this stage of the war. If all units had artillery ranges this qualitative edge would be lost.

..wot he said

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: General Staff
I do think it's better to separate them, but obviously depending on scenario scale. And that's pretty much what the Soviets did as the war developed, to the point where they had huge concentrations of artillery in discrete formations to support particular assaults. The Seelow Heights for instance.

Was this culled from divisional artillery, though? If the guns were actually attached to the division it seems likely they were intended to support the division- not bugger off to the other side of the map to support another unit entirely. If they were detached historically, detach them in design. Otherwise...

See Bob's post. Things are fine the way they are so long as the designer things these things through.

[hank]

The discussion in this thread is why I tend to like the sce's that have a scale of 2.5, 5 and 10 Km hexes with units broken down to regiment size (i.e., a division may be 6 or 8 units of infy regiments, supporting towed and SP arty, and other support units.

I've been playing both sce's like I describe above (Plan Martin, Cobra 44, and a couple of others) ... and the divisional level sce's like Barbarosa 41.  I like both scales but I have an easier time comprehending what's happening when I have individual arty units, fighter squadrons, bomber formations, and support armor (like the 70th or 761st Tank Battalion separete from the infantry division yet historically assigned at a Corp level).  My feable mind sometimes has trouble with abstraction.

[rhinobones]

After reading the pro and cons (mostly cons) I am still left with the thought that the tail is wagging the dog. The range of the weapon should be based on its inherent qualities, not from the attributes of the parent unit. I see nothing wrong with artillery from a near by infantry unit, either dug in or in reserve, providing some level of support to a friendly unit which is within range and under attack; should also be able to provide fires to support the attack. After all, this is decided by the commander and not the unit icon.

Maybe this support could be based on passing a communications check, and certainly cooperation levels would need to be factored into the equation. Think that ultimately the designer should be able to select which ranged weapons can provide support from a non-ranged type of unit. As is, I think this was just a short cut taken to make programming easier.

Also, we shouldn’t get hung up on the scenario example. Whether artillery should, or should not, be segregated from the parent unit in the Korsun 44 scenario is not the question. The question is whether ranged units should have range based on their qualities, or should the range of the weapon be based on the icon of the parent unit? In other words, should the tail wag the dog?

Regards, RhinoBones

[jimwinsor]

You know, you can still design a scenario giving infantry units ranged ability; just use the the "Infantry Artillery" symbol in your design. Put some artillery alomng with your squads, and voila! I mean, that should do the trick, right?

Which means, the game already has the scenario designer in the driver's seat, like you advocate. You just need to accept the aethestics of that little "." in the middle of the "X" on your infantry symbol.

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

After reading the pro and cons (mostly cons) I am still left with the thought that the tail is wagging the dog. The range of the weapon should be based on its inherent qualities, not from the attributes of the parent unit. I see nothing wrong with artillery from a near by infantry unit, either dug in or in reserve, providing some level of support to a friendly unit which is within range and under attack; should also be able to provide fires to support the attack. After all, this is decided by the commander and not the unit icon.

Maybe this support could be based on passing a communications check, and certainly cooperation levels would need to be factored into the equation. Think that ultimately the designer should be able to select which ranged weapons can provide support from a non-ranged type of unit. As is, I think this was just a short cut taken to make programming easier.

Also, we shouldn’t get hung up on the scenario example. Whether artillery should, or should not, be segregated from the parent unit in the Korsun 44 scenario is not the question. The question is whether ranged units should have range based on their qualities, or should the range of the weapon be based on the icon of the parent unit? In other words, should the tail wag the dog?

Regards, RhinoBones

[rhinobones]

Yes, true, but this still misses the big picture and what I consider to be the root cause problem. Using the Artillery Infantry icon in place of the Infantry icon does nothing for the cases where ranged artillery is in the TO&E of mechanized, armored, armored cavalry, airborne or marine infantry units.

Think that the problem, and the fix, are both bigger than the substitution of one icon.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Erik2]

Actually I kind of like it that artillery as part of infantry units doesn't use ranged fire, at least for WWII and earlier scenarios. I think of this as direct firing only artillery and with no proper communication to facilitate indirect supporting of other units. I also mostly put artillery in the correspondent HQ units for the formation. This way you have ranged fire supporting the formation units and depending on the formation cooperation setting can support other formations as well.

Erik

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

After reading the pro and cons (mostly cons) I am still left with the thought that the tail is wagging the dog. The range of the weapon should be based on its inherent qualities, not from the attributes of the parent unit.

What about the "inherent qualities" of the crew of the weapon, the command and communications systems, and the doctrine of the army in question?

Also, we shouldn’t get hung up on the scenario example. Whether artillery should, or should not, be segregated from the parent unit in the Korsun 44 scenario is not the question. The question is whether ranged units should have range based on their qualities, or should the range of the weapon be based on the icon of the parent unit? In other words, should the tail wag the dog?

I think designers should be allowed to make this decision for themselves- as currently- without the game engine forcing one choice on them.