"Realistic artillery"

[Cpt Kernow]

In an other thread it is said the Arty has been toned down to make it more "realistic."

I wonder if the poster who said this has much idea about what is actually realistic. During WW2 artillery caused the vast majority of casualties. Indeed the only thing that limits the killing power of artillery is A: How many guns you have 2: How much ammunition you have to put in the guns. In WW2 arty caused many more casualties than bullets or tank shells.

I find arty in PTs to be a good representation of its real power, I hope it hasnt been nerfed to much in AT.

[Westheim]

Someone (well, most likely Vic) said, Artillery range would be limited to 2.
 
That eliminates my favourite PT tactic: look for a mountain range or a long lake, place a lot and even more Long Range artillery behind it, and then blast everything away that comes near it. Game could become more realistic this way.
 

[Cpt Kernow]

Define realistic.

Artillery than can fire over mountains is probably not realistic, artillery that can totally devestate OPFOR moving down a tight mountain pass = highly realistic.

Much if not most of WW2 was simply decided by the supply and the logistics of getting artillery shells from a to b and then shooting them at the enemy. Infantry is actually little more than a sponge for HE in real terms. We will shoot each other from miles away and who ever has the most men left after wins, is a simplistic but not inaccurate description of WW2.

[tweber]

AT has different artillery types:

- Artillery is used as an offensive weapon for long range bombardment.  For an army on the offensive, I like of ratio of 1 artillery to 2 tanks to 3 infantry to 1.5 trucks (in terms of production cost).  Artillery is ideal in softening tough terrain prior to an assault. 

- Flak is defensive artillery designed for shooting down planes.

- Anti-tank guns defend well against tanks, infantry guns defend well against infantry.

- There is also an infantry unit called 'mortar' that is a hybrid between artillery and rifle.  It is great for assaulting strong points.

- There is also a bazooka and an mg unit that is a hybrid between AT guns and infantry and infantry guns and infantry.

The standard units were designed with the idea that there is no perfect unit for all situation and you need a good mix.  This is why you will see flak, infantry, trucks, and tanks in the armored corps in the Russia scenario.  Getting a good feel for the range of units and the situations to use them is pretty important.

Of course, if you disagree with the stats of a particular unit or want to design something special, you can modify units or create your own.

[seille]

@Cpt Kernow
 
I was the guy who said the artillery in AT is more "realistic".
Maybe i should have used the word balanced instead.
 
I do not know if you ever played PT, but there the combination of
AA guns and heavy artillery was a really deadly thing. The artillery knocked out everything.
A unit hit by that artillery was not longer able to perform well in combat.
In addition the number of killed/destroyed targets was way too high compared to the hits.
 
In AT you´ll still have powerful artillery which is really good in preparing attacks and soften enemy positions.
But it´s not longer a overkill unit that it was in PT ! Here you´ll see now losses, but mostly the artillery will
reduce the enemy units readiness, which is important for following ground attacks.
 
After release you can play both games and compare. Then you´ll know what i´m talking about.

[Cpt Kernow]

But it´s not longer a overkill unit that it was in PT

During WW2 over 70% of the casualties were caused by artillery. Thus imo PT models this quite well.

The way to make artillery more realistic is not to reduce its killing power, which in reality is awesome, but to make it harder to deploy that killing power. Art should move slowly and require a lot of supply to be effective.

[Ola Berli]

Cpt Kernow,
 
I hear what You say Sir. I think it is important to remember that AT is a game. And that players want to have
fun. You want more a hyperrealistic WW2 simulation and maybe then You must search other places.
Actually you will find very few games who is even close to simulate the power of artillery. I think perhaps the
system who is closest could be the " Decisive Battles " series SSG/ Matrix. Where artillery give shifts who could
be devastating. But that is a completely other game system.
 
If You search in the more professional military game systems like TAC OPS and Decisive action you could find
more close simulated art. effect but both is modern war simulations.
 
Hope this help.
 

[Cpt Kernow]

PT is lots of fun.
Art in PT is very destructive

Therefor destructive arty and fun are not exclusive.

[Ola Berli]

Cpt Kernow,
 
I have no experience with PT!
 
I only conclude that very few if any WW2 games simulate the power of artillery. This is nothing I say this is fact.
As You ourself have written. Take HPS Superb PZC a system I have experience in, I would caracterise the art.
in those games as puny but the games is great fun and one of the Best WW2 series if not the best for computer.
 
With this from my side I end this discussen. 

[seille]

The artillery in PT is a overkill unit. Absolute imbalanced in my eyes.
And it´s not the only one.
 
Especially on artillery and planes we had long discussion and spent a lot of time
to make it more balanced.
 
Your 70% artillery losses you can still have. When you use masses of artillery
in the game and count also infantry gun and mortar kills this way work.
 
But that depends on your strategy and your production power. Artillery is not cheap [;)]
 
One more thing.
In AT you´ll normally avoid huge artillery concentrations (at least in same hex). Why ?
 
A player like me could come and "see" them. He could count the artillery guns
and calculate the production costs. Then he could think about a massive air strike.
After that 50% or more of your guns could be dead.
It´s all a question of your way to play.
 
 

[SSFSX17]

If you factor in civilian deaths as a result of WW2, I'm sure the contributions of artillery will be smaller. The way I saw WW2 was that it was won primarily by overall strategy (choosing the right places to attack, which Hitler did NOT choose well) and industrial might (which America and Britain were experts at bombing into dust while protecting their own).

[Cpt Kernow]

If you factor in civilian deaths as a result of WW2, I'm sure the contributions of artillery will be smaller.

Utterly irrelevant as this game does not model citizen casualties.

You think WW2 was won by military strategy? WOW, I suggest you take that ground breaking idea and use it as a thesis for your Military History PHD.

Obviously strategy won WW2, its just a question of what part artillery played in that strategy. Most people dont know this, but the Russians killed in one month (June 1944)more Germans that the western allies killed during the whole of WW2 1939-45 They managed this through there use of concentrated artillery and also use of mobile artillery platforms such as the SU series.

It wasnt Britain or America who defeated the Germans, it was the Russians, that is why the Nazis had 80% of their combat power on the East front. Italy and Normandy were just side shows to the main event.

[seille]

ORIGINAL: Cpt Kernow
It wasnt Britain or America who defeated the Germans, it was the Russians, that is why the Nazis had 80% of their combat power on the East front. Italy and Normandy were just side shows to the main event.

Oha, you really think this is true ?
That must be a joke ...

Do you know why the russians survived the german attack in ww2 ?

1. The lend lease help
2. The allied bombing (especially fuel and other production)
3. The threat of being attacked in the west

I can´t tell you exact numbers, but the troops (especially armored divisions) which were
forced to protect France for example would have been enough to bring the german 1942
offensive to an end. Same for 1943 Kursk.
Not to forget some bad decisions by Hitler.

ONLY the support of the west made the successful russian 1944 attacks possible. That´s a fact !

[Cpt Kernow]

Lets talk facts. You just speculate.

Fact: 80% of German combat power on East Front
Fact: Russians kill more germans in one month June44 than western Allies kill in entire war 1939-45.
Fact: The western theaters were a side show to the east theater as is evinced by the above two facts.

Massive speculation: I can´t tell you exact numbers (LOL), but the troops (especially armored divisions) which were
forced to protect France for example would have been enough to bring the german 1942 offensive to an end.

Also the idea the allied bombing was haveing a significant effect on German military production in 41 and 42 is totally false. It grew in effectiveness in 43 but was only realy hurting in 44. By then the Germans had allready lost the war anyway.

However even your speculation dosnt change the fact that the Eastern theatre was the main event. Yes what was happening in the west played a part in that event, but those events only play a contributing part to the main event, they do not make the west the most important theatre at any time during the war.

Let us reverse the situation, imagine the Soviets had not won MASSIVE victories at Stalingrad (42) and Kursk, an invasion of mainland France/Italy now becomes utterly impossible however much bombing the western allies engage in. It was only the massive destruction of men and equipment visited on the wehrmacht by the russians that made any invasion of Normandy possible. If the Germans had achieved victories at Stalingrad and Kursk, this would have left the western allies probably only able to achieve a victory via the use of Nuclear weapons.

What happens in the west is only made relevant by its effect on the East. What happens in the west is only made possible by what happens in the East.

[Vic]

@seille,

Basicly Cpt Kernow is right in stating the Soviets won the war.

Though i would never consider the western and southern theaters of war as side shows.
For example the bombing argument. The fact that german production went up all the way untill 1944 does not mean that allied bombing had limited effect. If there would have been no bombing then german production would have increased much more and might have managed to keep up a decent replacement rate for the eastern front.

What happens in the west is only made relevant by its effect on the East. What happens in the west is only made possible by what happens in the East.

but if you state it that way then i would have to agree.

[tweber]

Seems like this thread has moved a bit beyond 'realistic artillery'. Anyway, a British historian, Richard Overy, wrote an interesting book called Why the Allies Won. I thought it was one of the better books on WWII. He lays out a lot of reasons why the Allies won the war. One of the more interesting one was standardization. During the conflict, the Soviets had less available coal and steel than the Germans but produce more tanks due to standardization. The Soviets had 5 main tank models while the Germans had something like 15. The same is true for aircraft.

[Cpt Kernow]

If there would have been no bombing then german production would have increased much more and might have managed to keep up a decent replacement rate for the eastern front.

Possibly but factories dont make babies. The germans were never in the position that the Soviets enjoyed.

Sov Col : We just lost a million men.
Sov General : Hmm, send in the next million.

As for standardisation, yea and reliability/repairability etc.

The T-34 is such a superior tank at the operational level.

1: Easy to make, hence large numbers
2: Runs in all conditions
3: Much larger/longer operational range.
4: Interchangable parts/simple repair.

The tiger is a bettter tank tacticaly but the t-34 is far superior at the operational level, especially the up gunned 85mm model.

[Ande]

prehaps is it not the casualties ratios in pt the problem but rather casualties vs survival ratios: I am not really aware of my overall losses in pt but it seems as losses like 25% per turn in some smaller scenarios is perfectly acceptable. this gives a small army in comparison to the industrial capacity. So, how to lower losses? well the simlest way is to lower destructive power. But I feel that most stats are fine in pt and what I seen in at they seem pretty much the same. One thing I am not comfortable with is the large casualties sustained to a unit before it retreats: In the mostly mobile war of ww2 units retreated when they saw no chance for success and this was often very early, atleast on the westernfront.It was better to run away and await reinforcements. So the reduced stats for artillery would be acceptable if less losses would be taken due to "regular" combat. therefore a high retreating number would be nice. Something like 90% losses, it would be fantastic if you could set this number yourself

[Vic]

It is possible in AT to set the retreat% of each unit. I usually leave them at 50% since that makes them retreat before morale can cause them to panick. But it is possible to set a unit to 5% retreat if you would want too. Retreats if done orderly will not cause you much losses, if however done unorderly (panicked unit) then it can be a little painfull.

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: Cpt Kernow

If you factor in civilian deaths as a result of WW2, I'm sure the contributions of artillery will be smaller.

Utterly irrelevant as this game does not model citizen casualties.

You think WW2 was won by military strategy? WOW, I suggest you take that ground breaking idea and use it as a thesis for your Military History PHD.

Obviously strategy won WW2, its just a question of what part artillery played in that strategy. Most people dont know this, but the Russians killed in one month (June 1944)more Germans that the western allies killed during the whole of WW2 1939-45 They managed this through there use of concentrated artillery and also use of mobile artillery platforms such as the SU series.

It wasnt Britain or America who defeated the Germans, it was the Russians, that is why the Nazis had 80% of their combat power on the East front. Italy and Normandy were just side shows to the main event.

While I wouldn't say Italy and Normandy were "sideshows", I do agree with the above post. The Russians just took a beating and came back for more...and year after year Stalin kept asking the western powers "When are you coming?" By the time of the Normandy invasion, the Russians were rolling over Germany...not to say that the combined bomber offensive didn't help, becuase it did, but there's not doubt the Russians took the brunt of the hardest, most brutal fighting for 4 years...