Artillery in 1.2 beta 2

[Walloc]

Could be a good idea.
At this point i had all 12 german and i think is it 6 or 7 AH art units.
Thats most hexes that will have 1. Since they vs AI can be used to reduced all in the hex to rdyness 0-1 fairly quick when tech upgraded those hexes are minch meat for 3-4 corps to finnish the hex off with out taking any casulties since at rdyness 0-1 russians wont do any damage back. Undoubtly that u can do this at an entirety of a 19 hex long front is very damaging to the AI.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Is that with air support?  Assuming no air support and that that 6 artillery is 2 units of 3 strength and not 1 unit of 6, then your average number of hits should be 5 or 6.  Its possible, if rolling above 70% on every roll, to get 18 hits.  But I'm assuming of course that you will roll above 70% only 30% of the time.

If you have air support it raises your maximum to 30 hits and your average to 9.

I checked to make sure I was indeed re-seeding the random number generator and its there.

Do you still have a save of that 21 hits? 

Yes on airsupport on the 20 test attempts. I closed program between each save, so less it saves rolls for anti cheating it should be new roll profe.
Cant say on the Liege example as it was AI doing it. I afterwards had airsuport on his hex just to confirm what was in it and was shooting at me.

Ill conjure up another test patch and send u tomorrow. 7am here, bed looks soo nice by now, Dang those American football games[;)]

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[FrankHunter]

Well I am able to look at both the AI and yours so if it repeats I'd like to see it, thanks. 

fhunter@telus.net

As for the Russian front, firing 19 artillery units is a lot of Barrage points.

[SMK-at-work]

I don't think there's any need to reduce the max number of artillery at normal difficulty - this is vs the AI, so would be somethign to look at only for increased difficulties IMO.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Well I am able to look at both the AI and yours so if it repeats I'd like to see it, thanks. 

The test was done hot seat to set up right situasions, so no AI to look at in those cases not that it matters.

As for the Russian front, firing 19 artillery units is a lot of Barrage points.

Very true. around 6 points worth per time.
Stil if i do the math of what I kill in 19 art barrages. Is worth alot more than 6 points worth so in a pure cost benefit analysis it works. 6 point is equal to 36 inf hits in buying value. With 19 barrages i kill that number many times over, plus at some point u have 19 hexes with rdyness 0-1, which is then more or less cost free to assault so u get that in bonus atop.

Other attack option would be to assault those hexes taking about same about of hit as i give.
Again return to the fact that art in a cost benefit analysis works far better. In my experience vs AI so good that I now can remove entire armies purely through art barrages.


Kind regards,

Rasmus.

P.S making up test batch now and will send shortly

[James Ward]

I believe artillery can be used in such a way that it becomes the primary offensive tool for taking ground when it should be a supplement that increases the chance you take ground with your infantry.
I don't know what the correct "fix" is for extreme tactics but I like this game and hope a balance can be achieved.

[SteveD64]

Increase the stacking points for artillery could work.  I really don't know if artillery is now too powerful or not- in beta version 1 a production point only buys two barrages which is good.  You really have to make tough decisons when using them.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

Increase the stacking points for artillery could work.  I really don't know if artillery is now too powerful or not- in beta version 1 a production point only buys two barrages which is good.  You really have to make tough decisons when using them.

In '14 u get 2 per point from '15 on u get 3 barrages from each production point. Just to clarify.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[SteveD64]

hmm I'm in 1915 and I swear I'm only getting 2 barrages.  Maybe I'm misremembering?

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

I believe artillery can be used in such a way that it becomes the primary offensive tool for taking ground when it should be a supplement that increases the chance you take ground with your infantry.
I don't know what the correct "fix" is for extreme tactics but I like this game and hope a balance can be achieved.

Im agreeing with u on that James. Fixes as i see it now, lets see if a bug has crept in or not. Is having less casulties especially in low trench hexes but keeping or upping the rdyness loss. That way art makes it a possibilty to attack/counterattack for the inf, not the art that litterally paves the way for the inf.
As i see it. That would work in the way that Frank descripes in above post as his wishes. In the way that art/barrages on a hex just after its been taken sets, that hex up for an counter attack by ur own inf. Not eliminating the enemy inf with ur art. That way u still have to have the inf to actually make ur own counterattack, the art just facilitates it.
To me as i understand and I would want it, is that its always the inf that have to take and be the prim motivator in attacking and counterattacking. Art being secondary albeit VERY importand catalysator for the inf. To the point without it, inf attacks is possibly impossible.
When as i see it now its the art that makes the far majority of casulties and inf just following up to take the gains. Playing second fiidle to the art. IMO u should be affraid of the inf that possibly can counterattack you, not freigthed by the casulties the art will cause u.

If u take assault troops which im assuming is in concept taken from the german Stormstroops. The idea in large tho im simplifying now was to inflitrate to overcome the problems of trenchwarfare.
The way it works now in the game is they negate the trenchbonus. That makes them able exactly like in historic terms to possibly attack with out artillery support, at leased to same degree as "normal" troops.
That part works great, but again if ur attack succedes. You end up in a hex after u won without any trenches. Which makes them just as septible to any art attack causing huge casulties as normal inf. By the time u have assault troops the other side might have art upteched to 5-6 FP per art. 2 of those are 10-12 FP on a trench 1 hex is in my experience as of beta 2 murder on the attacking assault troops.
One of the idea's behind of infiltrating was so u were "immune" to the the defenders art cuz u were in large too close / inter mixed with defenders own troops.
Since replacing assault troops casulties are at a higher cost than normal inf, u can again question whether it at all pays to ever attack if u have the slightest risk of after an succesfull attack end up in a hex where u could be smashed by the art in the real line behind the screen as Frank suggest is the tactic to use.

All these things as i see if caused by the upped casulties art inflicts as of beta 2. IMO and yes its just my opinion it takes a step back from creating the dynamic i understand Frank wants to be in the game. Compared to beta 1.


Any how thats my 2€ as i see it of now,

Rasmus

[Sardonic]

The problem is that dispersment allows infiltration.
The key to rendering arty ineffective is dispersement. This is hardly a revelation.

The game IS flawed in that.... the training involved in holding ground, as vs TAKING ground, is very different.

The Brits didnt hold back on shells at Passendale, and yet, it didnt help them much.

If you provide a target rich enviorment, then arty becomes a killer.

[Lascar]

I am currently playing two PBEM games with the 1.2 beta. One game as the CP and the other as the TE. If the intent of the artillery rules is to design for effect than it seems that an ahistorical effect has resulted from the current level of artillery casualties.

It is realistic to expect the eastern front to be fluid but I am seeing a lot of breakthroughs in the west after 1914 even when the Germans are sitting in level four trenches. It doesn't feel like WWI in the west. The earlier 1.1 version seemed to give a more historical effect. After 1914 there were no appreciable advances even after the expenditures of millions of shells. Hundreds of thousands of casualties but no big breakthroughs. Not until the advent of tanks at Cambrai in 1917 and strosstruppen in 1918 were there big gains in territory. The German entrenchments were simply too tough to crack wide open.

[SMK-at-work]

If the opponent is actually breaking through then you are not designing for defence.
 
there WERE substantial advances post 1914 - even on the Somme.  Perhaps not exactly as far as 1 hex, but certainly enough so that a 1 hex advance is not an unreasonable simulation.
 
Saying 1.1 was better has to be a joke[&:][&:]  Fewer entrenchments, less artillery per hex (artillery is now 2 stacking points per unit) and more vulnerable artillery (only 1 pt required to go to D, another to kill) means there is less artillery effect...or the same amount of artillery has to be more vulnerable due to having fewer defensive troops.
 
IIRC artillery barrages increase in number when you increase your artillery tech - not by date.
 
Historically you might well say that hte allies simply did not increase their artillery tech as much as you can in teh game - hence historically they were unable to crack the trenchlines with it.  however when used properly artillery WAS decisive - the advent of rolling and box barrages made allied artillery a very effective weapon.
 
What often happened was that the high command stopped opting for limited gains that the artillery could support....and kept trying for the grand breakthroughs that it could not - so effective attacks on day 1 of a battle would often turn into disasters the longer the assault was kept up.  Commanders who tried to only take limited objectives would do well - the "bite and hold".
 
In fact this is exactly what happened at Passchendale.....it is normally forgotten that attacks early in the 3 phases of the battle all went well behind massive barrages and German counterattacks were comprehensively beaten.......but later attacks delayed due to the (unseasonal!!) rain were disasters. 
 
IMO the lesson of Passchendale is not that artillery is ineffective....it is that continuing to attack in the face of difficult conditinos creates a tragedy!

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Saying 1.1 was better has to be a joke[&:][&:]  Fewer entrenchments, less artillery per hex (artillery is now 2 stacking points per unit) and more vulnerable artillery (only 1 pt required to go to D, another to kill) means there is less artillery effect...or the same amount of artillery has to be more vulnerable due to having fewer defensive troops.

I can only speak for my self. Just to clarify im not saying 1.1 was better than 1.2
Im saying i like the dynamics and casulties art wise better in 1.2 beta 1 than 1.2 beta 2.

IIRC artillery barrages increase in number when you increase your artillery tech - not by date.

Ok thx for that. I just figured since i always upgrade art and therefor saw it at same time. That it was periode related.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Lascar]

I fail to understand how having a level 4 trench is not considered to be adequate defense against massed artillery attacks. In 1916, at the Somme, the British use extensive artillery bombardments to soften up the Germans and yet their infantry suffered enormous loses going over the top. How many square kilometers did the British gain from all that? Was it equivalent to even one hex in GoA?

I am not commenting on specific mechanics i.e. cost of trench points, artillery stacking, etc. but at the overall effects of those mechanics. There is simply too much fluidity in the west so that there is no point in investing in tanks or strosstruppen to achieve large territorial gains.

The kind of advances that you are citing are more of a tactical or perhaps operational nature. Were rolling barrages and box barrages used late in the war in conjunction with tank supported attacks.?

Perhaps the retreat rules should be modified making it less likely that the defender in entrenchments can be forced to retreat. Short of a decisive breakthrough it should be difficult to actually force a defender out of their positions. If due to attrition a defender decides to withdrawal, as the Germans sometimes did in the west prior to late 1918, to less exposed positions that would give a more historical effect.

[SMK-at-work]

entrenchment already makes retreat less likely due to the lessening of casualties suffered by the defender and increasing those of the attacker. Also in hte West the winner has to inflict 150% of his own casualties to force a retreat rathe than the 100% elsewhere.......so it's altready quite heavily weighted in favour of the defender IMO.

the only way the Western front is too fluid is if there is insufficient troop density IMO - 4 corps and 1 arty per hex entrenched to level 4 pretty much stops everything dead....short of assault troops, tanks and the extraordinary arty bombardments being reported in this thread.

the 4+1 formulae requires the allies to survive the initial onslaught of course, and then build up, and hte Germans have to allocate sufficient troops too....which can mean lesssening the effort in the East.....

Many German players will not do this - they will go all out in the East and wonder why they can't hold hte allies in the west. And of course that's the gamble....can you KO Russia fast enough to justify weakening the Western Front?

alternatively we used to see the occasional complaint about Russian troops ending up next to Berlin because the CP player paid too much attention to the west and not enough to the East....the CP player has a tough balancing act to pull off...and it only takes a small error for it to all go horribly wrong.

Allied gains on the Somme - http://www.military.com/Resources/Resou ... erview.htm

[SMK-at-work]

I've jsut realised I've screwed up big time........I've been using 1.2b1, not b2!!
 
So my apoligies to all especially Walloc[&o][&o]

[Walloc]

Np at all, ur forgiven if u needed to be.[:)] Read u dont need to be forgiven IMO.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

[EUBanana]

I do think that there is still a bias against entrenchment. I'm kinda holding out to play a game and see how it goes before really arguing my corner on this one, but - if you don't need tanks, because they are superfluous, because any attack against a trenchline no matter how fortified will work (as Frank said) then something is wrong, IMO.

Surely static warfare came about because both sides dug in, not because they ran out of HQ points... If you attack and get slaughtered then you won't attack. In my experience you don't 'attack and get slaughtered' though, you are bled white almost instantly by artillery to the point that you have no one left to attack with, no matter what your entrenchment level.

I can understand this sort of max slaughter at some phases of the war (France and Germany each lost 1 million men in 1914 for example) but not really in others. Compare at contrast - in the First Marne, in 1914, 500,000 men became casualties in a week of fighting. At Verdun, about 750,000 men became casualties, but over a period of almost a whole year. Clearly, the conditions at Verdun were not the same as the conditions at the Marne. The difference is surely the fact that in 1916 there were trench lines and in 1914 there was nowhere to hide.

[SMK-at-work]

 I agree that if tanks and assault troops are not needed then something is wrong.
 
but the casualty thing is dependant on circumstances.....Gallipoli saw about 8000 New Zealand casualties in 9 months 9IIRC about 1800 killed)....the Somme saw the same number occur in 3 weeks of mostly successful offensive action!!  (actually a few more - both killed and wounded)  Passcehndale saw a mere 2700 or so casualties (640 killed) in about 2 weeks of fighting (not counting breaks between various actions) including both attack and defence.
 
The Marne was also a much more extensive battle than Verdun - it covered a front of 40-50 miles and included 3 armies on each side.  The "front" at Verdun was about 5 miles wide and had a max of 3 corps per side - often less as individual forts were attacked, and there weer fewer troops involved at any one time - the initial German attack pitted 3 corps against 3 divisions. 
 
Also Marne represents much more continual action than Verdun - the later was a series of relatively short battles - often only a few days long - with limited objectives - to take one or other fort or village, seperated by weeks of relative inactivity...so saying it was a 9-month-long battle doesn't really do it jsutice - the first and last battles were 9 months apart....but there was not continual action for all the intervening time.