Research

[FrankHunter]

Or maybe "approximation" would be better.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Research is the same from both sides. And yes, it should be considered an average.

Yes but their research starting positions are not exactly equal. CP is a bit ahead on trenches, aircraft and gas which shifts the average spending researching those techs.

[FrankHunter]

That's true.

[SMK-at-work]

bump, so we can see the research matrix to compare arty and trenches....

[Shawkhan]

It did take longer to develop effective artillery doctrine than to learn to dig trenches. Effective trench systems were used by the end of the ACW whereas the new power of artillery wasn't effectively harnessed to aid the offense via advanced concepts such as rolling barrages,TOT and intermittent bombardments, etc. until near the end of the war.

[MarkShot]

Also, one might argue that early war use of arty was perhaps counter-productive on occassions:

(1) A few days of prep-bombardment was as good as intel reports from (air recon, spys, patrols/prisoners) that something was brewing.

(2) The arty chewed up the ground of no mans land and made it even harder to cross rapidly during an attack.

[SMK-at-work]

True....but artillery was still effective and killed llots of troops even with simpistic tactics.
 
Trench "doctrine" also took time to develop - the Germans were stil putting most oftheir people in the front line in 1916 but in deep trenches - that was still too expensive in casualties despite the shell-proof bunkers (bunkers could still get burried trapping the men inside!!) so it was 1917 that they went to the lightly held "outpost" line AFAIK.
 
the point is yuo can easily get to level 4 trenches in 1915 well before artillery gets to be effective vs level 2 trenches.  IMO artillery should trail trenches if equal research is spent, but only by about 1-1.5 levels IMO, not 2+ as now.

[Shawkhan]

Artillery was always good at killing troops attacking out in the open(defensively).  It was most effective at that even during the ACW. Learning to use artillery effectively on the offense was a time consuming proicess. Even a fox hole (less than two hours work) reduced the effectiveness of WWI(actually any artillery of any time period) drastically. There should be a huge difference in even level one entrenchments versus no entrenchments in the game.
 I see no problem with increasing the technology cost of entrenchments myself if we want to simulate the continuing elaboration of the trench systems.
... I think attacking troops in the game should lose the benefit of entrenchments, as they would have been caught out in the open.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

... I think attacking troops in the game should lose the benefit of entrenchments, as they would have been caught out in the open.

Oh but they do [;)]