Japanese Death Star Artillery

[Bluebook]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

So...what would a suitable houserule look like? No more than 10 artillery units allowed in a hex?

guess this would depend on how big the armies are that are fighting each other. If you have two divisions on each side there would be less art units than if you have three dozen divs on each side. IMO it´s quite hard to implement a hr on it.

Why would the size of the armies matter? The death-star-losses does not appear when you have 8 artillery units in a hex for example. I have 8 arty units at Singapore and Batavia in my current pbem, and the losses from those bombardments have been very normal.

Sounds like the best and easiest way to avoid death-stars is to put a cap on how many artillery units that are allowed in a hex. Its an easy hr, and it is very easy to verify that both sides use it since you see all units in the combat report. I agree that it is somewhat blunt, since you can also get artillery fire from other units, but it should be enough to patch over this death star problem.

[Jonathan Pollard]

I think it would be reasonable that artillery be given a chance to become disabled for each time it's used, perhaps similar to the chance that aircraft can become damaged from operational losses. As I mentioned in my previous post, it's not just the gun tube that needed replacement after extensive use, the gun slide would eventually need replacement as well.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents,

There have been many posts - including a few by me - about the strength of Japanese artillery. Many of these posts have described the absolute devastation wrought by massed IJ artillery on Luzon and at Singapore.

I have just come face to face with this tactic in China in my PBEM with Miller. He brought seventeen (!!! [X(] !!!) artillery units to Chengchow, a key base on the Chinese main line of resistance. Chengchow has/had forts and should have been relatively immune from "artillery death star carnage." The results of back to back bombardments by Miller - 2,399 casualties the first day and 2,088 the second. Two of my units essentially vaporized. What was a strongly fortified position that had held in a long-term seige is suddenly decimated.

There is no way that the designers could intend for artillery to repeatedly cause this kind of damage to troops in fortified hexes. There is no way, as the game is currently configured, that the Allies have a chance to hold China against massed Japanese artillery.

Please, Developers, do something to address this situation. Immediately.

Sincerely,

Canoe "Bludgeoned to Death By IJ Artillery Death Star" Rebel

The issue not being addressed is ammunition supply. A divisional barrage was about as expensive in supply tonnage as a divisional move or a divisional assault (and several weeks in garrison). You could run a bomber squadron for at least a week on the tonnage used up by a single barrage.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

So...what would a suitable houserule look like? No more than 10 artillery units allowed in a hex?

guess this would depend on how big the armies are that are fighting each other. If you have two divisions on each side there would be less art units than if you have three dozen divs on each side. IMO it´s quite hard to implement a hr on it.

Why would the size of the armies matter? The death-star-losses does not appear when you have 8 artillery units in a hex for example. I have 8 arty units at Singapore and Batavia in my current pbem, and the losses from those bombardments have been very normal.

Sounds like the best and easiest way to avoid death-stars is to put a cap on how many artillery units that are allowed in a hex. Its an easy hr, and it is very easy to verify that both sides use it since you see all units in the combat report. I agree that it is somewhat blunt, since you can also get artillery fire from other units, but it should be enough to patch over this death star problem.

why size of the armies matters for a hr? Because of the fact that for example in real life two divisions would not have had 1/2 of a countries artillery units as support. That´s why size of armies matters. The bigger the army, the more artillery units it would have had as support.

[Bluebook]

ORIGINAL: castor troy
why size of the armies matters for a hr? Because of the fact that for example in real life two divisions would not have had 1/2 of a countries artillery units as support. That´s why size of armies matters. The bigger the army, the more artillery units it would have had as support.

But isnt the issue here the ahistorical (?) results that are caused by 17 artillery units, not whether it would be realistic to have those 17 units there in the first place? If the game engine cannot handle such a mass of artillery units without producing too high losses, then surely it doesnt matter if the units are stacked with 2, 5 or 15 divisions?

But of cource a houserule could be more advanced, for example no more than 2 artillery units in a hex, but that number may increase with 2 for every additional friendly division to a max of 10...or something like that.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

ORIGINAL: castor troy
why size of the armies matters for a hr? Because of the fact that for example in real life two divisions would not have had 1/2 of a countries artillery units as support. That´s why size of armies matters. The bigger the army, the more artillery units it would have had as support.

But isnt the issue here the ahistorical (?) results that are caused by 17 artillery units, not whether it would be realistic to have those 17 units there in the first place? If the game engine cannot handle such a mass of artillery units without producing too high losses, then surely it doesnt matter if the units are stacked with 2, 5 or 15 divisions?

But of cource a houserule could be more advanced, for example no more than 2 artillery units in a hex, but that number may increase with 2 for every additional friendly division to a max of 10...or something like that.

An attack by 17 artillery units would have used several thousand tons of supply for the first day and about half that for following days. The effect of most artillery fire was disorganisation and suppression, not destruction. In this case, it would have been about a mile of front per artillery unit. Model those two aspects, and players would not build death stars.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

ORIGINAL: castor troy
why size of the armies matters for a hr? Because of the fact that for example in real life two divisions would not have had 1/2 of a countries artillery units as support. That´s why size of armies matters. The bigger the army, the more artillery units it would have had as support.

But isnt the issue here the ahistorical (?) results that are caused by 17 artillery units, not whether it would be realistic to have those 17 units there in the first place? If the game engine cannot handle such a mass of artillery units without producing too high losses, then surely it doesnt matter if the units are stacked with 2, 5 or 15 divisions?

But of cource a houserule could be more advanced, for example no more than 2 artillery units in a hex, but that number may increase with 2 for every additional friendly division to a max of 10...or something like that.

while I´m unsure if the casualties of a single bombardment are too high, I´m sure that the 365 days a year non stop bombardments are causing too many casualties in total. So if you want to have a hr then all I can think of would be to limit the number of art units in a hex.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Bluebook

ORIGINAL: castor troy
why size of the armies matters for a hr? Because of the fact that for example in real life two divisions would not have had 1/2 of a countries artillery units as support. That´s why size of armies matters. The bigger the army, the more artillery units it would have had as support.

But isnt the issue here the ahistorical (?) results that are caused by 17 artillery units, not whether it would be realistic to have those 17 units there in the first place? If the game engine cannot handle such a mass of artillery units without producing too high losses, then surely it doesnt matter if the units are stacked with 2, 5 or 15 divisions?

But of cource a houserule could be more advanced, for example no more than 2 artillery units in a hex, but that number may increase with 2 for every additional friendly division to a max of 10...or something like that.

An attack by 17 artillery units would have used several thousand tons of supply for the first day and about half that for following days. The effect of most artillery fire was disorganisation and suppression, not destruction. In this case, it would have been about a mile of front per artillery unit. Model those two aspects, and players would not build death stars.

one more thing is the fact that forts nearly don´t help at all. Same was always correct for naval bombardments, no matter if you have level 9 forts or not, the (support)units were completely wiped out. IMO a high fort level should drastically reduce casualties caused by bombardments. Not true in the game IMO.

[Roko]

AE hex = 40 NM = 74km
the biggest artillery unit I have seen has 36 guns ( usually small pieces )
17units x 36guns = 612 divided by 74 =  8.3 guns per 1km (+ some divisional guns)

Red Army at Seelow Heights used 325 guns per 1km
and during assault Berlin 650 guns per 1km
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources ... asp#Berlin

your enemy use to many guns?
bring more own guns

[ny59giants]

A possible HR that has been mentioned would be something like an extra Rgt of artillery allowed in a hex for every division worth of troops. A Corp HQ present would allow another Rgt.

For Land Development Team - If an increase in supply usage is not possible code wise for artillery units, what about adding fatigue, disruption, or disablement of individual guns after every use?? If memory serves me (which is always a factor [:D]), doesn't an increase in fatigue and disruption decrease the effectiveness of a unit??

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

A possible HR that has been mentioned would be something like an extra Rgt of artillery allowed in a hex for every division worth of troops. A Corp HQ present would allow another Rgt.

For Land Development Team - If an increase in supply usage is not possible code wise for artillery units, what about adding fatigue, disruption, or disablement of individual guns after every use?? If memory serves me (which is always a factor [:D]), doesn't an increase in fatigue and disruption decrease the effectiveness of a unit??

How about an even simpler house rule - The Japanese cannot move "Heavy" Artillery out of Manchuria.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

A possible HR that has been mentioned would be something like an extra Rgt of artillery allowed in a hex for every division worth of troops. A Corp HQ present would allow another Rgt.

For Land Development Team - If an increase in supply usage is not possible code wise for artillery units, what about adding fatigue, disruption, or disablement of individual guns after every use?? If memory serves me (which is always a factor [:D]), doesn't an increase in fatigue and disruption decrease the effectiveness of a unit??

How about an even simpler house rule - The Japanese cannot move "Heavy" Artillery out of Manchuria.

how does that solve the problem that the Allied can mass even more artillery units in one hex over the course of the war with devastating effects? If all you need to do is bombardments with two dozen artillery units to take a base then something is wrong IMO.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

In WITP, artillery didn't do enough damage. Playing Japan, I never bombarded Chinese troops, because all you would do is train them, and not inflict any casualties. Artillery was of very limited value.

In AE, the pendulum has swung.

Maybe the problem isn't the EFFECTIVENESS of massed artillery, because 17 units IRL would also be doing a number on the Chinese. Maybe the problem is that Artillery doesn't consume enough SUPPLIES. If an artillery unit consumed 300 supplies per turn of bombardment, that would put a crimp in those Bombardments. You could still do a turn or two for assaults, but a month's worth would be impossible.

Or you could bombard daily for a month if you only 1 or 2 artillery units, instead of a big massed bombardment.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

A possible HR that has been mentioned would be something like an extra Rgt of artillery allowed in a hex for every division worth of troops. A Corp HQ present would allow another Rgt.

For Land Development Team - If an increase in supply usage is not possible code wise for artillery units, what about adding fatigue, disruption, or disablement of individual guns after every use?? If memory serves me (which is always a factor [:D]), doesn't an increase in fatigue and disruption decrease the effectiveness of a unit??

How about an even simpler house rule - The Japanese cannot move "Heavy" Artillery out of Manchuria.

how does that solve the problem that the Allied can mass even more artillery units in one hex over the course of the war with devastating effects? If all you need to do is bombardments with two dozen artillery units to take a base then something is wrong IMO.

Have we seen the Allies put 2 dozen artillery units in a hex?

[EUBanana]

Even one US field artillery unit is devastating in a siege type situation. When the WAllies roll, into Burma, say, arty will be as decisive as it is in China if not more so.

Certainly in the Guadalcanal scenario those US field artillery regiments rule the battlefields, I assume the later war will be like that but writ large, it isn't just a China thing.

Surely supply is the answer. 1 arty unit = sustainable daily bombardments, 17 arty units = supply goes down the event horizon. Problem solved, and it is realistic.

I do hope the pendulum doesn't swing too hard the other way though, like I feel it has with naval bombardment.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: treespider





How about an even simpler house rule - The Japanese cannot move "Heavy" Artillery out of Manchuria.

how does that solve the problem that the Allied can mass even more artillery units in one hex over the course of the war with devastating effects? If all you need to do is bombardments with two dozen artillery units to take a base then something is wrong IMO.

Have we seen the Allies put 2 dozen artillery units in a hex?

does this question imply this wouldn´t be possible? I don´t know what I should answer you. Would be the same as if you would ask: have we seen the IJN or USN put x ships into a hex... [&:]

[Nikademus]

Allies don't need too. One or two FA BN's are worth their weight in gold. [:D]

[Canoerebel]

I'm an not very familiar with the roster of developers, and there were so many replies to this post so quickly that I've lost track.  Have any of the developers (or those so close to developers that they have "the inside scoop") posted about plans to address nuclear artillery? 

[Terminus]

We're discussing it at the moment. Stay tuned.

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

We're discussing it at the moment. Stay tuned.

Well in the example given there are 8 artillery battalions and 9 artillery regiments, plus infantry units, I just don't see the issue here!