Artillery - Pointless?

[Sardaukar]

I was suggesting earlier when arty-deathstar was discussed, that artillery in AE context should cause more disruption and supply loss than casualties in offensive use. In defensive use artillery was deadly and often managed to stop attacks dead on tracks with well-timed and aimed barrages.

[Jaroen]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Well I just had to find out for myself.

Results in this thread: tm.asp?m=2396978

Those were some really useful tests Shark7!!!

And from BigJ62's answers we eventually did learn there's something like a threshold before artillery begins to take effect. You need a huge load of firepower against forts and adverse terrain for having any noticable effect with your guns. And I believe that is counting number of tubes plus weight of shells.

The actual Bataan/Corregidor siege is a great example where the Japanes achieved actually nothing with artillery shelling only!

[Canoerebel]

The massive Allied bombings and bombardment of Iwo Jima did next to nothing against the well-entrenched (naw, that's not the right word - uber-entrenched would be better) Japanese defenders.  But Japanese artillery/mortar fire was quite effective to the U.S. troops that were in shell holes, foxholes, or on open ground.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Jaroen

The actual Bataan/Corregidor siege is a great example where the Japanes achieved actually nothing with artillery shelling only!

Well, if we think about it, there are very few examples in WW II, where artillery shelling only did much. It was always poor bloody infantry that had to take those places, including Sevastopol (and there Germans used 600mm and 800mm monster siege guns. Ditto with Warsaw Uprising.

[SqzMyLemon]

Just a question, is there somewhere a list of what fortification levels actually represent? I know the manual states levels 7-9 starting to represent fortress style emplacements like Sevastopol or the Maginot Line perhaps, but does not state the other ones. I'm curious to know what in particular levels 1-6 represent. I agree with your statement about Iwo Jima, that foxholes, dugouts, shell holes would not be very effective against sustained artillery bombardment, yet caves in a mountain would not be affected much [:D]. Would level 4 equate to pill boxes and concrete bunkers perhaps? You may not know either, but it would be nice to know what these levels actually refer to, then maybe a player can figure out his artillery requirements based on that information to be more effective. I think the HR of no more than 4-6 artillery units stacked together is moot now as well.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Just a question, is there somewhere a list of what fortification levels actually represent? I know the manual states levels 7-9 starting to represent fortress style emplacements like Sevastopol or the Maginot Line perhaps, but does not state the other ones. I'm curious to know what in particular levels 1-6 represent. I agree with your statement about Iwo Jima, that foxholes, dugouts, shell holes would not be very effective against sustained artillery bombardment, yet caves in a mountain would not be affected much [:D]. Would level 4 equate to pill boxes and concrete bunkers perhaps? You may not know either, but it would be nice to know what these levels actually refer to, then maybe a player can figure out his artillery requirements based on that information to be more effective. I think the HR of no more than 4-6 artillery units stacked together is moot now as well.

I don't think level 4 is concrete yet.

Maybe 1-3 light field fortification, starting from individual foxholes to trenches, cleared fields of fire etc. 4-5 would be field fortifications with log bunkers, barbed fire..I thin only lvl 6 and above we'd see concrete fortifications.

[pompack]

Well, I joined in the testing frenzy in the other thread

tm.asp?m=2396978&mpage=4&key=&#2398315

My results are in posts 92-94 and suppliment the test by Shark, BigJ62, and treespider and of course the wonderful observations by Kull.

While I expect considerable differences of opinion [:D], here are my conclusions (post 95 in same thread)

"My Conclusions:

While others may not agree , I have come to the conclusion that the current artillery rules are very close to perfect

If you bombard moderate entrenchmemts in urban terrain, you mostly just burn up ammunition. As Kull stated elsewhere, if you use your artillery in conjunction with your infantry and engineers (anybody say "combined arms"?) you get a very substantial improvement in combat effectiveness over simple infantry assaults.

Furthermore, these results are comforting to me because even with quite heavy artillery support for an infantry assult it is certainly not a "Death Star". It still requires multiple days of assulting with infantry, engineers, and artillery to reduce urban fortifications. "

[SqzMyLemon]

pompack, a question for you. What in your mind constitutes "heavy artillery support", how many artillery units/guns are you thinking in terms of?

One example for you in a game I'm playing at Bataan. Level 4 fortifications, 6 attacking artillery units, combined with all the infantry unit's inherent artillery capability...580+ guns have little effect with straight bombardment attacks on Bataan's defences. 3 Shock and 1 deliberate attacks later, supported by those same 6 artillery units, has had 0 effect on the fortification level. And this after weeks of air and ground bombardment. AV comparison is roughly 3:2 in favour of Japanese forces. I've been informed I did not bring enough artillery or troops to make an impact, I'm ok with that.

What I'm trying to learn is, if the artillery is working fine now with reduced effect as intended, I'd like some idea how much I have to bring to bear on certain fortification levels to have a chance at cracking the defences. I've read something about an "artillery threshold" or "saturation" point having to be attained before you will see positive results. What the heck does that mean? Does a player have to guess by trail and error what that magic number might be in any given circumstance? After the implementation of the patch, I'm sure a lot of players have no idea how much artillery is needed for positive results, what worked before definitely does not anymore. My hope is that some clarification will be forthcoming. I'm ok with the changes, really...(except disruption [:D]) but I think some guidelines are needed to let people know what will, or won't be effective anymore. I know there is no absolute right answer, because of the sheer number of variables, but there must be some ballpark figures that could be available. I think a lot of the frustration over this issue may not be the actual changes, but not knowing what is an effective level of artillery support anymore.

Just a suggestion.

[freeboy]

I probably aggree.. but what wwe are seeing is many pbem games that have gove from begginning to or toward the middle.. and these changes, while welcome in total, leave us fighting on shifting sand.. which way does the game tilt this patch.. ?? oh no, art is less.. lets add some planes... at least things are going both ways! I trust my chinees units LOVE these changes

[SqzMyLemon]

I don't even want to think about China now! I'm having a hard enough time dealing with Bataan. [8|] It does shift things for sure in ongoing games, mine included.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

pompack, a question for you. What in your mind constitutes "heavy artillery support", how many artillery units/guns are you thinking in terms of?

One example for you in a game I'm playing at Bataan. Level 4 fortifications, 6 attacking artillery units, combined with all the infantry unit's inherent artillery capability...580+ guns have little effect with straight bombardment attacks on Bataan's defences. 3 Shock and 1 deliberate attacks later, supported by those same 6 artillery units, has had 0 effect on the fortification level. And this after weeks of air and ground bombardment. AV comparison is roughly 3:2 in favour of Japanese forces. I've been informed I did not bring enough artillery or troops to make an impact, I'm ok with that.

What I'm trying to learn is, if the artillery is working fine now with reduced effect as intended, I'd like some idea how much I have to bring to bear on certain fortification levels to have a chance at cracking the defences. I've read something about an "artillery threshold" or "saturation" point having to be attained before you will see positive results. What the heck does that mean? Does a player have to guess by trail and error what that magic number might be in any given circumstance? After the implementation of the patch, I'm sure a lot of players have no idea how much artillery is needed for positive results, what worked before definitely does not anymore. My hope is that some clarification will be forthcoming. I'm ok with the changes, really...(except disruption [:D]) but I think some guidelines are needed to let people know what will, or won't be effective anymore. I know there is no absolute right answer, because of the sheer number of variables, but there must be some ballpark figures that could be available. I think a lot of the frustration over this issue may not be the actual changes, but not knowing what is an effective level of artillery support anymore.

Just a suggestion.

Check out my posts in the other thread for the details.

In general I consider 10 to 12 independent (but non-AT) artillery units to be heavy support. In my testing example, I just picked up the available artillery near HK. It consisted of 327 tubes (joining 260 tubes of orgainic artillery) assigned to four heavy, two medium, one field, four morter and one mountain unit (12 total).

As in the test,about about 500 tubes in a bombardment against lvl 3 urban terrain will sometimes disable a squad or two on a good day. If about 30,000 good troops with their 260 organic tubes (about 1000AV) assault (NEVER shock until the last day if then) about 200 AV of defenders you can expect to wear then down and take the position in 6 to 12 days at a cost of 10%-25% of your force dead or disrupted.

However, if you add the additional independet artillery you can take the position in half the time and a quarter of the total casualties. At least you can if you never bombard since all that does is use supply, tire your force, and increase the opponents experience level. And of course, never shock attack.

Now I have no idea how to compute the thereshold level (if one exists), but I do know this. Assaulting a fortified position with only artillery (bombard) is useless. Assaulting a fortified position with a little infantry and artillery is almost as useless and will obliterate your infantry. Assaulting a fortified position with about a 3:1 AV advantage including one tube per 10-15 men and "some " engineers will eventually give you the position by wearing down the defenders (assuming you don't geive them a chance to repair forts and replace losses). Augmenting that infantry/engineer force with about one additional artillery unit per 75-100 AV will take a position in a week or less. Note that I speak of units here instead of tubes; as near as I can tell, a heavy artillery unit has about the same affect as a morter unit with 24 tubes. This is NOT like real life where only the heavy stuff is useful against forifications with overhead cover.

BTW did I mention that you should never, ever, really not ever shock assault a fortified position unless there is nothing left but two cooks and an orderly inside? [:D]. If you do, you will have to stop and rest since you will take worse casaulties and disruption than your opponent. This will give him time to recover and replace and then you have to start all over again. Remember when you shock attack, you give hime an EXTRA shot at you and a bonus with each shot; all you get in exchange is an artificial boost of one or two levels of superiority. This is fine at the end when you are aiming at that extra superiority pushing him over the edge and surrendering. But if he does NOT surrender then you have just wrecked your army.

[SqzMyLemon]

Thanks pompack. You explained things nicely, I appreciate your response, and I will definitely look at things differently now. I am learning what not to do at any rate, especially premature (no pun intended) shock attacking or bombarding on its own. Desperation was setting in so I had hoped the modifier for a shock attack might do something...a valuable lesson learned. Deliberate is the way to go, slow and steady as they say. At least banging my head into a wall at Bataan got me looking into things. I pity the Allied troops on Java now, it's a whole new ballgame [:D]! China, I'm not so confident about [8|].

[marc420]

Been reading about a different war on a different continent, but at the start of WWI, German very heavy guns did a very nice job of bombarding reinforced concrete forts into submission.  I'm thinking of Liege and Namur in 1914.  Note however that these were very heavy guns in the 20+ and 30+ cm size range.  If I remember correctly, they only had this effect when the big seige guns got brought up, and the 'smaller' guns that were normally around (15cm or smaller) didn't have this effectiveness.

The accounts tell especially of the effect on morale.  Essentially, the Germans proved to the Belgians that the big shells could penetrate the reinforced concrete and steel of their forts. Once a few forts had been seriously hit, the morale in the other forts didn't last long.  When people knew other forts had been blown up, and then they heard the heavy shells dropping in around on the top of their fort, they tended to decide that it was time to surrender.  The Germans rarely if ever assaulted these forts. I'd have to go find the book, but I think maybe they tried once before the big guns arrived and it didn't do very well.  Then, they brought up the big guns and they just methodically pounded one after another of the 'forts' in these fortress rings into submission and surrender.

Maybe really big guns are what you really need to reach 'saturation' level without a huge number of units?  And in some ways, its kinda like armored vehicle combat.  There's a threshold in penetration/punching power you need to impact the defenses.  If you don't have guns of that size, then the defenders can sit inside and drink tea and wait for the bombardment to end.  But, when you do have the proper size guns for the level of fortifications, then the defenders get very nervous as they feel their forts being blown apart around them.  Since 'saturation level' is so unknown, who knows?  But there might be some reason for simply saying small guns never really effect the really stout fortifications.  If I'm in a strong underground concrete bunker, I may not care how many 80mm mortars are firing at me.  But bring up even a few 25cm 'seige' guns, and I could start to get very worried.  All of which just says I'd love to know more about this 'saturation' level and how it works.

Don't know if there was much 'seige artillery' like this in the land units in the pacific.  But the big BC's and BB's have guns well up into this size range.  Which makes me wonder if anyone has looked at the effect of bombardment missions on such fortifications in urban terrain.  Maybe the tactical answer is to bring up a battleship's big guns to see what they do to one of these fortresses?

[marc420]

PS ... When I stop and think about it, there were a few instances in the pacific where the fortifications were 'stouter' than the ones at Leige and Namur.  I'm particularly thinking of the places where the defenders had time to tunnel deep into mountainsides.  Corriegidor and Iwo Jima come to mind.  At Iwo, we know historically that even long bombardment by BB guns didn't have any big impact on the defenders.  If I take those as 'lvl 9' forts in this game, then there should be such a fort level where it shouldn't matter much what an attacker bombards with.

But, if Hong Kong was lvl 3 forts, and if I read somewhere else in these threads that this is just a well dug-in force, but not quite up to even the level of log redoubts, then you'd expect even regular artillery to slowly have some effect on these defenders.  Although, it makes sense to me that bombardment without an assault would be less effective.  In an assault, the infantry is locating the enemy strong-points and calling in fire, while in a 'bombardment', they are just sitting back and hitting what they think are likely targets.

Also in WWI, the allies constructed trench systems with dug-in log shelters, and the Germans used more reinforced concrete in these.  In both cases, defenders were generally able to ride out long bombardments with the 'regular' sort of guns that were around at the division and corps level (10cm or 15cm).  There was that stretch of WWI where the allies thought long bombardments were the answer, and all that ever happened was that the Germans came out of their shelters and manned the machine guns as the barrage finally lifted and the infantry advanced.  In WWI, the tactic that eventually evolved was a short sharp bombardment that was essentially part of what would be an 'assault' in this game.

Anyways, thanks for the thread. Its nice to know what's happening in the game and what to do and what not to do. 

BTW ... just a thought for the devs, but I was wondering if they'd considered having two different types of bombardment attacks?   There's the sort of 'harrassing fire' and 'intel-by-fire-mission' type of bombardments, and there's also the "we're throwing every thing we got at you today because we are assaulting tomorrow" sort of bombardments.  If the game system gave the players the choice between those, then maybe the results could be more what they expect.  Right now I get the impression that some people are thinking of bombardment as the 'all-out' type when it might be modeled more as the 'harrassing fire' type.  The 'all-out' bombardments could have a much bigger impact on the attacker's supply levels (as these were huge logistical efforts), but maybe also have a more noticeable effect on defenders who aren't really well fortified.

[marc420]

Sorry to keep posting, but I'm thinking about this stuff. 

One thing that tells me that this is a more of a harrassing fire type of bombardment is that it doesn't cost the attacker a lot of supplies.  Something like a 10cm/5 in artillery shell is not a small nor light thing.  And if a battery of four or six guns is firing these steadily during a day in an intense day of bombardment prior to an assault, it can fire an awful lot of the things.  If a force was to set up for such a day long intense bombardment, it would use up a lot of shells and this should be a major logistical effort to prepare for.

Since the attackers don't take a major supply hit, 'bombardment' to me in this game sounds more like a battery taking on a fire mission of a few minutes against an enemy strong point during the morning. Then maybe engaging in a few minutes of counter battery fire in the afternoon.  Then firing the sporadic shots at night that are mainly designed to keep an enemy from sleeping.

The other thing to remember is that these are 40nm hexes.  Within that hex, you can have trench systems that while they don't rise to the level of concrete forts like Leige, the better trench systems can have multiple lines with miles of depth and still easily fit in a 40nm hex.  You're not talking about 150 guns bombarding the Alamo. You're talking about 150 guns firing shells into a region the size of  a major American city.  A specific target like a port could probably get a good bombardment from 150 guns.  Assuming they can all get within range.  But, 10,000 defenders entrenched in multiple defense lines that are miles long around the outskirts of such a city won't be so badly effected by this.  Especially not if the attackers aren't spending huge amounts of supplies/shells in doing this.

[mike scholl 1]

Probably the biggest problem is that far too many players got used to the "nuclear bombardments" as a way to keep from having to think about how to tackle a defensive position.  With no modifiers for terrain or fortification, and virtually no supply costs, they got results commiserate with a day-long fire mission from "Atomic Annie".  They got spoiled...

Now with the defensive modifiers, and some increase in supply costs, they are left thinking artillery is "worthless".  It might be a trifle under-powered (and it's still cheap), but the results are making a lot more sense than they did before.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
Probably the biggest problem is that far too many players got used to the "nuclear bombardments" as a way to keep from having to think about how to tackle a defensive position.  With no modifiers for terrain or fortification, and virtually no supply costs, they got results commiserate with a day-long fire mission from "Atomic Annie".  They got spoiled...

Now with the defensive modifiers, and some increase in supply costs, they are left thinking artillery is "worthless".  It might be a trifle under-powered (and it's still cheap), but the results are making a lot more sense than they did before.

Certainly agree with your post Mike. Also the "and it's still cheap" got me to thinking (always dangerous[:D]):

Let's think about medium field artillery. Sustained fire rate for a day is about one round a minute (noting that this may occur in bursts of six rounds/minute then rest). Derate this by 30% to account for gun and crew maintenance and I get 40 rounds/hour or roughly 1000 rounds a day. In round numbers say 50 pounds per complete round. Even ignoring the amount to account for cans, packing, wastage, etc. you get a requirement of 20 tons per day per tube. For a nominal ten tube independent medium LCU, that comes to a rather incredible 200 tons/day for either an assault or a bombardment. This is considerably more than the supply level that it is supplied to.

For you cannon-crackers out there, have I over-rated something or is the artillery still too cheap to operate?

EDIT: Still thinking. I seem to remember that a "standard" US Infantry Division in Europe 44, without attachments had three field artillery battalion(36x105mm) and one medium battalion (12x155mm). That comprised less than 10% of the manpower but consumeed over 75% of the supply in the attack

[Shark7]

The real problem with that is that artillery should be a demoralizing factor. Think about it...someone who is undergoing a round the clock bombardment is not going to be happy, organized or well rested. This is only to a degree though.

I've never argued that we should be causing casualties with artillery, I do think we should cause disruption, fatigue and lower morale...to a point. It needs to be capped so that units can't be bombarded to the point that they are at 0 morale, and 100 fatigue and disruption. I'd cap it at 25% disruption, 25-25% fatigue, and a morale hit of up to 30-35 points. This would build up over time of course.

Now then, there are variables.

Fanatical soldiers are harder to demorilize. Well dug in Japanese troops, who are more than willing to die in combat are naturally more resistant to the effects than a bunch of poorly trained, conscripted at gunpoint Chinese rabble that wants to be anywhere other than where they are. Battle hardened US Marines are naturally going to be harder to demoralize than green, fresh out of bootcamp marines. In other words...

Unit experience would be a mitigating factor for the demoralizing effects of artillery bombardments.

So if I were going to write it up in a series of If/Then statements it might look something like this: Keep in mind I am not a coder and this simple version will have many mistakes, but it gives an example of what I am talking about.

If <unit> undergoes bombardment, then [resist check];
<resist check> = <Unit Experience + Random Number D20> = Target Number;
If <D100> >/= [target number], then resist check = fail;
If <resist check> = fail, then [morale modifier];
<morale modifier> = Random Number D6+1;

If <disruption> </=25, then add [morale modifier];
If <fatigue> </= 35, then add [morale modifier];
If <morale> >/= 50, then subtract [morale modifier];


Bear in mind that I have zero actual coding experience, and a real coder can turn this into something more useful, but it does give you the idea of what I am looking for.

You can also see in this set up, that once you hit the thresholds, you can only drop below those by a maximum of 7 (D6+1). So potentially, Morale could drop to 43, Disruption could go to 32, and Fatigue could go to 42 from many days of bombardment or 1 day if the unit is already sufferening. You'll also notice that the higher the experience, the less likely the effect will hit.

A 99 experience unit (which is an elite unit) has only a very small chance of ever being hit with this (the target number would have to be 100, not over as is possible, and you'd have to roll a 100 on the D100 for the check).

This of course is only an example, but it gives you an idea of what I'd like to see.

[Dili]

I was suggesting earlier when arty-deathstar was discussed, that artillery in AE context should cause more disruption and supply loss than casualties in offensive use. In defensive use artillery was deadly and often managed to stop attacks dead on tracks with well-timed and aimed barrages.

Very good point.

---------
Should not be forgotten that the effects of Gun Bombardment should make sense with Aerial Bombardment and Naval Bombardment damages too.

[chesmart]

Yes agreed Shark it would be nice to have.