Jury's Decision on Artillery Use?

[Icedawg]

First of all, I'd like to thank the folks who have done the artillery testing referred to in other threads. I simply don't have the time to do such things, so I am very grateful to all involved.

Now that this testing has been done, what seems to be the best use of artillery?

From what I've gathered by reading these threads, artillery should be used in two ways - to wear down isolated fortresses (Hong Kong and Batan as examples) and to support infantry assaults. Bombarding for the sake of wearing down a non-isolated defender is pointless (you just help the enemy by burning your supply and increasing the experience of the bombarded units). Is this the basic take-home message? Is there more to it than these main points?

[Shark7]

My take on it.

If the base is cut off and isolated, bombardment will reduce the supplies and the base will fall quicker. If the base has a supply line, not worth the effort, the only thing you really accomplish is to increase defender XP.

Isolated = bombard
Not Isolated = don't bombard

Other's may have a different opinion.

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

My take on it.

If the base is cut off and isolated, bombardment will reduce the supplies and the base will fall quicker. If the base has a supply line, not worth the effort, the only thing you really accomplish is to increase defender XP.

Isolated = bombard
Not Isolated = don't bombard

Other's may have a different opinion.

Thanks for the confirmation of my thoughts.

While I'm thinking of it - IFIRC, the artillery test threads didn't test the effect of recon flights on enemy casualties. It seems as though this could be a huge factor - Would increased DL's due to recon flights have impacted casualties caused by bombardments?

[Icedawg]

bump

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

First of all, I'd like to thank the folks who have done the artillery testing referred to in other threads. I simply don't have the time to do such things, so I am very grateful to all involved.

Now that this testing has been done, what seems to be the best use of artillery?

Firing intelligence shells to check enemy's AV. Otherwise you should never ever bombard, unless the supply cost is around 0 (I don't know any simple way tho check this).

Consider these results, which I got testing the biggest artillery park, that can be plausibly concentrated in one place during early game, against AI:

Ground combat at Loyang (87,43)
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 85303 troops, 948 guns, 405 vehicles, Assault Value = 2976
Defending force 38334 troops, 280 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 841
Japanese ground losses:
35 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
266 casualties reported
Squads: 8 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 3 (2 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Assaulting units:
35th Division
36th Division
41st Division
110th Division
40th Division
5th Ind. Engineer Regiment
37th Division
32nd Division
6th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
4th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
1st Army
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
1st Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
1st Mortar Battalion
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
7th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
3rd Hvy.Artillery Regiment
11th Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
1st Chinese Corps
9th Chinese Corps
47th Chinese Corps
36th Chinese Corps
96th Chinese Corps
38th Chinese Corps
40th Chinese Corps
98th Chinese Corps
36th Group Army
Jingcha War Area
24th Group Army
1st War Area
3rd Construction Regiment
15th Group Army
39th Group Army
4th Group Army
10th Chinese Base Force
14th Group Army
4th Chinese Base Force
7th Construction Regiment

Are they worth the effort? The short answer is no and the long answer is nooooooooo. At least ART fires during assaults, so - I hope - there's reason enough to drag it along.

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

From what I've gathered by reading these threads, artillery should be used in two ways - to wear down isolated fortresses

Except the extra supply loss is so miniscule as to be practically irrelevant. If you allow a siege to last for several months, that's usually a failure already.

[Shark7]

Another thing...never, ever bombard with an infantry unit. Seems like they always suffer bad disruption when you do, the infantry squads seem to suffer from the counter battery fire at a very high rate.

[treespider]

I am one of the ones who disagree... to me Artillery Bombardments are quite useful in supply poor and supply isolated areas on the map.,,,but to each their own.

[crsutton]

It is basically a support weapon now. That what is should have always been. I still will throw a bombardment out now and then.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: treespider

I am one of the ones who disagree... to me Artillery Bombardments are quite useful in supply poor and supply isolated areas on the map.,,,but to each their own.

I agree, artillery firing causes your enemy to burn supplies. And more than likely it also prevents him from recovering fatigue and morale and repairing disablesd equipment. So you can use artillery between assaults to keep your enemy on edge while you recover for the next assault.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: FatR
Are they worth the effort? The short answer is no and the long answer is nooooooooo. At least ART fires during assaults, so - I hope - there's reason enough to drag it along.

This isn’t a fair assessment of artillery. You’re forgetting the one thing that makes it so uber in game. It can fire every single day, something real artillery could never do in real life.

So looking at these results now:

Allied ground losses:
266 casualties reported
Squads: 8 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 3 (2 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Multiply them by 30 consecutive days and you get:

Allied ground losses:
7980 casualties reported
Squads: 240 destroyed, 240 disabled
Non Combat: 90 destroyed, 240 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 30 disabled
Guns lost 90 (60 destroyed, 30 disabled)

That’s about 2 divisions a month obliterated for absolutely no casualties taken by you, so artillery is still very powerful in game. It just isn’t the uber nuke it used to be.

In a perfect world, artillery would do a bit more damage, but you’d basically only be able to afford to shoot it a few times a month.

Jim

[PresterJohn001]

I've not seen anything getting close to 100 casulaties in a bombardment since the patch, plus bombarding gives the enemy experience. Fatigue and Disruption caused are minimal too.

My use is now:
1) To support a deliberate or shock attack
2) Maybe if i can isolate a hex to speed their supply use

anyone know if art will fire at ships during an invasion?

[Dili]

it just needs to be proportional to damage done by aerial bombing and naval bombing.

[Miller]

In my game now it seems the one doing the bombarding takes more losses than the target, as well as burning supplies, giving the def troops exp and increasing the disruption and fatigue of your own troops.

[GrimOne]

I bet that everyone is sick of talking about the artillery debate from patch 3

However I am pretty amazed that the artillery debate has not led to a admission of an overcompensation to the Chinese Fanboys by the design team.

I know there were some great tests on previous posts that showed artillery has now a bigger impact on the side doing the bombarding than the side recieving.

The problem is that the code running the AI has not been told that bombarding is now about as effective as throwing rocks. (very small ones).

Playing against the AI I just have my troops sit in the hex until the the computer side has used up its supplies and worn itself out with useless bombarding.
If the artillery bombardment feature is going to remain this weak the AI has to be fixed so it doesn't use it.

Any thoughts ?

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Miller
In my game now it seems the one doing the bombarding takes more losses than the target, as well as burning supplies, giving the def troops exp and increasing the disruption and fatigue of your own troops.

Miller is absolutely right. In my game the Allies have isolated Manado and bombed it heavily for months. The Allies have a 2100 AV army there facing a garrison of about 900 AV. A few days ago the Allies did a bombardment using two US Army field artillery regiments and one Marine arty regiment. The Japanese suffered zero casualties and the Allies took a modest amount of casualties.

Artillery is nearly (or perhaps totally) worthless against entrenched troops, at least at fort level four and up. It isn't worth doing except to find out the strength of the enemy.

Arty against unintrenched troops - or low entrenched troops - may still be worthwhile, but I haven't been in a position to try it since the patches and hot fixes that changed artillery so much.

I remain convinced, however, the neutered artillery is much, much better than nuclear artillery.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Miller
In my game now it seems the one doing the bombarding takes more losses than the target, as well as burning supplies, giving the def troops exp and increasing the disruption and fatigue of your own troops.

Miller is absolutely right. In my game the Allies have isolated Manado and bombed it heavily for months. The Allies have a 2100 AV army there facing a garrison of about 900 AV. A few days ago the Allies did a bombardment using two US Army field artillery regiments and one Marine arty regiment. The Japanese suffered zero casualties and the Allies took a modest amount of casualties.

Artillery is nearly (or perhaps totally) worthless against entrenched troops, at least at fort level four and up. It isn't worth doing except to find out the strength of the enemy.

Arty against unintrenched troops - or low entrenched troops - may still be worthwhile, but I haven't been in a position to try it since the patches and hot fixes that changed artillery so much.

I remain convinced, however, the neutered artillery is much, much better than nuclear artillery.

And while I know not all are guilty of it, I just have to add in here...

Any AFB who complained about the arty when the game was new and is now upset that their artillery is more worthless than sneezing at Japanese fortifications...well...you got EXACTLY what you asked for...enjoy.

Yeah, I've got an attitude about it, but when its all said and done the artillery in AE is as nerfed and useless as it was in Vanilla. An adjustment of about 50-66% of what we actually got would have been more acceptable, but that isn't what happened.

BTW, I do have a game against the AI with 24 artillery units stacked against a fort level 2 base doing no more damage than any other place...24 units should be over the saturation point, but it apparently isn't. Bombardment is a wasted effort as it stands now.

[LoBaron]

It really depends on the fort level. But against low forts I´m seeing realistic results, while high fortification levels should make arty close to
ineffective (which I also notice).

Losses on heavily dug in troops were very low.

In general I´m very happy with how its tweaked currently. Seems close to real.

[viberpol]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Any AFB who complained about the arty when the game was new and is now upset that their artillery is more worthless than sneezing at Japanese fortifications...well...you got EXACTLY what you asked for...enjoy.

Well said Shark7

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn
anyone know if art will fire at ships during an invasion?

I also want to know that. How to determine whether a particular gun/howitzer will fire against bombarding/invasion TF?
Will guns classified as "army weapon" fire just as DP guns?

If there's actually no use of them in field, maybe they'll be useful on islands to give a warm welcome to any non-invited party? [;)]

[Canoerebel]

I don't know any "Allied Fanboys" griping about the current artillery model - possibly because I'm not quite sure what a "fan boy" is supposed to be and who would fall within that defination.  Nearly every player I've met in the forums desires an appropriately balanced game that models or at least resembles the situation in the Pacific.

I do know people who politely - though perhaps repeatedly - voiced concerns about the "Artillery Death Star" feature when the game was released.  Their complaints were valid as the designers made some mighty big changes.  (But imagine the effrontery of people actually pointing out problems so that they could be addressed to the benefit of the entire community).

Those same players also (1) made it clear that they appreciated efforts of the designers in creating the game; (2) were grateful for the designers' quick work to address problems, and (3) that while they lament any "over correction," it appears that nerfed artillery actually is preferable to nuclear artillery if we have to bear with one extreme for awhile.

No doubt further tweaks will be made to artillery until it's just right - or as close as possible.  We AE players are most fortunate to play a game with this level of interest and support.

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
We AE players are most fortunate to play a game with this level of interest and support.

Exactly. How many other game companies back their product even to 1/100 of the degree that Matrix does? I'll tell you - NONE!

Thanks Matrix!

And thanks to all of you guys out there who put insane amounts of effort into running tests of various topics (ie Shark). These tests have really opened my eyes as to how various aspects of the game work (especially those not clearly spelled out in the manual).