Command Ops: Artillery under AI control and you

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
1, It dramatically increases the command load, and response time of the Bn HQ. So that adding just a few artillery assets will grossly over load it.

That might a matter of tweaking attachment influences to command load. Personally, I only attach arty units when I'm expecting a set piece battle to happen. When moving forward detachments, I usually move the artillery component (if any) separatedly, and attaching it if I decide (or I find myself needing) to launch an assault.

I rarely let the AI to develop attacks under the "Attacks allowed" feature: I'd rather cancel the move task and issue myself an assault, assigning any long range fire support I deem necessary. I find "Attacks Allowed" to be fine when "mopping up" or pursuing retreating/routed enemy forces.

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
2, The artillery units are added to the line units formation foot print, so you can no longer attack with a close Bn formation.

When you specify a frontage, the AI acknowledges it to be an "upper bound" on the actual frontage. You'll see in the saved game above that the frontage the AI decides to pursue the assault is usually way narrower than whatever you specify. Constricting too much the frontage can conflict with the attack formation, causing the assault to stall.

The AI will determine a firebase location for these assets, and that's factored into the determination of the actual assault frontage.

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15
3, There is no preliminary bombardment of the attack objective, as the attacking units close on it, and trying to do so manually with the artillery units will remove them from the attacking formation, and cause it re plan, or abort.

That's a feature which is missing in the AI attack doctrines and I think would be valuable thing to add.

In the meantime, when I want to do a preparatory barrage I don't attach the artillery at all. It's also true that bombarding for extended periods of time will significantly reduce ammo stocks, and that reduces their ability to provide on-call support.

So in practice, I end up splitting my artillery assets into two elements. One to do the barrage and another, usually smaller one, to provide on-call support.

This technique is showcased in the video tutorial, and works as well (or bettern) now as back when the videos were released.

[RockinHarry]

Hm...no answers for my questions above yet? Then I guess it´s "internal" info, not to be shared with public.

With regard to Arty assignments/attachments, usually it´s to be made at Rgt level, at least when it comes to larger Arty formations like Bn/Abteilung. In real life there´s no automatic assignments at this level and things were rather kept flexible and concentrated. At Bn level, germans could sometimes be assignd an Arty Bty, either directly subordinated, or assigned for cooperation (auf Zusammenarbeit angewiesen). The latter allows the higher HQ at (Arty) Rgt level, to call these assignments quickly for more important tasks, once it´s to be found necessary. The former could and would be made, when a Bn size force has an independent task, like advance detachment and such. Larger battle groups/Kampfgruppen (of Rgt or Brig size) could also see a full Arty Bn subordinated for same purposes.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry
Hm...no answers for my questions above yet? Then I guess it´s "internal" info, not to be shared with public.

No, not really. It just takes time to collate the information, and I haven't had much.

With regard to Arty assignments/attachments, usually it´s to be made at Rgt level, at least when it comes to larger Arty formations like Bn/Abteilung. In real life there´s no automatic assignments at this level and things were rather kept flexible and concentrated. At Bn level, germans could sometimes be assignd an Arty Bty, either directly subordinated, or assigned for cooperation (auf Zusammenarbeit angewiesen). The latter allows the higher HQ at (Arty) Rgt level, to call these assignments quickly for more important tasks, once it´s to be found necessary. The former could and would be made, when a Bn size force has an independent task, like advance detachment and such. Larger battle groups/Kampfgruppen (of Rgt or Brig size) could also see a full Arty Bn subordinated for same purposes.

Yes, that's very much what I try to implement, combining arty attachments and manual control of arty units.

It would be good that you (or someone) could state the case for artillery being detached / attached not causing replans for certain kinds of tasks (like an assault) and given good enough commanders/staffs. In other tasks, such as a Move task, this is more problematic (when it comes to determine the order of march, for instance, as the order of battle of the moving force is a "moving target").

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry
Hm...no answers for my questions above yet? Then I guess it´s "internal" info, not to be shared with public.

No, not really. It just takes time to collate the information, and I haven't had much.

With regard to Arty assignments/attachments, usually it´s to be made at Rgt level, at least when it comes to larger Arty formations like Bn/Abteilung. In real life there´s no automatic assignments at this level and things were rather kept flexible and concentrated. At Bn level, germans could sometimes be assignd an Arty Bty, either directly subordinated, or assigned for cooperation (auf Zusammenarbeit angewiesen). The latter allows the higher HQ at (Arty) Rgt level, to call these assignments quickly for more important tasks, once it´s to be found necessary. The former could and would be made, when a Bn size force has an independent task, like advance detachment and such. Larger battle groups/Kampfgruppen (of Rgt or Brig size) could also see a full Arty Bn subordinated for same purposes.

Yes, that's very much what I try to implement, combining arty attachments and manual control of arty units.

It would be good that you (or someone) could state the case for artillery being detached / attached not causing replans for certain kinds of tasks (like an assault) and given good enough commanders/staffs. In other tasks, such as a Move task, this is more problematic (when it comes to determine the order of march, for instance, as the order of battle of the moving force is a "moving target").

ah ok, sorry!

Hm...could make some test with it, but so far I haven´t tried yet, as I handle Arty from the higher mentioned levels and never attach/reattach stuff during running assaults. So far this works quite good for me in the game.

PS: Finally I got my new avatar working. [:D]

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry
PS: Finally I got my new avatar working. [:D]

Nice one, yet I liked the one you use to have better [:)]

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry
PS: Finally I got my new avatar working. [:D]

Nice one, yet I liked the one you use to have better [:)]

I keep infantryman in heart, just broadened it to 3D capability. [:D]

[Arjuna]

Harry,

Sorry for the delay in replying but I did miss this post. I have installed IE 10 and since then I notice that some times it automatically marks things as read even though I haven't actually read them. Either that or I have opened this, got distracted and its marked it as read. Anyway my apologies.

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

So here´s some questions:

What actually makes a particular unit call for "Arty support"? Does it actually need to be attacked by nearby enemy ground troops, or is it rather the TLOS rating of enemies that might yet not be immediately "threatening"?

Each minute a unit will check for active enemy - ie those that are assaulting, reorging, firing or bombarding - and inactive enemy - ie those that are not assaulting, reorging, firing or bombaring. It first checks its visible threats and then it checks its sides known enemy concentrations. If its static it searches out 2000m. If its moving it checks ahead along its route.

How much influence on that has the "Default Enemy APer FP" and "Default Enemy AArm FP" as set in the ESTAB for Axis and Allied sides? Do these influence just intel, or also "threat" perception and thus AI engagement behavior?

In deciding to respond the AI determines if the enemy is active - ie assaulting, reorging, firing or bombarding - or inactive. The probability of being added to the eligible threats list is based on their active status, with active enemy having a greater prob, and the total targets within the enemy - ie pers, vehicles and guns.

How much influence has the "% of enemy to kill" and "Total kill points" settings in Victory Conditions, on AI engagement and Arty usage?

None at the moment but it's a point to consider. Thanks for raising it.

With regard to german and allied doctrines, there surely can be made some more in depth debates. I see a number of errant assumptions above...

Debate away.[:)]

[dazkaz15]

Thanks for the informative replies guys.

This is to demonstrate what I was talking about as regard to point 2.

2, The artillery units are added to the line units formation foot print, so you can no longer attack with a close Bn formation.

[dazkaz15]

With arty attached

[BletchleyGeek]

That's an awful lot of artillery attached to a single battalion daz. I don't get anything like this in the saved game I posted at the beginning of the thread (of course, there I wasn't assigning the whole of 326 VGD to one single Bn).

[dazkaz15]

hehe I was in a rush, Ill do it again with less[:D]

Of course in this Elsenborn Ridge arty is a real game changer, as there is so much of it.

[dazkaz15]

Looks like adding each battery size unit adds between 100-500m to the Frontage or depth of the attack formation.

I now have just noticed a number 4 problem though.

4, When adding artillery with motorised movement tables (that will be most of them) to your assault, you can now only place the assault marker on terrain that motorised units can reach.
Not very handy for taking out isolated outposts in the middle of a forest, but ok for the majority of objectives I guess.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

Looks like adding each battery size unit adds between 100-500m to the Frontage or depth of the attack formation.

I now have just noticed a number 4 problem though.

4, When adding artillery with motorised movement tables (that will be most of them) to your assault, you can now only place the assault marker on terrain that motorised units can reach.
Not very handy for taking out isolated outposts in the middle of a forest, but ok for the majority of objectives I guess.

Well, that's the way it really works.

A commander has to consider the mobility requirements for his troops to be effective in their orders.

There weren't many trucks hauling troops in the Burma or New Guinea jungles.

[Lieste]

Hmm, but the artillery is positioned in terrain that can 'support' the objective location ~ it doesn't need to be within the tactical perimeter of the line troops ~ so that isn't really "how it works".

In fact to support with indirect fires most high angle artillery needs to be *at least* 2km away from the objective, and field artillery (low angle) nearer to 5km or more for a 15 degree angle of fall, or direct sight (the 5km value closely matching the impact conditions of 2km figure for indirect fires quoted for low-charge high angle howitzer fire). The shells themselves only 'care' that they clear terrain obstacles, and fuze adequately ~ they don't need to climb into trucks and drive to their target area

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Hmm, but the artillery is positioned in terrain that can 'support' the objective location ~ it doesn't need to be within the tactical perimeter of the line troops ~ so that isn't really "how it works".

In fact to support with indirect fires most high angle artillery needs to be *at least* 2km away from the objective, and field artillery (low angle) nearer to 5km or more for a 15 degree angle of fall, or direct sight (the 5km value closely matching the impact conditions of 2km figure for indirect fires quoted for low-charge high angle howitzer fire). The shells themselves only 'care' that they clear terrain obstacles, and fuze adequately ~ they don't need to climb into trucks and drive to their target area

Thats exactly what I have been working towards I think.

Maybe there needs to be some kind of exemption for this kind of attachment?
After all its only the artillery observers that will be added physically to the Bn HQ or coy's for the assault, a team of men about 10 men strong, not the entire battery/regiment or divisional artillery assets.

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Hmm, but the artillery is positioned in terrain that can 'support' the objective location ~ it doesn't need to be within the tactical perimeter of the line troops ~ so that isn't really "how it works".

In fact to support with indirect fires most high angle artillery needs to be *at least* 2km away from the objective, and field artillery (low angle) nearer to 5km or more for a 15 degree angle of fall, or direct sight (the 5km value closely matching the impact conditions of 2km figure for indirect fires quoted for low-charge high angle howitzer fire). The shells themselves only 'care' that they clear terrain obstacles, and fuze adequately ~ they don't need to climb into trucks and drive to their target area

Exactly.

There's a difference between "support" and "assault."

Artillery assigned to an "assault" task moves to the objective -- which, if it is in terrain that cannot be reached by motorized equipment, is unattainable for towed or motorized artillery.

Artillery assigned to "support" an "assault" by ground troops provides covering fires sometimes by direct (line of sight) and sometimes by bombardment (non-line of sight).

The commander has to be familiar with the terrain he's expected to take, and the attributes of the units he is assigned to command in taking it.

A good commander knows the differences and assigns units to the task based on their capabilities as it relates to his goals.

It's the way it works . . . at least in the military doctrine I was trained in.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Hmm, but the artillery is positioned in terrain that can 'support' the objective location ~ it doesn't need to be within the tactical perimeter of the line troops ~ so that isn't really "how it works".

In fact to support with indirect fires most high angle artillery needs to be *at least* 2km away from the objective, and field artillery (low angle) nearer to 5km or more for a 15 degree angle of fall, or direct sight (the 5km value closely matching the impact conditions of 2km figure for indirect fires quoted for low-charge high angle howitzer fire). The shells themselves only 'care' that they clear terrain obstacles, and fuze adequately ~ they don't need to climb into trucks and drive to their target area

Exactly.

There's a difference between "support" and "assault."

Artillery assigned to an "assault" task moves to the objective -- which, if it is in terrain that cannot be reached by motorized equipment, is unattainable for towed or motorized artillery.

Artillery assigned to "support" an "assault" by ground troops provides covering fires sometimes by direct (line of sight) and sometimes by bombardment (non-line of sight).

The commander has to be familiar with the terrain he's expected to take, and the attributes of the units he is assigned to command in taking it.

A good commander knows the differences and assigns units to the task based on their capabilities as it relates to his goals.

It's the way it works . . . at least in the military doctrine I was trained in.

Exactly

So what we need is a way of assigning artillery units to support an attack, rather than trying to join the line units in the assault on the objective.

edit:
Actually they don't try to join it, they move to a location in range, and support it as they should.
What we need is a footprint that acurately reflects this with regard to the type of movement the units actually involved in the assault are using, and the size of the force involved in tha actual assault.
I also think the comand load is a bit steep as well, seeing as the Bn commander won't actually be conducting the move of the Artillery assets, just the supporting fire.

[wodin]

I always at the start of a scenario separate the arty units and give them then move them to a designated firebase with a defend order..or just defend in situ order..moving them up when they become out of range. It's one of the first thing I do.

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I always at the start of a scenario separate the arty units and give them then move them to a designated firebase with a defend order..or just defend in situ order..moving them up when they become out of range. It's one of the first thing I do.

Excatly! That´s what I do too. The combat Bn´s and their HQ have a way better time organizing stuff, without all that subordinated support elements. I do the same for AI side and it´s elightening how much better the AI plays with mortars and Arty pulled from the combat Bn´s and have them concentrated under some dedicated Rgt or Div HQ.

[RockinHarry]

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Hmm, but the artillery is positioned in terrain that can 'support' the objective location ~ it doesn't need to be within the tactical perimeter of the line troops ~ so that isn't really "how it works".

In fact to support with indirect fires most high angle artillery needs to be *at least* 2km away from the objective, and field artillery (low angle) nearer to 5km or more for a 15 degree angle of fall, or direct sight (the 5km value closely matching the impact conditions of 2km figure for indirect fires quoted for low-charge high angle howitzer fire). The shells themselves only 'care' that they clear terrain obstacles, and fuze adequately ~ they don't need to climb into trucks and drive to their target area

Thats exactly what I have been working towards I think.

Maybe there needs to be some kind of exemption for this kind of attachment?
After all its only the artillery observers that will be added physically to the Bn HQ or coy's for the assault, a team of men about 10 men strong, not the entire battery/regiment or divisional artillery assets.

Yep, in german army each Arty Bty could provide a single FO for a line Coy (theoretically, if not employed for other purposes), while a whole Arty Bn could send a single Arty liaison detachment either to a combat force Rgt or Bn, in order to organize and concentrate this Bn´s means at the point of main effort. Same counts for mortar, IG and also HMG units, which have their own FO for the purposes.