Arty Question

[larryfulkerson]

My Kharkov '43 opponent emailed me a good question and I didn't have the answer. We're fishing for the answer w/ this post.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

My Kharkov '43 opponent emailed me a good question and I didn't have the answer. We're fishing for the answer w/ this post.

Well, Onkel Larry, there are quite a few factors and not much information:

a) level of supply and readiness? 10+ guns in a unit and low readiness means just 3 of them fire (if any)
b) entrenchment level of the target?
c) how is the artillery used; direct support or tactical stance?

As you guys noticed, I am nearly done with a comprehensive (and yet another!) update of Kharkov '43, much better German TO&E and new equipment. With the 3XBb patch (Yes Fabio... you're still testing it) the artillery is much more effective in digging-out our fortified 'ignore-losses' defenders.

Klink, Oberst

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
As you guys noticed, I am nearly done with a comprehensive (and yet another!) update of Kharkov '43, much better German TO&E and new equipment. With the 3XBb patch (Yes Fabio... you're still testing it) the artillery is much more effective in digging-out our fortified 'ignore-losses' defenders.

Thank you very much for your hard work. Dan and I are having a blast playing your scenario and I have only one gripe with it. The
supply levels are so low that gameplay seems forstalled. The movement range is understandably low and makes each turn a micro
change in position. Plus moving at all spends precious supply so the player is always having to balance tactical advantage against
supply level(s). It's a good game for logistics fanatics. 40 turns is adequate for the goals imposed on each side to make for an exciting
spectrum of gameplay. I especially like to use the home rule that most attacks have to be using ignore losses since that was Russian
doctrine at the time. Dan doesn't know about my use of this rule I'm guessing, since it's self imposed.

Dan is relatively new to TOAW but he's a quick study and is really good already. I have no knowledge of how long he's been playing
etc. but I like the way he handles his units. Oberst_Klink dude, your hard work is appreciated and it's tempting to do Kharkov '43
again but playing the opposite side but it appears that Dan and I have already planned to do Ron's Mod version 10 when the current
game between us is finished.

[sPzAbt653]

I don't know the particulars of the artillery calculations, but two things to look for are : 1) Target Density in the Target Hex (more stuff packed in equals heavier losses), and 2) check the Equipment in your Artillery units. Sometimes there are different ranged tubes. In a worse case there might be 24 nice tubes with a range of 2, and 4 crappy tubes with a range of 3. In this case if you are firing from a three hex range, you are only shelling with the 4 tubes.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
I don't know the particulars of the artillery calculations, but two things to look for are : 1) Target Density in the Target Hex (more stuff packed in equals heavier losses), and 2) check the Equipment in your Artillery units. Sometimes there are different ranged tubes. In a worse case there might be 24 nice tubes with a range of 2, and 4 crappy tubes with a range of 3. In this case if you are firing from a three hex range, you are only shelling with the 4 tubes.

Thanks for your input Steve. I had forgotten all about Target Density as a factor. I gotta quit drinking so much. I'm not sure I can
remember my middle name reliably. I was off in la-la land thinking about factors like Weather and Defender terrain as if TOAW might
use them in the calculation. Wouldn't that be great? I wonder how many players even know about the weather feature. I hardly ever
consider it in my attack plans anymore.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
As you guys noticed, I am nearly done with a comprehensive (and yet another!) update of Kharkov '43, much better German TO&E and new equipment. With the 3XBb patch (Yes Fabio... you're still testing it) the artillery is much more effective in digging-out our fortified 'ignore-losses' defenders.

Thank you very much for your hard work. Dan and I are having a blast playing your scenario and I have only one gripe with it. The
supply levels are so low that gameplay seems forstalled. The movement range is understandably low and makes each turn a micro
change in position. Plus moving at all spends precious supply so the player is always having to balance tactical advantage against
supply level(s). It's a good game for logistics fanatics. 40 turns is adequate for the goals imposed on each side to make for an exciting
spectrum of gameplay. I especially like to use the home rule that most attacks have to be using ignore losses since that was Russian
doctrine at the time. Dan doesn't know about my use of this rule I'm guessing, since it's self imposed.

Dan is relatively new to TOAW but he's a quick study and is really good already. I have no knowledge of how long he's been playing
etc. but I like the way he handles his units. Oberst_Klink dude, your hard work is appreciated and it's tempting to do Kharkov '43
again but playing the opposite side but it appears that Dan and I have already planned to do Ron's Mod version 10 when the current
game between us is finished.

Will be done Friday... I am just waiting for some TO&E verification from Master Telumar, regarding the W-SS units which had an interesting set-up of Reece units and the experimental 'Fast Rifle Regiment' concept.

Klink, Oberst

[Telumar]

@ Oberst Klink: Didn't i already answer your question about SS recon?[&:]

Above unit: 104 VW - 2 companies. I advice you to use the VW the same way you would use trucks: a means of transportation, nothing more. I would give the unit 1 VW per 2 transported squads plus an additional 10%. And don't check the recon flag for the VW.

[ogar]

Getting back to Dan's original 'problem', one thing I've noticed in most scenarios I've played is that 'green' (healthy, high readiness/supply) artillery units achieve better results (both directed attacks and supporting), and recover faster than 'yellow' or 'orange'.  So where I can, I try to rest a few units (or maybe just one) to get to green vs 'all-in, all-the-time' -- emphasis on 'try', 'where I can'.

And from my digging deep into artillery results in TOAW 3.4, I'd say the factors influencing effectiveness of artillery are :

range to target
target density
target quality (both 'health' and equipment types)
terrain/D/E/F
weight of incoming shells
attacker proficiency/supply/readiness

Another question is what do you want the artillery to do ?  Prepare for assault ? or support an assault ? or harrass/weaken a possible/counter-attack ?  I tend to use the heavy guns (120mm and up) for stand-alone bombardment/prep; while I set the field-medium guns (75-119 mm) in support (plus some heavies).  Of course, the make-up of the artillery units and the various support levels will affect how I set this up.

And the scenario 'granularity' -- how the artillery units are detailed; scenario scale/time-frame/environment;supply points & supply lines -- also affects how I play the artillery.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: ogar
Getting back to Dan's original 'problem', one thing I've noticed in most scenarios I've played is that 'green' (healthy, high readiness/supply) artillery units achieve better results (both directed attacks and supporting), and recover faster than 'yellow' or 'orange'.  So where I can, I try to rest a few units (or maybe just one) to get to green vs 'all-in, all-the-time' -- emphasis on 'try', 'where I can'.

And from my digging deep into artillery results in TOAW 3.4, I'd say the factors influencing effectiveness of artillery are :

range to target
target density
target quality (both 'health' and equipment types)
terrain/D/E/F
weight of incoming shells
attacker proficiency/supply/readiness

Another question is what do you want the artillery to do ?  Prepare for assault ? or support an assault ? or harrass/weaken a possible/counter-attack ?  I tend to use the heavy guns (120mm and up) for stand-alone bombardment/prep; while I set the field-medium guns (75-119 mm) in support (plus some heavies).  Of course, the make-up of the artillery units and the various support levels will affect how I set this up.

And the scenario 'granularity' -- how the artillery units are detailed; scenario scale/time-frame/environment;supply points & supply lines -- also affects how I play the artillery.

Thank you very much for your verbage. I'm impressed. Now I know one more expert who knows what he's talking about. I'll watch for
your posts from now on. Thanks.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

@ Oberst Klink: Didn't i already answer your question about SS recon?[&:]

Above unit: 104 VW - 2 companies. I advice you to use the VW the same way you would use trucks: a means of transportation, nothing more. I would give the unit 1 VW per 2 transported squads plus an additional 10%. And don't check the recon flag for the VW.

Nein, they're just flagged as transport. But remember, the 'Fast Rifle Regiments' *Schnelle Sch.Rgt* were like 2 x Krad.Sch.Btl. hence the 104 VW Kuebelwagen. Yes, you sent the reece units, but there was still a question about the regular W-SS Regiments I sent you; they had 15 Kp., plus the additional Pio. and s.Waffen outfits

Klink, Oberst