Artillery and Naval - no attack values for ground units???

[brettwjohnson]

I bought this when it was first released and just started playing again...

I'm a bit confused why artillery and naval units don't have attack values for ground units since historically both were quite effective... Especially the big guns (e.g., Battleships)...

P.S. Big fan of the return to hexes!!!
P.P.S. Why does mechanized have a defense of 0 vs. Carriers? (compare to Corps/Armies)

[Sugar]

I'm a bit confused why artillery and naval units don't have attack values for ground units since historically both were quite effective... Especially the big guns (e.g., Battleships)...

Arty`s value is its deentrenchment, there doing damage occasionally, especially if experienced. I guess for balancing reasons they`re not too strong, what could have been easily the case with 3 ammo at max. The shore bombardement has been reduced, it prevented players from placing units along the coastal lines (which still is the case for aircraft).

[brettwjohnson]

Historically, artillery was considered "King of the Battlefield" and was responsible for the majority of deaths in battle. Both WW2 and Korea saw ~50% of all deaths from explosive shells vs. ~30% from bullets.

The fact that artillery does no damage is both non-historical and just silly in game terms.

Why would I *ever* buy artillery? It's current effect is completely one dimensional. Standard ground units can de-entrench and are useful both offensively and defensively.

Similarly, ships should be able to damage units stationed on the shore - that is completely historical. Yes, battleships (among other ships) can pound ground units. There was a case (Desert Storm?) where a unit surrendered to a US battleship drone that was spotting for a BB, because of the devastating fire.

I find this to be a glaring issue in a game that overall does a reasonable job of historical simulation.

[crispy131313]

Artillery is exponentially useful but that’s for you you to discover.

There are dedicated artilllery units yes, but I think they are abstractly included within each army. Artillery units are likely available to simulate high concentrations against specific targets above what would be considered regular component to each Army (which have deentrenchment effects similar to artillery and bombers).

[BillRunacre]

Hi Brett

These are both things that we have experimented with giving them higher stats on, but it hasn't felt right. For instance, if we look at Battleships bombarding units on the coast, they tended to bombard them for short periods of time (in game terms) and not always with the expected effect. But in game if they have good stats and naval/aerial superiority, a player might use their ships to endlessly bombard enemy units for months or years on end... and this itself wouldn't feel right either.

As it is, both unit types can to varying degrees be used to soften up a defender because they will both demoralize the defender by 20% per attack, while artillery will also de-entrench them, which is very useful if it is the first thing done to a targeted unit. The difference between the artillery de-entrenching the target and another unit doing so, is that the artillery will do so without receiving any losses, which makes it a cheaper victory when your land forces do go into the attack.

Artillery units in game for the most part represent specific concentrations of Heavy Artillery, and are in addition to the organic artillery present within Corps, Armies etc. So their presence in game is as an extra, but if made too powerful they don't feel right, so it's all a question of balance.

That said, upgraded artillery do have better stats which give them attack values of 1 against ground units. With this, they will start to inflict more losses too.

Plus they can be useful in defence in disrupting an attack due to their ability to provide Defensive Fire. Perhaps they're not a priority unit, but I certainly find them useful at times.

Bill

[nnason]

Given the scale of SC3 20m/hex only USS IOWA class 16 inch guns shoot far enough. In a strategic game where basic unit is Corp and Army, Artillery must be embedded in the Inf./Arm. units. Given how my games have gone, only the Big Bertha type guns with a range of 3 hexes (60 miles) are useful in attack as there is usually to many inf./arm. units in my attacks to allow range 2 units to be in range.

The M109 (mainstay of US mech. and armored div arty.) has a 155MM cannon and shoots 18,000 meters. Typically we deployed this gun 6,000 to 9,000 meters behind the FEBA. This would give it decent range into the enemies rear (where their arty. would be.) Most WWII arty was smaller in caliber. In SC3 you could argue that tactical planes are the arty of the game. Realistic, not so much, but to change you would need to so serious play testing. Stacking is not designed into this game. And stacking would be the only "realistic" way to portray Artillery. Sooo... you have to change the game and have a lot of play testing to incorporate the "King of Battle" into SC3.

Bill and Crispy both replied while I was writing this so much of it is redundant.