Artillery Death Stars Post Patch Two Hot Fix

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: stuman

....as well as ngfs

what is ngfs ?

Naval Gun Fire Support.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: ckammp
What is so hard to understand?

Units caught in clear terrain WILL be hammered by artillary. That is what happened in RL, that is what is happening in AE.

You’re missing the point. I agree units caught in the open were often massacred by artillery, but those units were advancing to the attack, i.e. they had an assault order. The problem in game is you can get that kind of devastating fire on your opponents turn after turn even if your opponent is just sitting idle trying to dig in.

That never occurred in real life. It wasn’t possible because the hex is a 40 mile hex. Your spotters might see an occasional target of opportunity to shoot at, but for the most part everyone stayed out of the LOS of the opponent when not massing for the attack.

Artillery needs to be prevented from bombarding period unless an attack is going in. It’s a game breaker pure and simple in its current form and has no basis in history. Artillery did not blanket saturate massive numbers of large combat units every single day causing thousands upon thousands of casualties. It was a targeted weapon used to blast individual strongpoints in the enemy line.

On defense it could devastate exposed attacking infantry, so attacking artillery tried to suppress defending artillery. But just sitting around on the line each day you’d be lucky to spot an enemy squad sized patrol to shoot at. In game artillery hits every single unit with 100% accuracy every single day… patently absurd situation.

Jim

[frank1970]

Reading the numbers, I think the real casualities are even too low.
there are almost no destroyed units but a lot of disabled ones. If I recall correctly the relation of killed to wounded was 1:3 in WW2. [;)]
The disabled squads will be up to duty in no time, if there is enough suply around.
The only real problem I see, is the high number of non combat units hit.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: stuman

....as well as ngfs

what is ngfs ?

Naval Gun Fire Support.

Thx

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Frankly, I don't understand the defensiveness.  The only way to bring issues to the attention of the developers is to bring issues to their attention.  We're not doing so in a rude fashion; we're not piling on; we're not slinging poisoned darts.  We love the game and when we think we see problems we want to point it out.

There is no way in the Pacific Theater (especially Burma) that you would have sustained bombardment casualties of this sort in WWII.  Either artillery is too powerful or it is too easy to mass artillery in this game.  If people (and the developers) are comfortable with this, fine.  The problem will cut both ways, so it will effect both sides.  But it does detract from the historic feel of the game.

FWIW, I think you are properly flagging this issue to the attention of the devs.

As a (minor) part of the development team I was fascinated to discover just how hard it was to get the algorithms right to get reasonable results. Hong Kong fell on Day 1 -- or not for months. Eight battleships were sunk at Pearl every attack -- after a tweak it was none. A lot of adjustments and fine tuning were necessary in development, and you've already seen a couple post-release. I don't think you'll find the devs shocked / surprised to discover that more tweaks may be needed down the road.

[JeffroK]

I think the answer is made up of many "tweaks"

The latest patch addressed some of the supply based problems, it may prove OK but experience will tell.

Some "tweaking" of the devices is needed.
The ratings are Range,Accuracy, Penetration, Effect, Anti-Armour, Anti -Soft
A japanese 75mm Infantry Gun has 8/8/40/12/40/12
The British 25pdr 12/5/60/25/60/32  
The USA 105mm 12/6/6/35/60/36

Maybe a review of these figures is needed and a base "scenario" created to test results. Though Artillery offensives were rare in the PTO (maybe Okinawa?)

I havent tried ths much in AE, though in WITP I worked on Bombs, Torps & Naval Guns to take some of the edge off super torpedos and Nuclear Shore Bombardments, seemed to work if you used small increments and approached all devices equally.

IMHO, it would be very unusual to get 1000 casualties in one day on a 40 mile front, not every gun can reach every soldier (in open terrain the troops would be evenly spread in depth therefore the Arty would have to spread out their attack.

Keep at it Guys, you'll have it right for WITPAE II.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I think the answer is made up of many "tweaks"

The latest patch addressed some of the supply based problems, it may prove OK but experience will tell.

Some "tweaking" of the devices is needed.
The ratings are Range,Accuracy, Penetration, Effect, Anti-Armour, Anti -Soft
A japanese 75mm Infantry Gun has 8/8/40/12/40/12
The British 25pdr 12/5/60/25/60/32  
The USA 105mm 12/6/6/35/60/36

Maybe a review of these figures is needed and a base "scenario" created to test results. Though Artillery offensives were rare in the PTO (maybe Okinawa?)

I havent tried ths much in AE, though in WITP I worked on Bombs, Torps & Naval Guns to take some of the edge off super torpedos and Nuclear Shore Bombardments, seemed to work if you used small increments and approached all devices equally.

IMHO, it would be very unusual to get 1000 casualties in one day on a 40 mile front, not every gun can reach every soldier (in open terrain the troops would be evenly spread in depth therefore the Arty would have to spread out their attack.

Keep at it Guys, you'll have it right for WITPAE II.

Actually by eastern front standards for major battles ( and we are talking about Deathstars with Lots of artillary regiments) 1000 casualties= 300 dead per day in a 40 miles for a pre offensive bombardment is pretty minor. In WWI it is far more and the WWII guns were far superior the whole Somme / Verdun battles were one hex.

I dont call normal daily shelling bombardments that is just combat mode , i call the mass stockpiling of ammo and launching 100,000 rounds/day over a few days a bombardment.

It was rare in the pacific for a number of reasons
1) Artillary Barrages arent really a good idea when you are asaulting an island. Though note the art barrage from the ships killed half the defenders on Tarawa.
2) The Japanese chose to have a quite front in China and moved their art to Manchuria after they had only a few units at Nomahan.
3) The supply chain was not good enough to waste ammon on bombardments except for a few cases.
4) Historically most Pacificbattles were more manuever based you rarely got 100K in a hex except for battles like Shanghai and Changsha

[Chickenboy]

No USSHenrico or Crimguy...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I'll have more on the investment / siege of Changchung in China comparing similar assaults pre and post patch in two different games later (awaiting a PBEM turn from opponent). This should be an apples to apples comparison of the efficacy of massive artillery bombardments.

One of my PBEMs has been patched 'over' the siege on the Bataan peninsula. Prepatch (hotfix 1096e), I had several days of bombardments with the same units before patching. To whit: I shipped all of the artillery from the Hong Kong siege to help out on Luzon. None of these units were restricted HQ at the time, including the infantry division that, after resting for a few days, followed. In total, I have 10 independent artillery battalions or regiments ranging from heavy artillery to mortar battalions. The distribution is 5 heavy, 2 medium and 1 light (mortar) independent units. This in addition to organic artillery associated with 4 infantry divisions, 5 regiments and a smattering of SNLF and other smaller infantry groups. There's at least 3 armor groups (regiments) in there as well, but they're not actively involved in the bombardment process. All groups have been prepping for Bataan since it became obvious that this was where my opponent intended to hold out. Most preparation is in the 35-45 range at this time.

My opponent has fallen back in as good an order as could be expected to the Bataan peninsula. AFAIK, nearly all of the Phillipino and USAA units on Luzon (minus those few base units and few PA stalwarts / holdouts liquidated already) are present in the Bataan hex at this time.

Obviously, there's the Bataan terrain bonuses to contend with for the IJA assault. In addition, my opponent has been able to develop defenses to level 3 prior to the implementation of the siege. Supply for the IJA is no problem, I don't know what the supply situation for the allies is, but-since it's the allies-it can't be wonderful. I have two HQ units based in Clark providing support and guidance to the Bataan assaulters, but I could use more.

Prepatch 1096e artillery barrages averaged approximately 1500-2000 per turn for maybe 3-4 turns. My opponent and I believed this number excessive, in spite of the array of target rich environment and the array of offensive firepower brought to bear. I did notice that a number of my artillery units suffered surprisingly high disruption and fatigue (50/50 each) after a couple days of bombardment. Don't know if this represents malaria (yay! [&o] ) or somewhat needed support (could use some more HQ support for these guys) or the initially stiff counterbombardment allied effect (first few days yielded 300-500 IJA casualties per day from allied counterbombardments). In any case, I was unable to bombard with artillery for more than 1-2 days at a clip without seriously bringing fatigue and disruption to dangerous levels. Thus, bombardment would be on for 1-2 days, off for 1-2 days, on for 1-2 days, etc. This continued for roughly 7-8 days prepatch.

Postpatch / hotfix, I have a few days of data that suggest this number has been toned down substantially. I'm averaging closer to 500 casualties with JUST bombardment attacks postpatch. A deliberate attack by my (as rested as they're going to get) units in the hex resulted in 1:2 odds and a 7067:3212 IJA: allied casualty rate. The last day I attacked with just half of my IJA assault engineer units (I've 5 in the hex, IIRC) and artillery groups in an attempt to bring down the fort levels. This attempt was crushed at 1:120+ odds with 1136: 926 casualties.

I will have to rest my units in order to bring their fatigue and disruption back down before continuing with the siege. It is just that though-a siege. I expect resistance on Bataan against very high numbers of IJA opposition to last in excess of a month of game time.

I think AE post hotfix is modelling what I would expect in this scenario well. Occasional bouts of furious violence and heavy casualties with periods of 'calm' or regrouping. Artillery casualties in this scenario, with these forces, HQ, supply, preparation, terrain, attack philosophy and units present are about what I would expect.

I think it's difficult to apply the postings of some to the universal population of those playing the game-all circumstances are different. I'm not squandering my IJA units or accepting high levels of casualties in a hyperoffensive bent at crushing my opponent everywhere. He's not giving up or making any strategic mistakes (quite the contrary-he's a very worthy foe). I've got a lot of tubes available for those maximum effort days-he's got a lot of places to hide. Woe unto a player trying to defend in poor terrain without entrenchments or with poor quality or unprepared / fatigued / disrupted units.

I've still got postpatch Singapore sieges to work out (starting very soon) and pre and postpatch Changchung comparisons to make and will update this thread when I have something of interest to share.

In my experience, the system is no longer 'borked' or grossly out of kilter. Thank you devs for your timely intercession to correct this problem. Your efforts have been quite satisfactory from my point of view. For others: your milage may vary.

[Canoerebel]

Chickenboy, thanks for adding in your data.  I think everybody who has chimed in agrees that the artillery model against fortified positions (whether Bataan, Changsha, whatever) has been tweaked and is now satisfactory.  Of course, many more people will be playing and going through the siege process, so we'll get more data as time passes, but everything looks very promising in this regard.
 
The main question now up for consideration is whether or not artillery is too strong against unintrenched troops.  Thus far the comments have been divided:  some say yes, some say no.  I think the answer is most definately "yes." 
 
I hope people will continue to weigh in with the results from their games along with their commentary.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: ckammp
What is so hard to understand?

Units caught in clear terrain WILL be hammered by artillary. That is what happened in RL, that is what is happening in AE.

You’re missing the point. I agree units caught in the open were often massacred by artillery, but those units were advancing to the attack, i.e. they had an assault order. The problem in game is you can get that kind of devastating fire on your opponents turn after turn even if your opponent is just sitting idle trying to dig in.

That never occurred in real life. It wasn’t possible because the hex is a 40 mile hex. Your spotters might see an occasional target of opportunity to shoot at, but for the most part everyone stayed out of the LOS of the opponent when not massing for the attack.

Artillery needs to be prevented from bombarding period unless an attack is going in. It’s a game breaker pure and simple in its current form and has no basis in history. Artillery did not blanket saturate massive numbers of large combat units every single day causing thousands upon thousands of casualties. It was a targeted weapon used to blast individual strongpoints in the enemy line.

On defense it could devastate exposed attacking infantry, so attacking artillery tried to suppress defending artillery. But just sitting around on the line each day you’d be lucky to spot an enemy squad sized patrol to shoot at. In game artillery hits every single unit with 100% accuracy every single day… patently absurd situation.

Jim

Did you read my post? Did you look at the combat results that were posted?

In those combat results, it was 2-day turns, in hex 58,45. Hex 58,45 is clear terrain (due W of Schwebo). There were two Allied bombardment attacks, and no Japanese response. The results posted did not show any combat modifiers, did not show what op mode the Japanese units where in during the combat, did not show Japanese fatigue, or morale, or disruption level. Nor did the results show the Japanese casualties broken down by individual units.

Given all that, how do you know that the Japanese weren't "advancing to the attack"? Or in Move mode?
How do you know that they were trying to dig-in?
How do you know what the DL was?
How do you know "every single unit was hit with 100% accuracy"?
Without knowing the full combat results, how can you claim that artillery is a "game breaker"?

As for the rest of your post:
Why should the Allied player allow the Japanese player to dig in without attacking?
Do you really believe that there has never in history been an army that bombarded the enemy WITHOUT launching an immediate follow-up assault?
Even in a 40-mile hex, you really believe it would be impossible to target a force the size of what the Japanese had in the posted example - 3 infantry divisions, 4 artillery regiments, 2 AA regiments, and a HQ unit? Especially when you KNOW that those units are there?

There is nothing wrong with the way artillery is modeled in AE.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: ckammp
There is nothing wrong with the way artillery is modeled in AE.

Kind of a sweeping statement. Some of us think there is most definately something wrong with the artillery model. It should be helpful if everyone would post applicable game examples and real life comparisons. If it isn't broken, that's great. If it is, the developers can tweak to fix. But it's too early for anyone to categorically say "it is broken" or "it isn't broken."

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Frankly, I don't understand the defensiveness.  The only way to bring issues to the attention of the developers is to bring issues to their attention.  We're not doing so in a rude fashion; we're not piling on; we're not slinging poisoned darts.  We love the game and when we think we see problems we want to point it out.

There is no way in the Pacific Theater (especially Burma) that you would have sustained bombardment casualties of this sort in WWII.  Either artillery is too powerful or it is too easy to mass artillery in this game.  If people (and the developers) are comfortable with this, fine.  The problem will cut both ways, so it will effect both sides.  But it does detract from the historic feel of the game.

Artillery is NOT too powerful.

You are not getting "the historic feel" because of the use of a-historic tactics.

You cannot compare RL results to a-historic game tactics. The artillery model in the game is based on the RL use of artillery by the Allies and Japanese. When using these RL tactics in the game, you get comparable RL results. When stacking multiple artillery units and multiple infantry units in the same hex, you get a-historical results.

When your opponent uses these a-historic tactics and achieves results that distress you, don't run to the forum saying 'Artillery is too powerful! The devs need to fix this now!'.
Instead, confront your opponent; if your opponent refuses to change or accept a house rule, find a new opponent.
Or, better yet, play vs. AI and avoid all a-historical, gamey tactics.[;)]

And I agree- when players feel there is an issue that the devs should look at, players should use the forums to point out those issues. But there is a difference between legitimite game problems and dissatisfaction with game results; this issue started as the former, but now seems to be the latter.

[Canoerebel]

I apologize for "running to the forum" with my concerns.  For some reason doing so really irks some people.

I've said this repeatedly:  Either artillery is too powerful or the ability to employ it in the game is wrong.  Rather than avoid the issue or assign blame to the innocent player employing artillery to defend or attack, identify and fix the problem (assuming there is one).

My opponent isn't doing anything wrong in the game.  He has six artillery units at Akyab.  They tore the Allies to pieces in ways that don't seem (to me) historical. 

Others are expressing similar concerns. Let's determine if there is a problem and if so fix it.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I apologize for "running to the forum" with my concerns.  For some reason doing so really irks some people.

I've said this repeatedly:  Either artillery is too powerful or the ability to employ it in the game is wrong.  Rather than avoid the issue or assign blame to the innocent player employing artillery to defend or attack, identify and fix the problem (assuming there is one).

My opponent isn't doing anything wrong in the game.  He has six artillery units at Akyab.  They tore the Allies to pieces in ways that don't seem (to me) historical. 

Others are expressing similar concerns. Let's determine if there is a problem and if so fix it.

Did the Japanese, historically, have 6 independent artillery unis at Akyab?

No. Maybe that is why you are being torn to pieces in ways that don't seem historical.

Again - You cannot expect historical results using a-historical tactics!

And your post is contradictory - first, you say that there might be a problem with the ability to employ artillery, then you defend your opponents a-historical employment of artillery.
So either agree to a house rule limiting artillery deployment or accept the a-historical results.

Units caught in the open by enemy artillery suffer terrible losses. In RL. In AE.

I will say this as repeatedly as needed: There is nothing wrong with artillery in AE.

[Canoerebel]

Even had the Japanese brought six artillery units to bear in the vicinity of Akyab (which is wooded terrain), the artillery would not have resulted in a thousand casualties a day.  The Allies would utlize terrain and dispersion to limit casualties. 
 
You cannot characterize the terrain around Akyab as open.  This isn't the steppes of Russia or the fields of Flanders.  This is a heavily wooded, jungle-like area.
 
My obersvation wasn't contradictory.  The results are not historical, but I don't blame my opponent for utilizing the tactic.  He didn't know what was going to happen (it was our first experience with artillery in the open since the Hot Fix).

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Chickenboy, thanks for adding in your data.  I think everybody who has chimed in agrees that the artillery model against fortified positions (whether Bataan, Changsha, whatever) has been tweaked and is now satisfactory.  Of course, many more people will be playing and going through the siege process, so we'll get more data as time passes, but everything looks very promising in this regard.

The main question now up for consideration is whether or not artillery is too strong against unintrenched troops.  Thus far the comments have been divided:  some say yes, some say no.  I think the answer is most definately "yes." 

I hope people will continue to weigh in with the results from their games along with their commentary.

I hear ya. To further clarify your request for information: I assume that you're looking for data on attacking artillery versus unentrenched troops in 'open' terrain? There's certainly plenty of historic examples of defensive artillery making a real mess of large troop movements and killing lots of them in very short order.

I'm just curious how you will be able to segregate the effect of artillery on 'troops in the open'-which is a real killer-with 'unentrenched, but awaiting impending assault' for purposes of this discussion. Seems that the ground combat model in AE / WiTP does not differentiate between guys milling about on a smoke break and those expecting combat at any moment and ready to leap into cover. The former should die en masse when hit with a surprise bombardment. The latter less so.

[Canoerebel]

You would expect an army launching a deliberate or shock attack to take high losses (although that doesn't always seem to happen in the game in China).  I can imagine that artillery should be pretty effective against troops attacking prepared positions. Iwo Jima, for instance. 

But artillery bombardments against enemy troops that are not attacking should not be able to wreak complete mayhem for turn after turn.  Troops are too good at dispersing or digging in or utilizing terrain to take massive casualties over an extended period.  It didn't happen; it shouldn't happen. 

The Hot Fix "fixed" the Artillery Death Star situation in the case of troops in a fortified hex, but apparently not for troops in a non-fortified hex.  [Note:  most of the non-fortified hexes are jungle, forest or mountain, so I hesitate to call them "open."  A better term would be "non-fortified."]

[Chickenboy]

Canoerebel:

Two thoughts:

1. Would a more rapid development of entrenchment level 1 (to mimic hastily improvised defenses v. artillery bombardment) be something that would alleviate this? I think that most basic defenses (e.g., foxholes, spider holes, tactical deployment to militarily defensible local geographic features, etc.) could be effected within a game day. Soldiers under artillery fire would be able to dig foxholes that would significantly reduce artillery-induced casualties within this period of time. As previous posters with RL artillery experience have commented, improvised cover would / should significantly reduce casualties.

This would spare the troops from severe casualties, but still allow the damaging effect of artillery on 'soft' targets that cannot be hastily protected. Equipment, supplies, fuel and the like would not / should not receive this benefit-no one is going to dig a hole for a fuel truck's defense or a bulky radio transmitter when they're under artillery fire.

2. Is there rationale for different modeling for first attack with artillery at all entrenchment levels versus day 2 and beyond?

[Canoerebel]

Sure, both of those might be effective ways of addressing the situation.
 
Here's how I would expect artillery to play out in AE (this would be a bell-shaped curve, allowing for some decidely unusual results on occasion):
 
1.  Artillery in prepared positions against an attacking enemy in relatively open terrain should be quite effective.  Example:  Iwo Jima.
 
2.  Artillery in relatively open, unprepared positions should take high losses.  Example:  the Japanese at Tarawa.  Artillery in prepared positions should be tough to take out.  Example:  Iwo Jima.
 
3.  Artillery against a non-attacking enemy in a fortified position should have a slight affect (and this is indeed the case thanks to the recent Hot Fix).  Examples:  Bataan, Corregidor.
 
4.  Artillery against an attacking enemy in an unfortified but "rough" hex (jungle, mountain, etc) should have a moderate effect.  Example:  Guadalcanal.
 
5.  Artillery against an attacking enemy in an unfortified and open hex should have a major effect.  Example:  Tarawa (though in that case the "artillery" was actually naval fire).
 

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Sure, both of those might be effective ways of addressing the situation.

Here's how I would expect artillery to play out in AE (this would be a bell-shaped curve, allowing for some decidely unusual results on occasion):

1.  Artillery in prepared positions against an attacking enemy in relatively open terrain should be quite effective.  Example:  Iwo Jima.

2.  Artillery in relatively open, unprepared positions should take high losses.  Example:  the Japanese at Tarawa.  Artillery in prepared positions should be tough to take out.  Example:  Iwo Jima.

3.  Artillery against a non-attacking enemy in a fortified position should have a slight affect (and this is indeed the case thanks to the recent Hot Fix).  Examples:  Bataan, Corregidor.

4.  Artillery against an attacking enemy in an unfortified but "rough" hex (jungle, mountain, etc) should have a moderate effect.  Example:  Guadalcanal.

5.  Artillery against an attacking enemy in an unfortified and open hex should have a major effect.  Example:  Tarawa (though in that case the "artillery" was actually naval fire).

Re: #2: Did the IJA have unprepared artillery positions on Betio that took high bombardment casualties? I thought all their artillery was dug in deeper'n a tick.

FWIW, I agree with your premises above.

I also propose that bombardment should truncate resupply efforts. Troops that cannot leave their foxholes are not going to be going about the business of reprovisioning the unit's ammunition, fuel, food or other necessities in the same way they would normally. In the case of the Japanese at Iwo or the Americans on Bataan, the supplies were dug in with the soldiers, so not much effect at that entrenchment level. For the hastily improvised examples given above, though, it should be very difficult to properly reprovision these men.

I just don't know how to do this without using the existing engine's extrapolations.