Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

Holding a hex with nothing but artillery units is pretty far out of line with history.

I'm not sure how common that is of a tactic by players, but I'm still not sure that over running is the answer.

The problem IMO is heavily stacked hexes (with concentrated artillery protected by infantry) in which the player's artillery is pretty much invulnerable and able to rain an enormous amount of damage on you without any sort of recourse.

The historic answer is effective counter battery both on defense and in advance of an attack.

I'll leave it at that.

Ray (alias Lava)

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Lava

This is a difficult subject...

But if artillery weren't a big killer...

...it wouldn't be WWI.

As for overrun... dunno. When you consider the battlefield, filled with shell holes and trenches, seems like it is highly improbable that you are going to overrun artillery.

I believe a more historic way to go is increasing the effectiveness of counter battery especially against a dense target. Thus, if a dude wants to stack all his artillery on one hex, he would be far more vulnerable from enemy artillery that is better dispersed.

Ray (alias Lava)

I agree that artillery should be able to cause losses particularly where no trenches are present. But if artillery barrages could kill the way they do in this game then the war would have been even bloodier!
I wouldn't mind seeing artillery revamped. Perhaps it can cause more loss of effectivness and less loss to trenches or limiting how often they can fire by making them all like siege guns where you need one impulse to load before you can fire or capping the number of points that can fire into a hex.
Also while artillery may not be able to be easily overrun it was NEVER the only unit defending the line. Perhaps requiring at least one infanrty/cav corp per artillery unit in a hex would prevent having 12 artillery units roll up to the front lines and dropping an Atomic Bomb on the enemy [:)]

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

Holding a hex with nothing but artillery units is pretty far out of line with history.

I'm not sure how common that is of a tactic by players, but I'm still not sure that over running is the answer.

The problem IMO is heavily stacked hexes (with concentrated artillery protected by infantry) in which the player's artillery is pretty much invulnerable and able to rain an enormous amount of damage on you without any sort of recourse.

The historic answer is effective counter battery both on defense and in advance of an attack.

I'll leave it at that.

Ray (alias Lava)

Part of the problem is that artillery can't be destroyed by ground attack unless it is totally surrounded. So even if you wipe out the defenders infantry the artillery retreats and ends up right next to you ready to bombard your exhuasted but victorious forces. And of course you have no artillery because it can't move into combat so you have to chance at counter-battery fire.
Maybe a solution is that artillery can take strength point losses like all other units if it is forced to retreat after a combat.

[SteveD64]

Artillery wears out and has to be replaced so the overrun rule could reflect attrition as well?   I dunno.  I guess if I knew what the overrun rule actually was I could be in a better position to comment-  as it is I'm just throwing ideas out there to see what sticks.  [:)]

[pat.casey]

Part of it may just be that artillery reloads are too cheap right now. I mean it took the British months to accumulate enough shells for the Somme and they blew them all out in seven days (and didn't kill that many germans either despite sending 1,000,000 shells down range).

As it stands right now, for 4 industry points, I can run a dozen barrages a turn which seems out of whack and probably kill off 40-50 SP of infantry, even in trenches. Especially if I plaster the same hex every turn I'll usually destroy the trenches as I go.

Seems like one long rupture inducing barrage per turn is about reasonable in terms of what shell factories could produce above and beyond normal "wastage".

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

Part of it may just be that artillery reloads are too cheap right now. I mean it took the British months to accumulate enough shells for the Somme and they blew them all out in seven days (and didn't kill that many germans either despite sending 1,000,000 shells down range).

Actually you are wrong here - Entente artillery was the big killer and the main reason why their attrition strategy worked at all. Yes Britain and France wasted their manhood with stupid tactics but in all the major offensives after the race to the sea and up until the introduction of tanks committed in large numbers losses were actually quite even on both sides.

[SteveD64]

Did I read somewhere that the losses on the WesternFront in 1914 were equal to the losses in '15, '16 and '17 combined?  Or am I hallucinating again?

or maybe it was the losses in August-December '14 were more than any whole year until 1918

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: CLEVELAND

Did I read somewhere that the losses on the WesternFront in 1914 were equal to the losses in '15, '16 and '17 combined? Or am I hallucinating again?

or maybe it was the losses in August-December '14 were more than any whole year until 1918

I very much doubt that but it may be that losses measured in % of total forces committed came up to these figures ?

With regard to losses at the first battle of Somme alone:

"By the end of the battle, the British Army had suffered 420,000 casualties including nearly 60,000 on the first day alone. The French lost 200,000 men and the Germans nearly 500,000."

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: hjaco

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

Part of it may just be that artillery reloads are too cheap right now. I mean it took the British months to accumulate enough shells for the Somme and they blew them all out in seven days (and didn't kill that many germans either despite sending 1,000,000 shells down range).

Actually you are wrong here - Entente artillery was the big killer and the main reason why their attrition strategy worked at all. Yes Britain and France wasted their manhood with stupid tactics but in all the major offensives after the race to the sea and up until the introduction of tanks committed in large numbers losses were actually quite even on both sides.

I believe this is a function of the late war improvements in heavy gun tubes. At the time of the Somme, the British were firing largely light artillery with shrapnel which, while nice against infantry in the open, was virtually useless against heavily fortified positions where the Germans had heavy bomb proofs (with roofs).

My general opinion after having read a number of accounts of the Somme is that the British were shocked at how poorly their massive artillery bombardment performed. The wire wasn't cut, and the german defenders were still alive. Not a good combination.

[EUBanana]

I think trenches could do with being a bit better all around, to be honest.  After all the war was famous for them, they should be pretty good, right?

I think artillery should be regularly bleeding your men, that should not change.  After all, in WW1 they lost a lot of men even without offensives going on.  "wastage", the generals called it.  Simply maintaining a front should cost you troops. 

But the trenches don't really help much.  I've dug trenches in all my games up to level 3, it doesn't really stop artillery that much.  Partly because the arty keeps knocking the trenches down all the time.  I've not seen many AARs where heavy fortification played a major role.  I've never been inclined to research tanks or assault troops in a PBEM because trenches are never an issue.  My artillery can blow trenches away and slaughter bad guys at the same time.

[esteban]

Actually, when you say that Entente artillery was the big killer of CP soldiers, most of the artillery you would be talking about are organic artillery within the units that would be identified as corps within the game. The arty units in the game probably represent heavy artillery at the army or frontal reserver level. Those units killed far fewer soldiers than many of the light artillery units in the corps.

For example, French doctrine during the war was that they would use light artillery to break up enemy attacks, which is why they developed their famous "French 75". It was guns like the 75 that accounted for a large percentage (maybe even the majority) of CP casualties to artillery, and the 75s would not be represented in the French arty units. So I would say that the artillery units in this game need to be toned down significantly.

On a more practical level, I play with a house rule that limits the number of arty units that can fire into one hex to 3 units per hex per impulse.

[FrankHunter]

I've made some changes.  I've made a slight increase to the benefits of level 2 trenches and a larger benefit to level 3 and 4.

Also, I've allowed trench construction once per impulse instead of once per turn.

Just experimenting here at the moment using hotseat to see how it goes.

[EUBanana]

I wouldnt get too het up about IRL OOBs and "organic artillery" and such.  Really, simply being adjacent to an enemy unit should cause some wastage.  Far as the game is concerned if you have two infantry units dug in next to each other nobody dies.  Its the artillery counters that let you put some attrition on the opponent without actually advancing, so its that thats duplicating the whole static warfare thing. 

I'm actually pretty impressed, I've never seen a game that duplicated trench warfare before but GoA does a pretty good job.

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

I've made some changes.  I've made a slight increase to the benefits of level 2 trenches and a larger benefit to level 3 and 4.

Also, I've allowed trench construction once per impulse instead of once per turn.

Just experimenting here at the moment using hotseat to see how it goes.

You might want to consider reducing the cost of entrenchment points as well.

[FrankHunter]

I am considering doing just that.  

[hjaco]

I was also thinking about possibility for entrenching each impulse which i think make really sense.

During the long summer turns its easier to make the elaborate trench work than during shorter muddy spring/autumn turns and the very short winter turns.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: esteban

Actually, when you say that Entente artillery was the big killer of CP soldiers, most of the artillery you would be talking about are organic artillery within the units that would be identified as corps within the game. The arty units in the game probably represent heavy artillery at the army or frontal reserver level. Those units killed far fewer soldiers than many of the light artillery units in the corps.

Do you have any sources for that? AFAIK the lighter artillery became much less use once the digging in started - troops underground are totally impervious to standard field artillery for example

Attrition caused by patrolling etc is, IMO, well below the level of GoA, and to say that artillery is simulating it is not good game design - if you wanted to simulate it then you'd give a 1 pt loss per impulse in each stack that is adjacent to any enemy or something like that. Often times there were informal truces along long stretches of fronts that resulted in no casualties at all.

However IMO there is too much artillery at the start of the game, and possibly the effect of trenches is not adequate - the No side used artillery bombardments as you can in this game to kill a corps/turn without actually attacking.

I'd be in favour of limiting the number of artillery units that can fire into a hex to a maximum of 1 unit of "normal" plus 1 siege, and possibly changing the effect of siege artillery....give it the same effect on forts as it has, but no effect on troops...and probably make it cheaper in cost.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: esteban

Actually, when you say that Entente artillery was the big killer of CP soldiers, most of the artillery you would be talking about are organic artillery within the units that would be identified as corps within the game. The arty units in the game probably represent heavy artillery at the army or frontal reserver level. Those units killed far fewer soldiers than many of the light artillery units in the corps.

For example, French doctrine during the war was that they would use light artillery to break up enemy attacks, which is why they developed their famous "French 75". It was guns like the 75 that accounted for a large percentage (maybe even the majority) of CP casualties to artillery, and the 75s would not be represented in the French arty units. So I would say that the artillery units in this game need to be toned down significantly.

On a more practical level, I play with a house rule that limits the number of arty units that can fire into one hex to 3 units per hex per impulse.

Well with big killer i didn't mean just physical dead but casualties in general whether physical or psychic. Sustained bombardment for days had a tendency to get to ones nerves you know [;)]

By the way the famous French 75 was adopted as early as 1897 and was indeed a crucial weapon up until the race or the sea in 1914. With a staggering rate of fire of 15 shells per minute no wonder it was murderous in the open terrain. And if this was not enough it was even possible to increase ROF for a shorter time period if needed [X(]

But after adoption of trench warfare they became pretty useless except where Germany was attacking like first part of Verdun because it was an excellent anti personnel weapon.

[SMK-at-work]

15 shells a minute was not remarkable by 1914 tho...it was great in 1897, but the French sort of forgot that everyone else would be catching up.  18 pdrs and 77mm's clocked at 20 rounds per minute according to Hogg.

They did the same pre WW2 with their 155mm GPF too...a great gun in 1917, and as modified by the USA between hte wars....but the original 1917 version wasn't so flash in 1939, and hte French had doen exactly the same thing....failed to develop a good gun and thus lost the advantage it gave them.

[esteban]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: esteban

Actually, when you say that Entente artillery was the big killer of CP soldiers, most of the artillery you would be talking about are organic artillery within the units that would be identified as corps within the game. The arty units in the game probably represent heavy artillery at the army or frontal reserver level. Those units killed far fewer soldiers than many of the light artillery units in the corps.

Do you have any sources for that? AFAIK the lighter artillery became much less use once the digging in started - troops underground are totally impervious to standard field artillery for example

Attrition caused by patrolling etc is, IMO, well below the level of GoA, and to say that artillery is simulating it is not good game design - if you wanted to simulate it then you'd give a 1 pt loss per impulse in each stack that is adjacent to any enemy or something like that. Often times there were informal truces along long stretches of fronts that resulted in no casualties at all.

However IMO there is too much artillery at the start of the game, and possibly the effect of trenches is not adequate - the No side used artillery bombardments as you can in this game to kill a corps/turn without actually attacking.

I'd be in favour of limiting the number of artillery units that can fire into a hex to a maximum of 1 unit of "normal" plus 1 siege, and possibly changing the effect of siege artillery....give it the same effect on forts as it has, but no effect on troops...and probably make it cheaper in cost.

I don't have any books to cite, but I have read histories of the Verdun offensive for example, and it was quite common there for German attacks to be bled heavily by French 75s, per normal French defensive doctrine. But yes, light artillery was not useful against dug in troops, but then even heavy artillery was less useful then.

That doesn't mean that the artillery is not present in the corps units in the game though.

As for "normal attrition" from patrolling, trench raiding, skirmishing, light arty bombardments, etc. Frank Hunter would have to speak to that, not I. On some levels, the game seems to only count as casualties dead and captured/missing soldiers, with wounded soldiers being abstracted out as not "real" casualties and returning to duty at a rate that approximates the creation of new wounded soldiers.

Its tough to say if the normal attrition from exposure, disease and intermittent combat with nearby enemy units is not also abstracted in the game design or not.