Artillery too strong?

[Hakmeister]

I'd have to agree.  Reduce the world standard.  If you want super-artillery, then pay the extra development cost.  Most units can be improved one or two levels before heavy costs make or break the effort.  Artillery appears to be the exception.  While artillery did inflict heavy casualties, it was most effective when used in conjunction with other combat elements.  Artillery had to be protected by infantry and armor - it was vulnerable to counter-attack and air strikes.

I'd have to see the effect of changing suppression effects before passing judgment on that one.

Jon

[Forwarn45]

ORIGINAL: GKar

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

Anyway, short of my previous proposal is the following:
1) change artillery Evasion World Standard to 4 (from 5) (don't change starting levels, only the WS)
2) change artillery Land Attack World Standard to 8 (from 11)

Sounds good to me, I always wondered why artillery's land attack had such a unique high world standard anyway.

Sounds OK to me as well.

[Marshall Art]

I do agree with both 1) and 2) since it just seemed too easy to tech up artillery to almost tactical nuke level...

[Uncle_Joe]

It's interesting because when we were all originally testing the game (pre-launch), most people seemed to think that Arty wasnt really worth building. This resulted in a few of the increases to the WS etc. Later on, they were given 2 shots, but the WS never went back down. I think we mostly didnt see Arty as potentially too good because previously it had been so bad.
 
 I haven't played 'competitively' in a while so I dont know what the current trend is but I also seem to recall many players using massed air power way back when. And I believe this also led to the feeling that Arty wasn't really that powerful.
 
Personally I think they could stand to have their WS's reduced with little issue. That wont stop people from going whole-hog with Arty if they really want it, but it will slow it down and make it a little more of an opportunity cost to tech up.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
It's interesting because when we were all originally testing the game (pre-launch), most people seemed to think that Arty wasnt really worth building.

I do recall this, and for those interested in history this is why WS and starting values were so high.

There was a bit of a "suppression is broken" faction way back when (including myself), and in my view it has taken us this long to nearly get the suppression related mechanics into working order. This is perhaps the last adjustment in that arena.

The issue with suppression (much more so before, and less now), was that it was very powerful when compounded with itself (e.g. all artillery builds) but very weak in isolation (e.g. an artillery unit here or there). I think that in pre-release what this meant in practice hadn't yet been completely apparent.

IMO, suppression is much improved. But still not quite where I'd prefer it to be. I still think I'd choose something a bit different if starting from scratch.

At any rate, that's sort of how I see it.

[runyan99]

I agree that artillery is currently too strong, and would support any effort to make it less powerful in a future patch.