Artillery - Pointless?

[treespider]

Never, Ever Shock Attack in the circumstances presented above...notice how many squads the Japanese lost in the Shock Attack. The reason is the Attackers undergo an extra firepower attack from the defender.

----

Still my questions stand

1. Apparently from an above post the defenders are suffering no disruption - problem is do the units suffer some disruption during the turn that is subsequently recovered before the player sees the disruption. If no disruption is inflicted than IMO this is a problem but will likely not be changed anytime soon.

2. Same with Fatigue

3. In WitP Mk I, units that were under attack consumed more supplies than units that were not attacked...do these effects still apply in AE?

I won't be able to test until this weekend...

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Never, Ever Shock Attack in the circumstances presented above...notice how many squads the Japanese lost in the Shock Attack. The reason is the Attackers undergo an extra firepower attack from the defender.

----

Still my questions stand

1. Apparently from an above post the defenders are suffering no disruption - problem is do the units suffer some disruption during the turn that is subsequently recovered before the player sees the disruption. If no disruption is inflicted than IMO this is a problem but will likely not be changed anytime soon.

2. Same with Fatigue

3. In WitP Mk I, units that were under attack consumed more supplies than units that were not attacked...do these effects still apply in AE?

I won't be able to test until this weekend...

I don't know about the defender, but I can tell you my bombarding units suffer fatigue and disruption at a rate that makes any type of siege warfare unattainable. If you bombard for 3 days, you will need to rest 7. And all that for doing what seems to be little of nothing, or worse taking more casualties than you cause.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Shark7


I don't know about the defender, but I can tell you my bombarding units suffer fatigue and disruption at a rate that makes any type of siege warfare unattainable. If you bombard for 3 days, you will need to rest 7. And all that for doing what seems to be little of nothing, or worse taking more casualties than you cause.

Not sure what game you are playing - here is one of my Artillery units that has been bombarding Singapore every day for 3 or 4 weeks...

[bklooste]

I think those results are very reasonable ...Bataan is a tough nut too crack.
 
Japanese ground losses:
Squads: 6 destroyed,
Non Combat: 13 destroyed,
Engineers: 35 destroyed,
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost (5 destroyed, )

Allied ground losses:
Squads: 47 destroyed,
Non Combat: 47 destroyed,
Vehicles lost (20 destroyed)

[SqzMyLemon]

Chicken Boy:

It may appear I didn't bring enough to bear. Then why do many AAR's use a 4-6 artillery unit cap per hex? Every unit, with the exception of the 48th Field Artillery unit was in the historic OOB for the Battle of Bataan. I only have half of what was used historically. And you may be thinking in terms of 81mm mortars or something. In fact the lowest caliber artillery piece is 75mm (which is in the 48th Field Artillery Rgt.). The rest of the artillery units use anywhere from 100mm (x27) 150mm (x40) and 320mm (x8) rounds, nothing smaller. In fact, the mortar units you refer to pack the heaviest punch. Look up the units for yourself. So I beg to differ on seeing no reductions to the fortifications from either artillery, air bombing or ground assault supported by engineers. I used roughly 6-8 artillery units at Singapore and it fell rather quickly (although I had roughly 2700AV) with a reduction of fortification levels pre-patch 3, maybe even pre-patch 2. Don't quote me on pre-patch 2, I honestly can't remember. [:D]

Plus, what are we talking about in terms of level 4 fortifications? Are we talking Maginot Line here, or bunker complexes, covered dugouts or what? If level 4 fortifications means concrete bunkers and pillboxes then yes, more higher caliber guns would be needed, however if not, these artillery units should be doing some damage in my opinion.

I will now bring more artillery units to bear on Bataan, nothing smaller than 24mm. I'm curious to see what the results will be. But you can kiss goodbye people not massing huge amounts of artillery from now on if the units are this ineffective in smaller numbers.

Treespider:

I agree, the shock attacks have been extremely costly, deliberate ones have not been any more succesful, but they were done in an attempt to reduce the fortification levels since air bombing and artillery bombardment has been completely ineffective. As I mentioned, how much more will it take trying to reduce a base that has been under siege and bombarded daily for almost a month?

I will try and bring more artillery units to bear and bombard to see what the effects are, or lack thereof. I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I posted an example of what I had tried, if it's not enough force I can understand that. I'm trying to help identify if there is a problem with artillery post patches.

[SqzMyLemon]

Treespider:

I am seeing the same results as Shark7 at Bataan. Disruption has been ok, but shot up to mid 20's after my failed shock attack. However bombarding artillery units seem to gain rouchly 20 points of fatigue after every day of bombarding. So after 3 days they are extremely fatigued. My artillery units are all around 80% fatigue right now. Could being in the malarial zone at Bataan have more to do with that, than say being in Singapore?

[SqzMyLemon]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

I think those results are very reasonable ...Bataan is a tough nut too crack.

Japanese ground losses:
Squads: 6 destroyed,
Non Combat: 13 destroyed,
Engineers: 35 destroyed,
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost (5 destroyed, )

Allied ground losses:
Squads: 47 destroyed,
Non Combat: 47 destroyed,
Vehicles lost (20 destroyed)

After 2-3 weeks of daily air and ground bombardment?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Treespider:

I agree, the shock attacks have been extremely costly, deliberate ones have not been any more succesful, but they were done in an attempt to reduce the fortification levels since air bombing and artillery bombardment has been completely ineffective. As I mentioned, how much more will it take trying to reduce a base that has been under siege and bombarded daily for almost a month?

I will try and bring more artillery units to bear and bombard to see what the effects are, or lack thereof. I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I posted an example of what I had tried, if it's not enough force I can understand that. I'm trying to help identify if there is a problem with artillery post patches.

And you have to remember that Bataan/Coregidor historically held out for several more months than 1...

What I am curious about is does the Artillery bombardment cause the defender to eat more supplies because they are "counter bombarding"....thus causing the siege to end quicker through lack of supply for the defender.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Treespider:

I am seeing the same results as Shark7 at Bataan. Disruption has been ok, but shot up to mid 20's after my failed shock attack. However bombarding artillery units seem to gain rouchly 20 points of fatigue after every day of bombarding. So after 3 days they are extremely fatigued. My artillery units are all around 80% fatigue right now. Could being in the malarial zone at Bataan have more to do with that, than say being in Singapore?

I'm not seeing it at Bataan in my game....my artillery fatigue is slightly higher than at Singapore but that is attributable to Bataan being a malaria hex IIRC.

[SqzMyLemon]

Treespider, you've got me on the fact that the siege lasted for months, I have no comeback. [:D]

My opponent has not been counterbombarding now for over a week or so, so I think supply use for the defender is an issue. You'd have to ask him though, hopefully he'll make a comment when he discovers this thread. So that being said, what if a player does not counter bombard and conserves his supply? As you saw in two combat reports, lack of supply apparently is not an issue for him.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Treespider, you've got me on the fact that the siege lasted for months, I have no comeback. [:D]

My opponent has not been counterbombarding now for over a week or so, so I think supply use for the defender is an issue. You'd have to ask him though, hopefully he'll make a comment when he discovers this thread. So that being said, what if a player does not counter bombard and conserves his supply? As you saw in two combat reports, lack of supply apparently is not an issue for him.

I'm talking about the automatic counter-bombardment that the defender makes when a unit bombards it... the defender can be set to defend, but it will still shoot at units bombarding it...how else do you think bombarding units take losses?

This automatic counter fire should consume supply at an elevated rate beyond supply consumed when sitting idle.

[Kull]

During the actual War in the Pacific, artillery played a role, but not the same as that seen in Europe. When Bataan and Singapore collapsed, it wasn't because of massive beatdowns from Japanese artillery. The devs have responded to the "arty deathstars" of early AE, and it's now a lot more realistic. If you really want to win a siege "quickly", pound away from the air until supply has been wiped out and disruption is maxed and then a few attacks will end things. Or keep throwing artillery shells into a jungle hoping to hit something and follow that up with frontal shock assaults....

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Chicken Boy:

It may appear I didn't bring enough to bear. Then why do many AAR's use a 4-6 artillery unit cap per hex? Every unit, with the exception of the 48th Field Artillery unit was in the historic OOB for the Battle of Bataan. I only have half of what was used historically. And you may be thinking in terms of 81mm mortars or something. In fact the lowest caliber artillery piece is 75mm (which is in the 48th Field Artillery Rgt.). The rest of the artillery units use anywhere from 100mm (x27) 150mm (x40) and 320mm (x8) rounds, nothing smaller. In fact, the mortar units you refer to pack the heaviest punch. Look up the units for yourself. So I beg to differ on seeing no reductions to the fortifications from either artillery, air bombing or ground assault supported by engineers. I used roughly 6-8 artillery units at Singapore and it fell rather quickly (although I had roughly 2700AV) with a reduction of fortification levels pre-patch 3, maybe even pre-patch 2. Don't quote me on pre-patch 2, I honestly can't remember. [:D]

Plus, what are we talking about in terms of level 4 fortifications? Are we talking Maginot Line here, or bunker complexes, covered dugouts or what? If level 4 fortifications means concrete bunkers and pillboxes then yes, more higher caliber guns would be needed, however if not, these artillery units should be doing some damage in my opinion.

I will now bring more artillery units to bear on Bataan, nothing smaller than 24mm. I'm curious to see what the results will be. But you can kiss goodbye people not massing huge amounts of artillery from now on if the units are this ineffective in smaller numbers.

I agree. The (second and?) third patch significantly weakened artillery. I think people should kiss any houserules they made under patch I goodbye and the sky is the limit with artillery now. Players that are honest with their partners should be open to the 'nerf pendulum' swinging too far the other way and undo HRs accordingly.

Not arguing historical OOB. Remember that it took something like 3 months for the IJ to reduce Bataan IRL with their historical OOB. Want it to fall in February or March? Better load it up with every oversized artillery behemoth you can bring in.

I hate seeing the inevitable 'nerf backlash' in AE, like I hated seeing it in WiTP, but that's the way it works. The squeaky wheels get the oil, things get changed and there you are. Improvise, adapt and overcome.

Hopefully, for IJ players, the 'nerfed artillery' will stay nerfed for the next few game years. What's good for the goose and all that. I'm anxious to see how worthless those prized USMC artillery battalions have become in 1944 and 1945. I will consider no longer patching if future patches restore artillery function *just in time* to have the allied juggernaut benefit.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn
succesive patches seem to have taken Artillery from very overpowered to slightly overpowered to about right and now to no use.

Patch 01 - no change to artillery

Patch 02 - no change to artillery

Patch 03 - (via one and only one of the hotfixes for patch 02 - made "official" in patch 03) changed artillery by adding in terrain effects, increased supply consuption for offensive (not defensive) bombardments and slightly reducing the number of "shots" that could be fired before a unit was done shooting. But this was not a three step process - it was a one step process.

The fundamental problem is that the underlying system has an extreme amount of linearity to it - and by doing things like adding in terrain effects we are trying to shift things into more of a non-linear representation. While purists will always be right, that in circumstance XYZ, artillery might be able to accomplish pqr (and my experience in the US Army was in the Artillery Branch - so I would count myself amoung these people) we definitely think the current representation is better than the original. It is not perfect, but it removes the "death star" effect that some were seeing. I myself finally saw this happening in my game - and hence I decided we should do something about it. But as with almost any change to this system, if you remove an edge, you shift the center - so those who try to use artillery in a rational fashion will suffer a bit as we bow to those who push the extremes. But without a complete re-write, we cannot satisfy both ends of the continuum.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: treespider

3. In WitP Mk I, units that were under attack consumed more supplies than units that were not attacked...do these effects still apply in AE?

Absolutely, 100% certain. From one particular series of battles I saw the stack under attack called for 5 or more times as much supply as when not under attack (but still bombarding the besiegers).

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: treespider

3. In WitP Mk I, units that were under attack consumed more supplies than units that were not attacked...do these effects still apply in AE?

Absolutely, 100% certain. From one particular series of battles I saw the stack under attack called for 5 or more times as much supply as when not under attack (but still bombarding the besiegers).

So the lesson here - Artillery is not pointless.

A simple bombardment mission by the attacking artillery will cause the defender to consume supply at an accelerated rate...thus ending a siege that much quicker.

[FatR]

Under the latest patch, arty produces results like this (only ART units bombarded in this combat, infantry rested after initial deliberate attacks):

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 2085 troops, 153 guns, 133 vehicles, Assault Value = 613
Defending force 5946 troops, 130 guns, 74 vehicles, Assault Value = 199

Japanese ground losses:
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
26 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Assaulting units:
19th Ind. Engineer Regiment
38th Division
66th Infantry Regiment
20th Ind. Engineer Regiment
2nd Mortar Battalion
2nd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
5th RF Gun Battalion
3rd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
1st Hvy.Artillery Regiment
2nd RF Gun Battalion
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion

Defending units:
Hong Kong Fortress
1st Middlesex Battalion
Rifles of Canada Battalion
Winnipeg Grenadiers Battalion
Kowloon Brigade
102nd RN Base Force

Hong Kong had level 3 forts. On the plus side, bombarding units accumulate next to none disruption and fatigue. On the minus side, I don't see why I should bother hauling arty around to get results like this. Note, that there are three heavy artillery units participating. Assuming that everything still fires at everything, massing 10+ artillery units against enemy mega-stacks now might be the only way to make your artillery worth its support. (Yes, you can maybe inflict noticeable casualties on Chinese units in the open with it, but who cares? Certainly not me.)

EDIT: I didn't measure supply use. If, as said here, artillery can drain more supply from the bombarded than it consumes in the process of bombarding, it still might be useful.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Kull

During the actual War in the Pacific, artillery played a role, but not the same as that seen in Europe. When Bataan and Singapore collapsed, it wasn't because of massive beatdowns from Japanese artillery. The devs have responded to the "arty deathstars" of early AE, and it's now a lot more realistic. If you really want to win a siege "quickly", pound away from the air until supply has been wiped out and disruption is maxed and then a few attacks will end things. Or keep throwing artillery shells into a jungle hoping to hit something and follow that up with frontal shock assaults....

Air attacks don't seem to cause noticeable disruption unless you catch a lone Chinese unit or a small group of them in the open with a ton of 2E bombers. In my current PBEM, a Chinese stack in the open is taking 50+ bomber sorties per day for about a month. Squad disablement is significant, in the long term, but disruption does not accumulate.

[SqzMyLemon]

jwilkerson, thanks for the clarification. It is what it is now...I'll accept that. I was one that voluntarily limited the number of artillery units to try and stay within the bounds of realism, but that will change now. Speed is everything for the Japanese early so the more artillery the better for a siege situation. I also know that I'll need every gun I can bring to bear in China to crack a level 4 or higher base if the AV comparison is even remotely close.

As Chickenboy said, improvise and adapt to the change. If the defender draws as much as five times the required supply in response to bombardment attack as witpqs suggests, that clearly is the way to resolve a siege situation now. I won't bother attacking a fortified location without bombarding extensively to reduce supply to the point of making a successful assault possible. Lesson learned. [;)] Now I wish I hadn't sent my last turn already! [:D]

One question though, would the besieging force suffer the same supply loss if the defender also bombards?

[bklooste]

IMHO Park 2 divs in the hex with no arty and just leave it , come back in 6 months after the DEI they shouldnt have much supply and the malaria will have done its work, if he wants to get out he has to attack you with that terrain and no air.. No idea why the wasted 3-4 months there histroically.

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

Chicken Boy:

It may appear I didn't bring enough to bear. Then why do many AAR's use a 4-6 artillery unit cap per hex? Every unit, with the exception of the 48th Field Artillery unit was in the historic OOB for the Battle of Bataan. I only have half of what was used historically. And you may be thinking in terms of 81mm mortars or something. In fact the lowest caliber artillery piece is 75mm (which is in the 48th Field Artillery Rgt.). The rest of the artillery units use anywhere from 100mm (x27) 150mm (x40) and 320mm (x8) rounds, nothing smaller. In fact, the mortar units you refer to pack the heaviest punch. Look up the units for yourself. So I beg to differ on seeing no reductions to the fortifications from either artillery, air bombing or ground assault supported by engineers. I used roughly 6-8 artillery units at Singapore and it fell rather quickly (although I had roughly 2700AV) with a reduction of fortification levels pre-patch 3, maybe even pre-patch 2. Don't quote me on pre-patch 2, I honestly can't remember. [:D]

Plus, what are we talking about in terms of level 4 fortifications? Are we talking Maginot Line here, or bunker complexes, covered dugouts or what? If level 4 fortifications means concrete bunkers and pillboxes then yes, more higher caliber guns would be needed, however if not, these artillery units should be doing some damage in my opinion.

I will now bring more artillery units to bear on Bataan, nothing smaller than 24mm. I'm curious to see what the results will be. But you can kiss goodbye people not massing huge amounts of artillery from now on if the units are this ineffective in smaller numbers.

Treespider:

I agree, the shock attacks have been extremely costly, deliberate ones have not been any more succesful, but they were done in an attempt to reduce the fortification levels since air bombing and artillery bombardment has been completely ineffective. As I mentioned, how much more will it take trying to reduce a base that has been under siege and bombarded daily for almost a month?

I will try and bring more artillery units to bear and bombard to see what the effects are, or lack thereof. I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I posted an example of what I had tried, if it's not enough force I can understand that. I'm trying to help identify if there is a problem with artillery post patches.