Adjusting Artillery

[Chernobyl]

It's also extremely strong that you can rail them anywhere and they don't lose any shells. When you force march them they lose all their shells but rail transfer costs no shells.

[Tanaka]

Any input from the Devs how artillery will be balanced in the next patch?

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

It's also extremely strong that you can rail them anywhere and they don't lose any shells. When you force march them they lose all their shells but rail transfer costs no shells.

Yes, I hadn't thought of that. I am trying a SP game where I have adjusted the maximum shells to 8, but the artillery is still a bit too powerful for my liking. Especially when 2 artillery units attack one enemy unit in, say, a fortified position. So next time I will adjust it to 6 shells.

I quite like the idea that someone else suggested as well of only allowing consecutive investment chits for artillery tech, rather than concurrent ones. Whether you would do that for shells is another question. I think at the moment you can invest 3 chits concurrently for shells. If it was made a maximum of 2 it might help.

Tactically, I am still very green, but one way of coping a bit better with Entente artillery is for the Germans to quickly buy the maximum number of artillery pieces themselves so they can de-entrench enemy units. This seems to stop the AI massing units for a big push as they have to use up a lot of MPP's replacing or reinforcing damaged units.

I am not sure what the maximum number of artillery units each country can produce. Germany seems to be 4. Maybe France is 3 or 4 and UK/Italy are 1 or 2 each. So conceivably the Germans can be outnumbered on the Western Front by at least 6 to 4, maybe more. And that is before we count any US artillery (?) in 1917/18. The Austro-Hungarians really need to use their artillery against the Serbs, then, the Russians and Italians, so I don't see them getting to the Western Front very often.

[stockwellpete]

The limits of artillery are evident in this excellent docu-drama about the first day at the Somme . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BlbdNq ... Gd&index=4

I also have a documentary series on WW1 (the one based on the book by Hew Strachan) and it says 30% of the shells fired by the British at the Somme were duds and failed to explode.

[stockwellpete]

Just playing at the moment as Central Powers versus AI at Veteran level and I have reduced the artillery shells to a maximum of 6. I attacked the fortress Novo-Georgievsk outside Warsaw, which has an entrenchment maximum of 7. So I only have 6 shots and it will still have an entrenchment level of 1 when I send in my infantry attack. However, my very first shot reduced the strength of the defending unit by 1, which surprised me very much, and then my fourth shot caused a further loss of 1 point, so than when my infantry attacked the defenders were already reduced to 8. I took the fortress with my third "prepared" attack on that same turn.

Maybe this is something to be looked at so that defending units do not lose strength points (they can still lose morale and readiness) until their entrenchment is below a certain level? Maybe only when it falls below 3?

[Chernobyl]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete
I am not sure what the maximum number of artillery units each country can produce. Germany seems to be 4. Maybe France is 3 or 4 and UK/Italy are 1 or 2 each.

UK gets 4 total, France gets 3, Russia 3. Germany gets 4, AH 3, Ottomans 3 although realistically against a human opponent they will be about a year behind because of low MPP and priorities. Italy is usually slow to get artillery also. Minors help a lot since Bulgaria can get one. Romania army gets 1 too.

I like the idea of slowing down the tech. 1 max chit for arty tech and only 1 max for gas/shell production and reduce gas/shell maximum tech from 3 to 2.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Other thoughts on artillery:

The main thing it does is de-entrench with 100% chance one level per ammo, once you upgrade at least once.

But more than that, it doesn't even need to be at high readiness. For example, an upgraded artillery which is understrength and not under command of a friendly HQ will still de-entrench 100% of the time. No spare MPP to reinforce your understrength artillery? No problem cause they don't even need to be at full strength!

I believe it is less likely to deal strength damage if it has low readiness, but this often doesn't matter. You can easily rail your artillery around the map and not need a HQ for it to completely de-entrench an enemy unit, leaving it as good as dead. This makes it extremely easy to concentrate artillery against one enemy nation like France of Russia, in order to trigger an early snowball effect (high losses for one nation lead to low national morale and friendly HQ experience gain which leads to even higher losses which are too difficult to replace with the budget of one nation alone).

It seems clear to me that artillery's performance ought to depend largely on its readiness, just like all other units in the game.

I think it's tough to get artillery right, and I don't want to nerf it too hard. German artillery smashed Russian units in Poland in 1915, but even greater concentrations of artillery failed to annihilate German units in 1916. It should be powerful but still have difficulty completely breaking through extensive trench lines. Artillery should actually be LESS devastating against heavily-entrenched enemy units. Ideally it should also lose steam the more it fires during a single turn, to simulate loss of accuracy due to barrels wearing out.

A humble proposal:

Arty De-entrenchment chance by upgrade level:
Level 0: 0%
Level 1: (0.5 - (0.05 * # of times fired this turn)) * readiness %
level 2: (0.65 - (0.05 * # of times fired this turn)) * readiness %

In other words, assuming 100% readiness, level 1 artillery would have a maximum of 50% chance to de-entrench every time it fires, lowering down to a minimum of 5% after firing 9 times. This would yield an expected 2.0 de-entrenchments if it fires 5 times, but only 2.8 if it fires all 10 shells at once.

This would also have interesting strategy effects regarding artillery placement and concentration and shell conservation which I won't go into here. But I will mention that it would also lead to more sporadic artillery fire (checking to see if you get the de-entrenchment you want, calling of an attack if you get unlucky). In a way that might be more "realistic" with units coming under moderate artillery bombardment often rather than artillery only showing its face during massive assaults.

I'm not sure it's the ideal solution. Concentrating multiple batteries together might still be too strong. But I wanted to put my idea out there.

Yes, I think you are on the right lines here. I am just finishing up my first game against the AI at the default Veteran level with the new patch and the basic narrative still is - "artillery has won the war". I am playing as the Central Powers and I am getting blasted out of my positions on the Western Front by a line of British and French guns. The game is well into the summer of 1918 and the USA has not joined the war yet. I have defeated Russia, Serbia, Albania and driven the British out of Iraq.

So my first impression is that although the changes to artillery in the new patch are welcome, they do not alter the basic dynamic of the game too much. In another thread I have suggested one possible way of tweaking artillery fire in relation to the heavier fortifications in the game. Of course, there are different ways of going at this.

I am a bit confused about what the Artillery units in the game actually represent, other than that they are "concentrations" of artillery. Given that Infantry units can sink dreadnoughts that are in a port, presumably because they have smaller field guns with them (and presumably Cavalry Corps units have horse artillery detachments included with them as well), then these Artillery units can only represent the heavier type guns. But where is the dividing line? I need to do some research to identify the main types of larger gun, but would the UK have 4 larger guns (however defined) when France only has 3? Would the UK have deployed them all in France, or 3 in France and 1 in Egypt?

I see in the Editor that there are 3 types of Artillery - Artillery, Heavy Artillery and Super Heavy Artillery - but only Artillery is activated, which suggests to me that the Artillery units in the game probably include middle range guns and howitzers and Infantry units just have the smaller field guns. But how effective were these middle-sized guns against fortified positions? At the moment, particularly in the later game from 1916 onwards, it feels like Super Heavy Artillery fire is being used everywhere and is the dominant type of artillery fire.

On the evidence of this first play through with the new patch I think I will go back to my very basic mod that has a 6 artillery shells maximum instead of 10.

[stockwellpete]

This is very clear on artillery in WW1. It is about 20 minutes long . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r77_ZYEjV20

It gives these numbers for artillery in 1914 . . .

France
3840 75mm guns
308 larger guns

UK
1600 lighter guns (presumably 13pdrs)
1248 larger guns (presumably 18pdrs and 4.5 howitzers, most of them not in France)

Germany
5086 77mm guns
2280 larger guns

And then for 1918 . . .

France
4968 75mm guns
5128 larger guns

UK
3242 lighter guns (presumably 13pdrs)
3195 larger guns (presumably 18pdrs and 4.5 howitzers)

Germany
6764 77mm guns
12286 larger guns

So, according to these figures, Germany still has a 3:2 advantage in heavy guns in 1918 (assuming all British heavy guns are in Europe) over the UK/France combined total.

The programme references Zabecki's book "Steel Wind" (1994).

[MVP7]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete
Yes, I think you are on the right lines here. I am just finishing up my first game against the AI at the default Veteran level with the new patch and the basic narrative still is - "artillery has won the war". I am playing as the Central Powers and I am getting blasted out of my positions on the Western Front by a line of British and French guns. The game is well into the summer of 1918 and the USA has not joined the war yet. I have defeated Russia, Serbia, Albania and driven the British out of Iraq.

So my first impression is that although the changes to artillery in the new patch are welcome, they do not alter the basic dynamic of the game too much. In another thread I have suggested one possible way of tweaking artillery fire in relation to the heavier fortifications in the game. Of course, there are different ways of going at this.

I am a bit confused about what the Artillery units in the game actually represent, other than that they are "concentrations" of artillery. Given that Infantry units can sink dreadnoughts that are in a port, presumably because they have smaller field guns with them (and presumably Cavalry Corps units have horse artillery detachments included with them as well), then these Artillery units can only represent the heavier type guns. But where is the dividing line? I need to do some research to identify the main types of larger gun, but would the UK have 4 larger guns (however defined) when France only has 3? Would the UK have deployed them all in France, or 3 in France and 1 in Egypt?

I see in the Editor that there are 3 types of Artillery - Artillery, Heavy Artillery and Super Heavy Artillery - but only Artillery is activated, which suggests to me that the Artillery units in the game probably include middle range guns and howitzers and Infantry units just have the smaller field guns. But how effective were these middle-sized guns against fortified positions? At the moment, particularly in the later game from 1916 onwards, it feels like Super Heavy Artillery fire is being used everywhere and is the dominant type of artillery fire.

On the evidence of this first play through with the new patch I think I will go back to my very basic mod that has a 6 artillery shells maximum instead of 10.

Considering the scale of the game I think the most accurate description would be the concentration of artillery including stockpiling of ammunition and high level of planning/coordination.

The typical Corps sized infantry force that occupies a single square in SC:WW1 would have both light and heavy artillery with it. No "hex" would be manned just by infantry and light artillery without any heavy artillery, air elements or cavalry. Units like Detachments and Garrisons are relatively weak on offense and I assume that is because they have relatively small amount of artillery compared to Corps sized units.

---

As a historical example, at battle of St. Quentin Canal in September 1918 the Entente forces started an assault on German line with "56 hour" artillery bombardment. The British has amassed over 1600 artillery pieces (1,044 field guns and 593 heavy guns and howitzers) for a 10.000 yard long front, which fired almost a million shells during the last 24 hours of the bombardment. That heavy gun concentration is still not even close to the total amount of guns the British had, but the number of involved guns, the prepared stockpile of ammunition, and the degree on preliminary planning was obviously well beyond the normal level.

The advancement in artillery technology and doctrine at St. Question was also obvious. At the start of the war in 1914 the artillery was largely light direct fire support with the larger "siege" guns rare and underdeveloped. The artillery shell consumption had been severely underestimated resulting to stuff like the 1915 Shell Crisis.

At battle of Somme in 1916 the massive Entente artillery bombardment of over 1,6 million shells failed to destroy the German fortification (apparently they used shrapnel shells among other mistakes). The tech and doctrine had improved significantly but were far from perfect.

However at St. Quentin the well planned bombardment included special fuses for destroying the barbed wire, gas shells for hitting the enemy artillery, supply and HQ units, as well as creeping barrages to support the infantry assault. All that allowed the Entente to break through the Hindenburg line with relative ease. I think it's safe to say that in the end it was the artillery that won the battle and the war (on the battlefields at least).

This kind of well prepared large artillery operation is what I assume the in-game artillery "unit" represents, rather than just a literal collection on guns. With slowed down development of artillery in the latest patch of SC:WW1 the pace of artillery development seems to better match the historical course, although the research of ammo production could be still be slower for it to be maxed closer to the end of war.

The maximum amount of ammo per artillery unit could be slightly lower because two artillery units can still neuter any fortification in the game from full strength in a single turn without any input from the defender before the attacker can take over with minimal losses. At St. Quentin Canal it doesn't seem like the Entente had any massive advantage in the numbers of infantry but they still won (which is pretty remarkable considering the losses the attacker would typically suffered just couple years earlier). Even though they won, they still suffered about 24,000 casualties to the Germany's 36,000. That is far more relative casualties than you will typically suffer taking a hex after a (fully upgraded) artillery preparation in-game.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... nburg-line
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... _September
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... _September
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of ... al_cutting

---

If I have understood correctly, the different types of artillery units in SC:WW1 exist for use in smaller scale scenarios where differentiating between artillery types actually makes sense (i.e. "Move this heavy artillery brigade from this village to that field"). On strategic scale you are not really going to say "Lets send all the 155mm guns to Somme and leave nothing but 75mm to the rest of the front". At strategic level the artillery will move and operate as a part of larger formations and at most you will have a relatively high concentration of well prepared and organized heavy artillery at specific part of the the front, rather than permanently independent massive artillery formations with exclusively big guns moving around freely.

[mdsmall]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Other thoughts on artillery:

Artillery should actually be LESS devastating against heavily-entrenched enemy units. Ideally it should also lose steam the more it fires during a single turn, to simulate loss of accuracy due to barrels wearing out.

A humble proposal:

Arty De-entrenchment chance by upgrade level:
Level 0: 0%
Level 1: (0.5 - (0.05 * # of times fired this turn)) * readiness %
level 2: (0.65 - (0.05 * # of times fired this turn)) * readiness %

In other words, assuming 100% readiness, level 1 artillery would have a maximum of 50% chance to de-entrench every time it fires, lowering down to a minimum of 5% after firing 9 times. This would yield an expected 2.0 de-entrenchments if it fires 5 times, but only 2.8 if it fires all 10 shells at once.

This would also have interesting strategy effects regarding artillery placement and concentration and shell conservation which I won't go into here. But I will mention that it would also lead to more sporadic artillery fire (checking to see if you get the de-entrenchment you want, calling of an attack if you get unlucky). In a way that might be more "realistic" with units coming under moderate artillery bombardment often rather than artillery only showing its face during massive assaults.

I'm not sure it's the ideal solution. Concentrating multiple batteries together might still be too strong. But I wanted to put my idea out there.

Chernobyl - this is an interesting idea and worth playing with a bit more. Artillery actually have three kinds of combat effects: they reduce morale; they reduce unit strength; and they de-entrench. It is the latter which makes them so devastating, as no other regular units in the WW1 game have this effect.

Your post makes me think that each of these effects should be calibrated relative to the number of shells fired at a unit. For realism, I would calculate the effect in terms of the number of shells a defending unit receives, rather than the number of shells an attacking artillery piece fires, on the theory that there are diminishing impacts on a defender's effectiveness to prolonged artillery bombardments. Reductions in a defender's morale already diminish with each attack in the game. Your suggestion is a good one that the probability of de-entrenching by any defender should be less than one per artillery attack and should also decrease with the number of shell hits a defender receives.

In the case of the probability of unit losses, they currently go up with de-entrenchment, as units are less likely to absorb a loss at lower entrenchment levels. It might be interesting to change the effect of artillery fire, so that is not affected by entrenchment levels and also has a diminishing probability with each shell hit. Thus the first artillery shell fired might have say an 80% chance of incurring a strength point loss, with the number dropping by 10% per shell hit and dropping to zero after eight shell hits were received. This way, it would be impossible for artillery to completely destroy units on their own (a common complaint in this Forum). Instead they would be the primary means of "softening up" a defender for a ground attack. It would also give you an incentive to fire a few shells each turn at different enemy targets in range of your artillery just to incur attrition losses, even when you did not plan a ground against a heavily entrenched enemy. This is the way artillery was used much of the time in WW1.

It would also be interesting to re-think the relationship between artillery tech and trench warfare tech, more along the lines of advanced subs vs ASW tech. For example, there could be combat differential between artillery tech of the attacker and trench warfare tech of the defender and the differential would be applied to change the probabilities per shell hit for each of the combat effects of artillery. If one explored this idea, you would need to increase the number of levels of artillery tech to match the levels of trench warfare tech. Artillery warfare tech should also be somewhat cheaper to achieve, so there could be an "arms race" between increasingly effective trenches and increasingly effective artillery. You would also need to adjust the multiplier effect of artillery warfare tech on shell availability.

I have no idea whether any of this is achievable within the existing game editor and game mechanics, but it is fun to think about on a Sunday morning!

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: MVP7

Considering the scale of the game I think the most accurate description would be the concentration of artillery including stockpiling of ammunition and high level of planning/coordination.

The typical Corps sized infantry force that occupies a single square in SC:WW1 would have both light and heavy artillery with it. No "hex" would be manned just by infantry and light artillery without any heavy artillery, air elements or cavalry. Units like Detachments and Garrisons are relatively weak on offense and I assume that is because they have relatively small amount of artillery compared to Corps sized units.

Thanks for the reply.

I do not know a great deal about this subject but I have just started to look at how the UK organised its artillery in WW1. In the game they can have a maximum of 4 artillery pieces, which is the same as the Germans. If you look at the numbers of guns indicated from that short You Tube documentary based on Zabecki's book that I posted earlier today then that parity is somewhat surprising. From what I can make of it from various Wikipedia articles, the main British guns in WW1 were the 13 pounders, the 18 pounders and the 4.5 inch Howitzer. Then there were a smaller number of much bigger guns including the 60 pounder.

The 13pdrs were used by the Royal Horse Artillery and were not very effective against trenches and I presume these are not represented separately in the game, but are included in the firepower of the Cavalry units. Cavalry do not de-entrench when they attack as far as I can tell.

The 18pdrs were the main field gun used by the British in the war and they were allocated to infantry divisions rather than being deployed separately - 3 brigades of 18pdrs (54 guns) with 1 brigade of 4.5 howitzers (18 guns) and a single battery of 60 pdrs (4 guns).

However, there were not enough guns to fully equip "Kitchener's army" at first and the batteries had only 4 guns instead of 6. Then there seems to have been a major re-organisation at the start of 1917 and some of the guns were taken away from the infantry divisions and given to something called the Army Field Artillery Brigades, which seemed to have allowed separate and more flexible deployment.

So what is confusing me at the moment is how these 18pdrs and 4.5 howitzers are represented in the game. When an infantry Corps attacks an entrenched enemy it always seems to de-entrench the enemy one level each attack. So that would suggest to me that the field artillery (18pdrs definitely and maybe the 4.5 howitzers as well) are included in the infantry Corps units. But, if that is true, what are these 4 separate Artillery units the British can have meant to represent? The 60pdrs and the very large howitzers? I don't think there were enough of them to warrant 4 artillery units and they do not seem to have been deployed separately until early 1917. If, on the other hand, the 4 Artillery units are meant to represent the 18pdrs and the 4.5 howitzers as well as the heavier guns then why do infantry Corps de-entrench every time they make an attack?

The other thing that is confusing me is when I asked a question about how an Italian infantry Corps unit could sink a Dreadnought in a Port hex, I was told that the infantry Corps would have had field artillery with it. I have noot looked at Italian Artillery yet but they can have 2 Artillery units in the game. Maybe they didn't have enough heavy guns to warrant this separate representation either.

As a historical example, at battle of St. Quentin Canal in September 1918 the Entente forces started an assault on German line with "56 hour" artillery bombardment. The British has amassed over 1600 artillery pieces (1,044 field guns and 593 heavy guns and howitzers) for a 10.000 yard long front, which fired almost a million shells during the last 24 hours of the bombardment. That heavy gun concentration is still not even close to the total amount of guns the British had, but the number of involved guns, the prepared stockpile of ammunition, and the degree on preliminary planning was obviously well beyond the normal level.

The advancement in artillery technology and doctrine at St. Question was also obvious. At the start of the war in 1914 the artillery was largely light direct fire support with the larger "siege" guns rare and underdeveloped. The artillery shell consumption had been severely underestimated resulting to stuff like the 1915 Shell Crisis.

At battle of Somme in 1916 the massive Entente artillery bombardment of over 1,6 million shells failed to destroy the German fortification (apparently they used shrapnel shells among other mistakes). The tech and doctrine had improved significantly but were far from perfect.

However at St. Quentin the well planned bombardment included special fuses for destroying the barbed wire, gas shells for hitting the enemy artillery, supply and HQ units, as well as creeping barrages to support the infantry assault. All that allowed the Entente to break through the Hindenburg line with relative ease. I think it's safe to say that in the end it was the artillery that won the battle and the war (on the battlefields at least).

This kind of well prepared large artillery operation is what I assume the in-game artillery "unit" represents, rather than just a literal collection on guns. With slowed down development of artillery in the latest patch of SC:WW1 the pace of artillery development seems to better match the historical course, although the research of ammo production could be still be slower for it to be maxed closer to the end of war.

OK, I can see your reasoning here, but I am not sure the British were capable of delivering this sort of attack for most of the war. I might be completely wrong though.

The maximum amount of ammo per artillery unit could be slightly lower because two artillery units can still neuter any fortification in the game from full strength in a single turn without any input from the defender before the attacker can take over with minimal losses. At St. Quentin Canal it doesn't seem like the Entente had any massive advantage in the numbers of infantry but they still won (which is pretty remarkable considering the losses the attacker would typically suffered just couple years earlier). Even though they won, they still suffered about 24,000 casualties to the Germany's 36,000. That is far more relative casualties than you will typically suffer taking a hex after a (fully upgraded) artillery preparation in-game.

Yes, either the ammo has to be reduced (a maximum of 6 seemed to work OK in the one play-test I did before the latest patch) or the number of artillery units has to be reduced. This will depend on (using the British example) whether the 18pdr is said to be part of an infantry Corps, or deployed separately. If deployed separately then infantry Corps should not de-entrench every time they attack.

If I have understood correctly, the different types of artillery units in SC:WW1 exist for use in smaller scale scenarios where differentiating between artillery types actually makes sense (i.e. "Move this heavy artillery brigade from this village to that field"). On strategic scale you are not really going to say "Lets send all the 155mm guns to Somme and leave nothing but 75mm to the rest of the front". At strategic level the artillery will move and operate as a part of larger formations and at most you will have a relatively high concentration of well prepared and organized heavy artillery at specific part of the the front, rather than permanently independent massive artillery formations with exclusively big guns moving around freely.

OK, I have only played the main campaign so far.

[stockwellpete]

Looking at French artillery in WW1, their mainstay field gun was the 75mm gun, which its Wikipedia article describes as . . .

"The French 75 was a devastating anti-personnel weapon against waves of infantry attacking in the open, as at the Marne and Verdun. However, its shells were comparatively light and lacked the power to obliterate trench works, concrete bunkers and deeply buried shelters. Thus, with time, the French 75 batteries became routinely used to cut corridors with high-explosive shells, across the belts of German barbed wire."

So very limited de-entrenchment capability. In terms of heavier artillery . . .

"The French Army had to wait until early 1917 to receive in numbers fast-firing heavy artillery equipped with hydraulic recoil brakes (e.g. the 155 mm Schneider howitzer and the long-range Canon de 155mm GPF). In the meantime it had to do with a total of about four thousand de Bange 90 mm, 120 mm and 155 mm field and converted fortress guns, all without recoil brakes, that were effective but inferior in rate of fire to the more modern German heavy artillery."

These de Bange guns were first commissioned in the late 1870s . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R ... inna_1.JPG

So, the French artillery bears a great resemblance to the British and the same question arises about its depiction in the game. Are the 75mm represented separately in the Artillery units, or are they assumed to be part of the infantry Corps?

[MVP7]

I'm still pretty sure it's not as clear cut as Corps has 75mm and Artillery has 155mm but rather a more abstract top-down representation of the strategic capabilities. The total number of artillery units in-game is probably more closely tied to balance than exact historical artillery formations and total number of guns.

In general a WW1 Corps will have couple infantry divisions and often some corps troops. While the corps troops might include artillery, most of the guns would be under the infantry divisions. Here's UK 'X Corps' for an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Corps_(United_Kingdom). In 1918 the Corps included two Divisions (29th and 30th), Signal corps, Cyclist battalion and Heavy Trench Mortar Battery (these have about 2km range). The divisions themselves had variety of guns from Horse Artillery Brigades to 18-Pounder Brigades to Heavy Batteries with guns like 'BL 6-inch gun Mk XIX'. Mortars were present on Brigade and Division levels.

Realistically any Corps in the game would have plenty of light and medium guns/howitzers as well as some heavy guns. Under normal circumstances these would be used to defend and support any local actions, which is where the overall units stats and that de-entrenchment (a concept which also shouldn't be interpreted too literally) comes from. For large scale operations some extra artillery units could be detached and concentrated into a small area, large amount of ammunition could be prepared and the use of artillery fire could be planned and coordinated to much higher degree than normally. That's what the artillery "unit" in the game best represents. It's not a literal Army Corps sized collection of all the heavy artillery of the nation, any more than a HQ unit is a dude with a table and a map.

The way I imagine infantry attacking ships in harbor is also a bit more abstract: Partially it's just field artillery setting up and peppering the ship, but the ship (or rather a group of ships) has also obviously been caught with it's pants down. The ship has to leave in hurry and some supplies are not loaded in time, some crew is stuck in the fighting and never makes it back to the ship. Maybe the attackers commandeer coastal guns and turn those on the ship. Maybe some valiant officer leads a small group on a row boat to attach a bomb to the side of the ship in middle of the night. Overall it would be less realistic if ship could remain in harbor and not suffer from the enemy corps occupying the city.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: MVP7

I'm still pretty sure it's not as clear cut as Corps has 75mm and Artillery has 155mm but rather a more abstract top-down representation of the strategic capabilities. The total number of artillery units in-game is probably more closely tied to balance than exact historical artillery formations and total number of guns.

Yes, I do understand that a certain level of abstraction is required, but from what I am reading so far Germany seemed to have a slightly greater artillery capability than France and the UK combined pretty much throughout the war. So Germany having 4 max artillery and France/UK having 7 max (3+4) in the standard game doesn't seem quite right to me. There may be other factors that I am missing at the moment as I have only just started looking at this in detail, but I have started a new game against the AI where I have assumed that the more mobile field artillery (that uses shrapnel rather more than high explosives) are assumed to be with the Infantry Corps. Then the abstracted part of the artillery that includes the heavy artillery component has reduced Artillery Build limits - Germany stays at 4, A-H down to 2, Ottomans down to 2, Bulgaria stays at 1; UK down to 2, France down to 2, Russia down to 2, Serbia stays at 1, Italy down to 1 USA down to 1 and Greece down to 0. And shells are at 5 max and Shell research has only 2 levels and 2 chits maximum. So we'll see - I have only just started.

In general a WW1 Corps will have couple infantry divisions and often some corps troops. While the corps troops might include artillery, most of the guns would be under the infantry divisions. Here's UK 'X Corps' for an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Corps_(United_Kingdom). In 1918 the Corps included two Divisions (29th and 30th), Signal corps, Cyclist battalion and Heavy Trench Mortar Battery (these have about 2km range). The divisions themselves had variety of guns from Horse Artillery Brigades to 18-Pounder Brigades to Heavy Batteries with guns like 'BL 6-inch gun Mk XIX'. Mortars were present on Brigade and Division levels.

Yes, this seems to be true of the French and German armies too.

Realistically any Corps in the game would have plenty of light and medium guns/howitzers as well as some heavy guns. Under normal circumstances these would be used to defend and support any local actions, which is where the overall units stats and that de-entrenchment (a concept which also shouldn't be interpreted too literally) comes from. For large scale operations some extra artillery units could be detached and concentrated into a small area, large amount of ammunition could be prepared and the use of artillery fire could be planned and coordinated to much higher degree than normally. That's what the artillery "unit" in the game best represents. It's not a literal Army Corps sized collection of all the heavy artillery of the nation, any more than a HQ unit is a dude with a table and a map.

Yes, I understand that. To me the Artillery pieces represent the capability of that army to concentrate artillery fire. So they are very much the "abstracted" part of each army in the game.

The way I imagine infantry attacking ships in harbor is also a bit more abstract: Partially it's just field artillery setting up and peppering the ship, but the ship (or rather a group of ships) has also obviously been caught with it's pants down. The ship has to leave in hurry and some supplies are not loaded in time, some crew is stuck in the fighting and never makes it back to the ship. Maybe the attackers commandeer coastal guns and turn those on the ship. Maybe some valiant officer leads a small group on a row boat to attach a bomb to the side of the ship in middle of the night. Overall it would be less realistic if ship could remain in harbor and not suffer from the enemy corps occupying the city.

The alternative way is for the ship to be forced one hex out of the port as soon as an enemy unit enters the city. It could still be attacked by any enemy unit in range (artillery and planes), but it would be less likely to be attacked by infantry units on the coast.

[MVP7]

Germany does seem get the short end of the stick when it comes to total number of artillery units. Another anomaly is that UK gets more artillery units than the French even though the French had far more guns by the end of the war.

Couple thought regarding your build limit testing:

France, Britain and Germany pay the same for artillery research which is a big MPP sink over the course of game. Reducing the number of guns available to France and UK that much means they end up paying almost twice as much as Germans to keep up in artillery tech (The rest of the majors will likely to be lagging behind anyway).

I think one of the UK guns is generally needed in Africa which limits the number of Entente guns on the Western Front to 3 with your limits. Meanwhile the CP can concentrate all 4 German guns there and can even operate the A-H guns there. CP in general can operate its forces around much more easily than the Entente which is very convenient.

Italian, Serbian, Ottoman and to lesser extent A-H and Russian artillery techs tend to lag behind. With just 5 shells per gun you'll struggle to make any advances even in the late war without concentrating most of the artillery units in one place and Russian probably doesn't even have the units for that with the limit set to 2 (Meanwhile it could be facing up to 8 Ottoman, A-H and German guns).

Personally, on top of your changes, I'd make the shell limit 8; Set artillery limits to UK=3, France=3, A-H=3, Russia=3, Italy=2, USA=2. What CP loses in numbers it can somewhat mitigate with easily mobility between Eastern and Western Fronts. Raising German number of guns to 5 doesn't sound impossible but they would be capable of deploying those early and have them researched very fast which might be the reason they have such a low limit in the first place (together with the easy operating).

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: MVP7

Germany does seem get the short end of the stick when it comes to total number of artillery units. Another anomaly is that UK gets more artillery units than the French even though the French had far more guns by the end of the war.

Yes, that doesn't seem quite right either.

Couple thought regarding your build limit testing:

France, Britain and Germany pay the same for artillery research which is a big MPP sink over the course of game. Reducing the number of guns available to France and UK that much means they end up paying almost twice as much as Germans to keep up in artillery tech (The rest of the majors will likely to be lagging behind anyway).

Another thing that I am thinking about is that Artillery is fairly ineffective in the opening year of the war. Given that my adjustments are based on the idea that the lighter field artillery is not represented separately from the infantry and cavalry Corps (and that the Artillery pieces represent in an abstract way the ability of each country to concentrate artillery fire with their heavier guns) then this is a bit unsatisfactory. Heavier guns in 1914 would have been able to cause dreadful damage e.g. Liege fortresses. So the thought I have is that Artillery Warfare should start at Tech Level 1 and only increase to Tech Level 2 during the course of the game. To go from Tech Level 0 to Tech Level 2 currently costs 2 lots of 125MPP = 250MPP, so maybe the cost of Artillery research for that 1 extra level should be increased accordingly? Just a thought at this stage, but easily adjustable in the game by altering a few numbers in the Editor.

I think one of the UK guns is generally needed in Africa which limits the number of Entente guns on the Western Front to 3 with your limits. Meanwhile the CP can concentrate all 4 German guns there and can even operate the A-H guns there. CP in general can operate its forces around much more easily than the Entente which is very convenient.

I am not convinced about this at the moment. Did the British have heavy guns in Egypt? I know that they had horse artillery, but that front was fairly static in the early years of the war and the British only started to advance in 1917, I believe. I take your point about the internal lines of the Central Powers but I'll have to see. I feel that the Central Powers have to be decisive if they want to win. They do need to knock out Serbia by 1915 and they need to drive the Russians out of Poland at the same time to relieve pressure on the Austro-Hungarians. They do need some artillery to do this, so I think it unlikely that the Germans could put all their guns on the Western Front, let alone Operate A-h guns there. The Italians attack very hard in 1915 as well and Artillery is needed to stop them breaking out.

Italian, Serbian, Ottoman and to lesser extent A-H and Russian artillery techs tend to lag behind. With just 5 shells per gun you'll struggle to make any advances even in the late war without concentrating most of the artillery units in one place and Russian probably doesn't even have the units for that with the limit set to 2 (Meanwhile it could be facing up to 8 Ottoman, A-H and German guns).

Yes, that may be an issue. I'll bear it in mind when playtesting. The Ottomans take ages to get guns and the A-H need to spend on basic research early on in the war. I doubt that the Germans could strip the Western Front of heavy guns and get away with it, although it might be an interesting gambit.

Personally, on top of your changes, I'd make the shell limit 8; Set artillery limits to UK=3, France=3, A-H=3, Russia=3, Italy=2, USA=2. What CP loses in numbers it can somewhat mitigate with easily mobility between Eastern and Western Fronts. Raising German number of guns to 5 doesn't sound impossible but they would be capable of deploying those early and have them researched very fast which might be the reason they have such a low limit in the first place (together with the easy operating).

Yes OK. Message received. I am just having fun pottering about with this at the moment. It is all very provisional.[:)]

[Chernobyl]

I think one simple improvement would be to lower the maximum tech level of Gas/Shell production to 2 (from 3) and decrease the maximum invested in that tech from 3 to 1. Maybe also increase the tech cost to 125.

Historically the WWI nations were slow to recognize they would run out of shells, but in my games I make gas/shell production a priority and I often invest 3 chits into it.

[Chernobyl]

ORIGINAL: MVP7
France, Britain and Germany pay the same for artillery research which is a big MPP sink over the course of game. Reducing the number of guns available to France and UK that much means they end up paying almost twice as much as Germans to keep up in artillery tech

This isn't a big deal in the long run. The total number of guns is far more important. Entente has an advantage here, regardless of what someone said about shuffling. Germany has the benefit that because artillery can conquer any single hex, Verdun and Warsaw are targets to fall early. But in the long run it's a bloodbath of artillery on each side destroying units. The entente simply have more artillery and can do more damage each turn.

If you're concerned about how much the tech costs you're also overlooking the extremely generous free artillery units the Entente gets, especially Britain. Hell they even get a free artillery in Iraq later I believe.

The nations the aforementioned tech costs are a "big deal" for are Ottomans and Italy. They start late and have tiny economies which strain hard to both buy the tech and the guns (300 MPP each plus upgrade costs). Italy could potentially buy two artillery and the Ottomans three. But it's not particularly realistic that these units show up with upgrades and increased shell production in time to be anywhere near as valuable as say 'a German artillery piece upgraded and in position to fire 10 shells at Verdun in June 1915'. Ottoman upgraded artillery probably won't realistically appear until late 1916, assuming the Entente player pressures them at all (they should).

So basically the Ottomans get zero artillery when it matters most (1915-16).

The greater number of artillery corps available is one of the greatest Entente advantages in the game and shouldn't be underestimated*

*I should note that Bulgaria does importantly add one artillery for Central Powers. Romania and Spain (cringe) can get one each. And I think the USA gets 4? Greece can buy one artillery too which makes it imperative to conquer Greece quickly if they join the Entente.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

ORIGINAL: MVP7
France, Britain and Germany pay the same for artillery research which is a big MPP sink over the course of game. Reducing the number of guns available to France and UK that much means they end up paying almost twice as much as Germans to keep up in artillery tech

This isn't a big deal in the long run. The total number of guns is far more important. Entente has an advantage here, regardless of what someone said about shuffling. Germany has the benefit that because artillery can conquer any single hex, Verdun and Warsaw are targets to fall early. But in the long run it's a bloodbath of artillery on each side destroying units. The entente simply have more artillery and can do more damage each turn.

If you're concerned about how much the tech costs you're also overlooking the extremely generous free artillery units the Entente gets, especially Britain. Hell they even get a free artillery in Iraq later I believe.

The nations the aforementioned tech costs are a "big deal" for are Ottomans and Italy. They start late and have tiny economies which strain hard to both buy the tech and the guns (300 MPP each plus upgrade costs). Italy could potentially buy two artillery and the Ottomans three. But it's not particularly realistic that these units show up with upgrades and increased shell production in time to be anywhere near as valuable as say 'a German artillery piece upgraded and in position to fire 10 shells at Verdun in June 1915'. Ottoman upgraded artillery probably won't realistically appear until late 1916, assuming the Entente player pressures them at all (they should).

So basically the Ottomans get zero artillery when it matters most (1915-16).

The greater number of artillery corps available is one of the greatest Entente advantages in the game and shouldn't be underestimated*

*I should note that Bulgaria does importantly add one artillery for Central Powers. Romania and Spain (cringe) can get one each. And I think the USA gets 4? Greece can buy one artillery too which makes it imperative to conquer Greece quickly if they join the Entente.

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree with this, especially the fact that the Entente can field much more arty later in the game.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

I think one simple improvement would be to lower the maximum tech level of Gas/Shell production to 2 (from 3) and decrease the maximum invested in that tech from 3 to 1. Maybe also increase the tech cost to 125.

Historically the WWI nations were slow to recognize they would run out of shells, but in my games I make gas/shell production a priority and I often invest 3 chits into it.

Agree big time..remove a chit at least from shells if not all what you just submitted, Chernobyl.

Atm, I have a pbem match with Tanaka which we planned 4 months ago awaiting the latest patch that hopefully would moderate the arty..I can see a modest improvement with the arty fix and my long term research strategy has changed somewhat, but the shells need to be slowed down..I do want to keep the 10 shell max, but think its coming in too early also. Of course, we are only about a third of the way into the war in our current match so have incomplete experiences and data, but at least Inf 1 is coming on board before Arty 2, which is helpful.