artillery costs

[BA Evans]

Originally posted by Warhorse:
Italians in Ethiopia, Japan vs. China for a few examples;-)

My feelings are that since it is called WORLD War II, it really didn't start until the world at large became involved in the conflict.

The Italians in Ethiopia really seems like a side show to me since the world really wasn't very interested in it. At least not interested enough to declare (go to) war against either the Italians or the Ethiopians.

The same can be said for Japan vs. Russia (early 30's?), Spain vs. Spain, etc. The world at large really didn't start getting drawn in until Poland was attacked.

My knowledge of early Japan vs. China is not very good so any opinion I voice would be suspect. What year did hostilities begin? What response did the rest of the world have at this time? Did anyone else go to war against China or Japan at this time? I seem to remember that the USA tried to apply economic pressure (steel and oil exports) but that is a far cry from war. The USA stayed out of the war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor which I believe was much latter.

BA Evans

[victorhauser]

Hostilities (armed fighting) between Japan and China began in 1931 in Manchuria. Open war began in 1937. The Soviets and Japanese fought briefly in 1939.

[Flashfyre]

Quote:
My knowledge of early Japan vs. China is not very good so any opinion I voice would be suspect. What year did hostilities begin? What response did the rest of the world have at this time? Did anyone else go to war against China or Japan at this time? I seem to remember that the USA tried to apply economic pressure (steel and oil exports) but that is a far cry from war. The USA stayed out of the war until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor which I believe was much latter.

BA Evans

Between the turn of the century and 1931, Japan had already annexed, thru military and diplomatic means, Manchuria, Korea, Formosa, and the Ryukyu and Pescadores islands from China, and had taken southern Sakhalin and the Kuriles from Russia. Also, as part of the post-WWI agreements, they were awarded the Marshall, Caroline, and Mariana Islands, former German outposts.
As for Spain, it was the Spanish Civil War that gave the Wehrmacht a chance to test men, equipment, and tactics, without risking international disfavor. In 1936, the Nationalists and Republicans came to blows. The Nationalists, needing men and equipment to counter the Communist threat of the Republicans, asked Germany for help. Like the Americans in early WWI, many Germans volunteered, as part of the Condor Legion, to help Franco in his war. From '36-'39, the OKW was able to battle-test many of it's newly-produced weapons, including the JU-87 Stuka, the ME-109 and -110, the PzKmpfW-I, and many others. Here, Guderian's armor theories were explored; the Luftwaffe learned valuable lessons about their aircraft; and Germany got a corps of veteran soldiers, just in time for the invasion of Poland.
So, in truth, WWII began long before 1939. And for some of us history buffs, the ability to re-create the Japan-China, Japan-Russia, and Spanish War conflicts, adds another dimension to this incredible game.

We bow, in humility and reverance, before His Highness, Wild Bill. Lead us, we shall follow.

[Reg]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
So who would object to relegating guns greater than 155mm as "scenario only" available only 12/49 and recomputing costs on that basis?

I've argued for years that gamers tend to two schools, the "game as a game...win at all costs" school and the "game as historical insight...play with historical forces"

Put me down for a vote and a half on the side of the historical school!!!

'Power Players' who insist on having hordes of the powerful unit in the game with maximum experience/morale levels drive me to distraction. I feel this style of play tends to recreate a skeet range rather than a historical battle field. [Even with this game, there are a couple of scenarios where a single line of burning hulks soon marks the edge of visibility].

Please limit proliferation of super weapons.

Reg.

[frank1970]

Wouldn´t it be a possibility to give support points to each battle, eg 3000 points core force and say 300 support points, like in campaigns? You should be able to buy offboard arty and/or planes only with the support points.

[BA Evans]

Originally posted by Flashfyre:
Quote:
So, in truth, WWII began long before 1939.

Well if we were to take that tack, doesn't that mean that WWII doesn't exist? Since the terms handed to Germany (after WWI) were so harsh it basically guaranteed that Germany would have to go to war again just to bring the country back into solvency. These conditions basically make WWII a continuation of WWI, just with a 20 year cease fire.

We could also go back much farther than that, until the beginning of the human race if we wanted to use your line of reasoning. Sorry, I can't agree with your reasoning.

While Spain vs. Spain can be modeled with our current game engine, it definately wasn't part of WWII. In actuality, Spain remained neutral during WWII.

BA Evans

[BA Evans]

Originally posted by victorhauser:
Hostilities (armed fighting) between Japan and China began in 1931 in Manchuria. Open war began in 1937. The Soviets and Japanese fought briefly in 1939.

Thanks for the info. Which countries sent troops to support Japan/China/Russia in 1931? 1937? 1939?

BA Evans

[Flashfyre]

True, BA, we could go back to early man and say it all began with a fight over a rock. But, you can't discount the events that happened after WWI, and say that war only was world-wide after Poland. Actually, by that line of thought, true World War happened after Dec. 7, 1941. In essence, the blitzkrieg of Poland, France, Norway, and the Low Countries, and Rommel's push across North Africa, should be excluded.
It is true, that except for economic sanctions, the US and Britain did not attempt to stop Japan from empire-building. But this was a case of post-WWI isolationism. Both countries had suffered greatly during that conflict, and the public was not about to go through it again. It is also true that most of the political upheavals in Europe (Marxism, Nationalism, Communism, etc.) were direct results of the Versailles Treaties stipulations. But these events are what prepared the stage for the conflicts in Spain, Indochina, and Africa.
And those, in turn, led to all-out war.

My point is that there are some of us who like the ability to model these pre-War conflicts, in order to understand the evolution of men and equipment the various nations fielded.

[JTGEN]

Still on artillery

The amount of artillery i do not see as a problem when playing my 44 campaign with germans in the east front exept that that to me computer uses it too little. To my knowledge in eastern front both sides used massed artillery when attacking and used allso other than normal divisional artillery but shifted artillery to the main attack or defensive areas. These also included the bigger than 150mm artillery in massive scale.
Personally i think not using several batterys of arty when playing countries having them is more realistic. Several people said here it kills game play but using the artillery right is part of that game play.
I think the pricing on artillery up to about 210mm is quite right. I agree on special artillery pieces being available only on certaint types of battle, but how can you put in the game that when for example fast advancing troops come to contact with the enemy, ob artillery being slow on the move is behind and not available in large amounts. Then again on assault all major powers used massed artillery to smash the front lines to make it possible to even try to get through. I would be interested to know how somebody gets throug a 44 Soviet or German defence line without a massive and realistic artillery.

The effects of large artillery pieces are not overstated. On the contrary using 210mm artillery should stop everything on the receiving end including tanks just like the Soviets painfully learned in Finland (i am Finnish)where to my knowledge many attacs were stopped simply by using accurate artillery on troops starting to attack. I heard a story in the army about destroying a building by a 305mm coastal gun whose shell did not even detonate. Such is the power of such weapon. But tose particular guns could only fire about 150-200 shells before the barrel had to be changed and therefore the amount of aamunition on such special guns(this 305mm is basically a naval gun)should be quite low. But 200mm normal infartry gun should have at least 50 rounds available in a battle cause that is what they had in reality.
What is not in the game is that artillerys accuracy and the knowledge on how to use it effectively was wery different in many countries.

[Billy Yank]

Just a comment on one case of historical usage. According to the Center for Military History's brochure on the Tunisia campaign, after the lessons of Kasserine Pass, the US Army's doctrine was altered to provide at least 3 battalions of artillery for every battalion when on the attack.


------------------
Billy Yank
I don't define "my own" the way you want me to.

[frank1970]

That is the point: In SPWAW you would mostly use a bataillon size force, not a whole regiment or division.
A division would have about 48 artillery (12 batteries or 3 Bn), when German or 54(?) when US. When someone uses a company as on map force and about 10 bn artillery it is really a little unrealistic!

[This message has been edited by Frank (edited December 12, 2000).]

[Paul Vebber]

It is also important to understand the role of the artillery. The battalion commander would only have direct control over a small fraction of the assigned artillery for use in the manner the game portrays. THe vast majority was used en mass at the point of contact in a pre-planned fashion.

THe game does not distinguish between attached assets under direct commnad of the Combat Command/Kampfgruppe/Operational Maneuver Group, and assets firing in support, but not under direct control. (one can simulate this somewhat by leaving some artillery assets under computer control)

The doctrine for direct control of artillery in close support as the game portays was a rather late war development in any case, and even as late as the Rhine crossing, massed preparatory barrages were still common.

THere is a fine line between artillery use to achieve operational level goals (ie shaping the battlespace to your favor, or in the best case disrupting an enemy attack or defense so a direct engagement is avoided) and its tactical employment in direct support of a company or battalion sized force. The distinction is very much blurred in the game and is the root of much confusion.

Fixing the problem requires a new game engine...for now its best to think of artillery as that rather smaller amount (generally a battery per battalion, maybe a full Battalion in the attack) that the units has directly attached, not the Corps or Army level assets that could be supporting the support, but over which the commander in the field has relatively little control over.

[JTGEN]

Thinking the troops as simply a battallion and the forces available on that ground is pretty rigid. I see them as a part of a bigger force. Then the battles are always taking place in the center of the goals, having the important crossroads. In reality who would split the assets of say division rigidly evenly to all its battalions. The artillery would be used were it is needed and not in the backland where the objectives are not. Also the range of artillery is long enough to assist troops needing it from other units. If there would be a map with for example only forest on it with some streams, then the reality would be little anything else but infartry.

A piece from reality. If I remember right in 44 russias attacked a 3rd regiment holding ground between 2 finnish divisions. Knowing that this is where they should attack the artillery of those divisions was placed so that it could support also that regiment when needed as well as their own area(This is based wholy on memory and do not have literature to back me up). On the other hand I suppose Finnish artillery use was a lot more sophisticated than for example the russian one but the game engine can not handle that I believe.

[victorhauser]

From what I can tell in this thread, the main complaint against artillery is that in PBEM and Online games players are buying "excessive" numbers of big guns because they are perceived as underpriced for the killing power obtained.

It has been my personal life experience that people will take advantage of every "loophole" or "bargain" they can get away with. Whether this is universal human nature I don't know, but I've seen it all my life. However, I've also observed that people will go to extreme lengths to avoid being "overcharged".

Currently, it appears to me that many (most?) players seem to believe that heavy artillery is a bargain and are buying it in large quantities because of that perception.

My solution is to change players' perceptions if we can't change the game engine or pricing structure. And the way to do this is very very simple.

Simply agree beforehand when playing PBEM or Online to set artillery effectiveness to 90% against both soft and hard targets. I am willing to bet that this very minor adjustment will have an immediate effect on players' perceptions. What was once seen as a bargain will no longer be seen as such. Hence, artillery will be less numerous on the battlefield. Try it and see.

Remember. If we can't change the pricing structure or the game engine, the easiest way to change the way players buy their forces is to change their perceptions of what they see as bargain-valued units.

[Charles22]

Good idea victor. OTOH perhaps some sort of nanny can be made for this or any subsequent games, where the users type in a maximum allowed for various units, such a artillery in this case, where the non-violator will be told of the exact nature of the other person's indiscretion during and before the game, and the non-violator will then be presented with the option of forcing forfeiture by the violator, at any stage of the game.

[Paul Vebber]

The enemy forces are displayed at the end of the game, if one player breaks a predetermined limit, it will be obvious at the end.

One solution that worked well was to have one side propose a general force structure, then the other player counter-propose the force he thought would be needed to accomplish the mission, then the original player chose which force he wanted.

The end game screen would verify the forces bought were legit.



[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited December 18, 2000).]

[Charles22]

Forgot about that Paul, but the nanny idea has a good bit of poetic justice to it, don't you think?

[Paul Vebber]

Especially if she has a skimpy little uniform and says ..."You have been a bad Colonel, Bad bad bad...now come here and I'll...

Ooops wrong forum

BUt the last thing I have to do before I send the OOBs to David is run them through "spreadsheet from hell" and rescale the arty units so 155s are the largest arty you can buy (all others will be relegated for scenario use) that should help fix the arty cost problem.

[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited December 18, 2000).]

[Charles22]

Sounds good, at least the Gustav gun won't be making any appearances.

[Kharan]

Does that mean all artillery costs will be recalculated to the 255 p scale? That could be bad for 75mm batteries which really don't give you bang for the buck as it is.

Here's how I think it should be:

~75mm bty... 80 points
~105mm bty... 150 points
~150mm bty... 210 points

Is it a big deal to also change the counter-battery effect to make the receiving battery to rout for 5-6 turns instead of 2-3? I know it shouldn't be a SPWAW commander's business to worry about counter-battery fire, but as it is, it might as well not be there .