Adjusting Artillery

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Very good points! Lol Spain. I hear it is popular for Entente to capture Spain! [:D]

[MVP7]

I was mainly pointing out the double tech cost as a factor in Pete's test. With the actual in game artillery availability the Entente definitely has advantage in any case.

Reducing the max chit investment in gas/shell production would be a good change but increasing the cost of the research by 25 would mainly hurt the poor majors I think.

[Chernobyl]

ORIGINAL: MVP7
increasing the cost of the research by 25 would mainly hurt the poor majors I think.

Yeah maybe you're right. I was thinking that might actually be historical, but it varies when you consider a lot of the powers bought many of their shells. I don't believe the Ottomans had much domestic arms production at all, let alone artillery. I'm not sure how to imagine level 3 gas/shell production for Ottomans as anything other than historical fiction or game balance.

But I do generally like slightly increasing some of the "overpowered" tech costs to cause more interesting choices (especially given the hard limit in MPPs each country has for research)

[stockwellpete]

I am a bit confused by the USA having a maximum of 4 artillery units. Apart from completely tipping the balance against the Germans on the Western Front if they join the war early, did the USA bring over any heavier artillery themselves, or did they rely mainly on purchasing British and French guns?

[1775Cerberus]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

I am a bit confused by the USA having a maximum of 4 artillery units. Apart from completely tipping the balance against the Germans on the Western Front if they join the war early, did the USA bring over any heavier artillery themselves, or did they rely mainly on purchasing British and French guns?

The Americans made extensive use of French materiel, that being used to pay down a portion of the war debt of France toward America. American divisions were the same size as Corps for the other nations. In the memoirs and after action reports I have read, the French "loaned out" batteries in the early American operations to help them meet TO&E for guns. By the time of Mont Blanc I am not seeing those same references on the divisional level.

The American divisions that trained with the British used "loaned" equipment to ease supply issues. Once they were returned to Pershing they drew French equipment.

As for having four guns for the Americans. With each Division being Corps sized, a Corps is bringing twice the gun firepower of their European counterparts. I have viewed the four guns to be developers way of showing this size disparity in game.

[MVP7]

The reason behind the large number of artillery for Americans is probably to make them tip the balance severely in Entente's favor (not that they don't already have the advantage in artillery even before American entry).

Considering the length and investment needed for catching up in Artillery at the late war it's probably most practical to support any American infantry early on with British and French Artillery units (or rather support the French and British with American infantry) until their stuff is ready to go and shipped over. I'd be surprised if all 4 Artillery units made it to Europe before the end of war though.

[BillRunacre]

I've been thinking about the maximum number of shells that artillery units can stockpile, and I do like the fact that it can rise to a decent number over multiple turns.

However, I do understand the reasoning for wanting that maximum to be less, so that artillery cannot so easily build up their shells and destroy targeted units.

What I'm therefore proposing to implement would be a mechanism whereby the maximum number of shells that can be stockpiled with a unit is reduced, say to 4-5, but to allow this number to be increased via Logistics research.


The Logistics tech seems a natural choice as a) it does relate to supply to the army and b) it would give another reason to invest in this (perhaps neglected?) tech.

This change will make it require more effort and investment to build up large stockpiles of shells, and also make it all the rarer given the extra expense that would be incurred.

Will it even be the best use of MPPs to research Logistics to a high level for this? Maybe, but it does add in an extra investment choice to the game which is probably a good thing.


So in brief it would work like this:

- Gas/Shell Production increases the per turn supply of shells to artillery (no change here).
- Artillery's starting maximum shells reduced to 4 or 5.
- Logistics increases the maximum shells an artillery unit can stockpile, increasing by 1 per level.

Note that some Majors do start with level 1 or 2 in Logistics (only Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans start at zero) but they would still have to get investing MPPs in Logistics if they wish to increase their shell stockpile limit.

[stockwellpete]

Yes, I like this idea, Bill.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

This is a very good idea.

[Chernobyl]

Logistics sounds cool. I still think the rate of shell replacement is more important than total stored shells. Gas/shell tech investment rate should be slowed down. And maybe artillery should start with 0 de-entrenchment and only reach 1 at level 2? Not sure, that could make trenches TOO effective in 1915, but currently around mid 1915 it becomes a slog fest of death OR both sides back off with a true "no mans land" hex row that neither side ventures into. The reason that artillery is so powerful is NOT because of their total shell supply but because it de-entrenches 1 level per shot with no limit. If you spend 10+ shells on one unit, yeah it takes damage and has low readiness, and it will die, but you used a ton of shells which you won't immediately get back. The enemy gets a breather. Far more efficient (except when dealing with forts cities) is spending 2-3 shells to de-entrench the enemy and then having those shells ready again next turn. You can easily kill a unit with no (or just low) entrenchment and take minimal losses in the attack. Yes total shell capacity does have an effect particularly when the enemy retreats (artillery might reach their cap and "waste" some shell production). It's a cool addition but I don't think it would solve the problem.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Logistics sounds cool. I still think the rate of shell replacement is more important than total stored shells. Gas/shell tech investment rate should be slowed down. And maybe artillery should start with 0 de-entrenchment and only reach 1 at level 2? Not sure, that could make trenches TOO effective in 1915, but currently around mid 1915 it becomes a slog fest of death OR both sides back off with a true "no mans land" hex row that neither side ventures into. The reason that artillery is so powerful is NOT because of their total shell supply but because it de-entrenches 1 level per shot with no limit. If you spend 10+ shells on one unit, yeah it takes damage and has low readiness, and it will die, but you used a ton of shells which you won't immediately get back. The enemy gets a breather. Far more efficient (except when dealing with forts cities) is spending 2-3 shells to de-entrench the enemy and then having those shells ready again next turn. You can easily kill a unit with no (or just low) entrenchment and take minimal losses in the attack. Yes total shell capacity does have an effect particularly when the enemy retreats (artillery might reach their cap and "waste" some shell production). It's a cool addition but I don't think it would solve the problem.

So maybe a chit reduction in addition of the logistics mechanism Bill described?

[ThisEndUp]

Yes agreed with Chernobyl. Currently you can obtain 4 shells a turn in late 1915, which is a bit too strong in my opinion. A reduction in the max tech level to 2 or in the number of chits invested to 1 or 2 would be better.

An alternative would be to explore the suggestion someone made earlier about changing their de-entrenchment ability to RNG. If RNG is not desirable, would it instead be possible to reduce the de-entrenchment to what Chernobyl described, but make it so that de-entrenchment can be cumulative; an artillery piece with 0.5 de-entrenchment can reduce entrenchment with 2 shots?

[mdsmall]

I think the automatic 1:1 ratio of shells fired to de-entrenchment achieved (at artillery tech 1 and above) is the nub of the problem. One approach would be to reduce the effectiveness at de-entrenching per shell fired at a uniform ratio, as suggested by Chernobyl and This End Up. For example, at 0 artillery weapons, you could have 0.25 de entrenchment per shell fired; 0.5 at 1 artillery weapons and 0.75 at 2 artillery weapons. This would have the advantage of giving even artillery at 0 tech some capacity to de-entrench, if they fire most or all of their shells.

Another approach would be to have diminishing de-entrenchment effects with the number of shells first (as discussed higher up in this thread). For example, say at artillery weapons 1, the first two shells fired would de-entrench at 0.5 per shot; the third and fourth shells would de-entrench at 0.4 per shot; fifth and sixth at 03. per shot and so on. Thus, an artillery piece with 10 shells could de-entrench by 3, if it fired all its shells. This would still make artillery useful, especially in conjunction with infantry or air attacks, but a single piece could not completely de-entrench a corps in 5 or 6 level fortress. It also strikes me as a bit more realistic.

However you do it, If you diminish the combat effectiveness of artillery, I think you could achieve most or all of what has been suggested in this thread.

[stockwellpete]

The more I think about this subject, the more I feel we are dealing with a great big artillery fraud. A bit like an insurance scam where everything is counted twice or three times! Infantry Corps attacking fortified positions automatically de-entrench (and they can also sink dreadnoughts in ports), so they must have field artillery capability represented in their combat values; then we have the actual artillery units which I am led to believe represents, in an abstracted way, the ability of each nation to concentrate artillery fire for prolonged bombardments with heavy artillery and field artillery pieces; and then we have the USA turning up late in the war with a massive artillery capability of 4 artillery units, when actually they hardly had any artillery pieces of their own. So the way I am looking at it, some of these British and French guns are being counted 3 times, while everybody else's are being counted 2 times.

Also, from what I am reading (David Stevenson's superb "1914-18") Germany, at the very least, had artillery parity, with Britain and France on the Western Front for the entire war. So another issue is the imbalance between the Entente and Central Powers in the Artillery department. I cannot see any reason at all for the USA having 4 artillery units. I am using the current values in my very basic artillery mod . . .

Germany 4, Austria-Hungary 2, Turkey 1
UK 2, France 2, Russia 2, Serbia 0, Italy 1, USA 1

What I am trying to do here is to separate out the heavy guns from the smaller field and horse artillery, so they are not counted multiple times, which I think is at the root of the problem. A more minor issue is that the Artillery is fairly ineffective at the start of the game and needs a Tech advance before it can de-entrench. I appreciate that certain features are tweaked in ways to enhance gameplay, but heavy guns at the start of the war 1914 were very powerful (e.g. Liege forts) so in the mod the artillery can de-entrench straight away and there is only 1 level of Tech to research (which is a bit more expensive). Artillery units also cost a bit more to buy because they are representing just the heavier artillery pieces. I have also reduced the number of shells maximum to 5, but could relax that number if the de-entrenchment value could be adjusted to, say, 0.66 or 0.75 chance per turn, or was made cumulative. The final thing is that I have increased the range to 3 hexes so that counter-battery fire (and longer range aircraft spotting) becomes more of a feature in the game. Counter-battery fire barely exists in the game at the moment. So there is also an extra choice to be made about where you locate your Artillery units. More safely 2 hexes behind the front, or just 1 hex behind where you can attack more of the enemy line (and defend your own), but where you may be subject to counter-battery fire.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: mdsmall

I think the automatic 1:1 ratio of shells fired to de-entrenchment achieved (at artillery tech 1 and above) is the nub of the problem. One approach would be to reduce the effectiveness at de-entrenching per shell fired at a uniform ratio, as suggested by Chernobyl and This End Up. For example, at 0 artillery weapons, you could have 0.25 de entrenchment per shell fired; 0.5 at 1 artillery weapons and 0.75 at 2 artillery weapons. This would have the advantage of giving even artillery at 0 tech some capacity to de-entrench, if they fire most or all of their shells.

Another approach would be to have diminishing de-entrenchment effects with the number of shells first (as discussed higher up in this thread). For example, say at artillery weapons 1, the first two shells fired would de-entrench at 0.5 per shot; the third and fourth shells would de-entrench at 0.4 per shot; fifth and sixth at 03. per shot and so on. Thus, an artillery piece with 10 shells could de-entrench by 3, if it fired all its shells. This would still make artillery useful, especially in conjunction with infantry or air attacks, but a single piece could not completely de-entrench a corps in 5 or 6 level fortress. It also strikes me as a bit more realistic.

However you do it, If you diminish the combat effectiveness of artillery, I think you could achieve most or all of what has been suggested in this thread.

Yes, I very much agree with these sentiments.

[Chernobyl]

I'm not too terribly bothered by the ahistorical nature of "artillery corps" even though I acknowledge that an entire fully-supplied corps dedicated to strategic artillery was probably rare even later in the war (perhaps increase their cost to 450?)

I think that it's good the game has a separate unit called artillery because I think if you only had infantry, with their innate artillery, well that would make the game pretty darn bland. And it already borders on being too bland already since the main unit is quite similar for all nations (yes there are mountain and colonial corps)

I'm more concerned about the gameplay balance. I don't want to make artillery too strong but I also don't want to make it too weak.

I am not sure giving any de-entrenchment at level 0 is a good idea. If that happens that gives the Russians even more power to bust the Austrian defense line early.

Also I want to point out that any significant weakening for artillery will probably cause the fronts in the later game 1916 and onwards) to be quite static and difficult to break through, with far fewer losses on both sides. Importantly, this would lead to an economic situation where everyone is making plenty of MPP and can easily replace their losses while supporting maximum research and buying to their build limits.

I think that economic problem could be fixed by tempering the effects of Industrial Tech which is a bit too strong (especially for Germany and Russia) in my opinion. To refresh, it gives a +15% MPP modifier which multiplies all your income, but Russia starts out at 25% industry and Germany at 85%, so three levels of Industry tech more than doubles Russia's income!

The reason I bring this up is because a weak artillery game inevitably leads to a defensive low-casualty game which means fast technology and more excess MPP which means diplomacy gets maxed out quickly (diplo is already too cheap, but with overflowing MPP there's no strategic decision at all of whether to spend on diplo), units will be struggling to reach the front and make an impact due to every hex being occupied.

I think the shell rate needs to be lowered, and the % chance to de-entrench should not be 100%, but I also caution that in doing so you might create new problems. Breakthroughs should still be a threat, troops should be dying.

Artillery should be powerful but not a finger of death, nor creator of giant "DMZ" hex strips where neither side dares leave a unit.

[Chernobyl]

Summary of artillery ideas:

1) Lower upgraded artillery's chance to de-entrench per shot
2) Gas/Shell production tech (lower max research rate to 2, lower max tech to 2, increase cost to 125)
3) Reduce total number of artillery corps available for select nations, perhaps eliminate a couple events where nations get free artillery (stockwellpete)
4) Make artillery's effectiveness more directly related to its readiness (right now it doesn't really matter if it's attached to a HQ or not or even at full strength; it still de-entrenches fully and even does damage)
5) Perhaps reduce artillery level 2 rate of damage readiness/morale damage? (Some people seem to think it's too high; I personally haven't tested much with level 2 artillery in the latest patch)
6) Lower max stored shells but increase possible from Logistics tech (Bill)
7) Increase build time and/or cost for artillery corps
8) Weaken some techs (industry tech) to lower income if artillery is also weakened

New ideas:
9) Perhaps eliminate artillery's ability to de-entrench entirely but INCREASE the chance to do one point of damage per shot for upgraded artillery? (not sure if this would be better or worse but could lead to some interesting attacks against softened up units which still have high entrenchment levels)
10) Introduce an artillery detachment unit to replace some of the full artillery corps, this unit would be cheaper, weaker (perhaps only one max shell, increased by 0.25 per logistics tech so you get to 2 shots at level 4 logistics)

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Summary of artillery ideas:

4) Make artillery's effectiveness more directly related to its readiness (right now it doesn't really matter if it's attached to a HQ or not or even at full strength; it still de-entrenches fully and even does damage)

I for one always have felt this was particularly odd and should be looked at closer.

As an example, in a pm match I had last March 2020...I was playing as Entente and had did a landing with a detachment to block the rail line on the southern Anatolian coast. My opponent had operated a lone Bulgarian Arty2 unit near by from Europe (probably on the way to Palestine), and it was blocked. So next turn, I had a French Marine unit already on an AV off Cypress, land next to this thing, and attack it with no hits. I figured, no problem, it will retreat and not be in my hair down Suez way, or I will box it in and kill it.

No! Next turn, my opponent unloaded all 10 shells on the Marine unit..and destroyed it! It was alone, with no HQ attachment (later I learned from my gracious opponent the Artillery doesn't need it to enhance its OP'ness), and moved along the next turn to pump 4 more shells into the entrenched detachment blocking the RR, and then it being dispatched by a Turkish detachment that came up from the east. I was astonished by this to say the least.

Anyway, #4 of your list stands out as a possible component to any other 'fixes' that have been suggested by everybody here. The (still) over powered artillery has been a major destabilizer of many great pbem matches, and even with fairly evenly skilled opponents, a large majority of the games (and the war) I at least have participated in, have ended by the end of 1916 to early 1917...all due to doom artillery.

[stockwellpete]

I am now reading in Stevenson that a lot of artillery shells fired in WW1 were duds and that the quality of shells deteriorated as production increased rapidly through 1916-17. I think this could be reflected by removing automatic de-entrenchment for artillery fire and replacing it with variable levels of de-entrenchment from each shot ranging from 0 to 1. The effect should be cumulative and I do like the idea suggested by others that artillery fire should do less de-entrenchment damage the more that it is aimed at the same target. The impact on defender's morale and readiness would not be so impaired.

So you could imagine a sequence of artillery fire (Tech Level 1) at a fortification inflicting the following damage . . .

0.6, 0.8, 0 (dud), 0.8, 1.00, 0.5 = 6 shots from 1 artillery unit giving a total de-entrenchment value of 3.7 (which on its own would de-entrench 3 levels)

But a second artillery unit also fires at the same target on the same turn . . .

0.8, 0.6 = 2 shots from 1 artillery unit giving a total de-entrenchment value of 1.4, which is added to 3.7 from the other artillery unit making a total of 5.1 and a total de-entrenchment of 5 levels before the infantry attacks go in.

In this sequence of 8 shots, at a certain point a de-entrenchment penalty would kick in representing diminished returns from saturation bombardment. Maybe after a fortification has lost 3 or 4 levels of entrenchment in the same turn, something like that anyway.

All this could be balanced by the maximum number of shells made available to each artillery unit. With variable de-entrenchment this number could be as high as 8, I would think.

I think we have to remember that the Western Front basically did not move from late 1914 to spring 1917 (when the Germans withdrew to the Hindenburg line), so for all those shells fired there was actually little to show for it apart from hundreds of thousands of casualties. The main movements occurred elsewhere as the weaker participants started to collapse under the strain of the war. Also, the Germans still thought they could win the war in the spring of 1918 even though the USA had been in the war for the best part of a year, so the current artillery imbalance in the game on the Western Front, particularly in the second half of the game, really does need adjusting.

[stockwellpete]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

3) Reduce total number of artillery corps available for select nations, perhaps eliminate a couple events where nations get free artillery (stockwellpete)

Yes, I am just wondering whether "less is more" with regards to artillery. Probably not everyone's cup of tea.[:)]