Matrix Games Forums

I'm wondering why there are artillery units in a game of this scale.

I can see it in Napoleonic games but 99% of all artillery in WWII was organic to divisions and regiments. The only exceptions i can think of are the Soviet Katyushas and the German Nebelwerfers but at this scale of game those units should not even hit the radar.

Is there a reason artillery units are detached? is it to create a rock, paper, scissors type of combat system? (i hope not)

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

I'm wondering why there are artillery units in a game of this scale.

I can see it in Napoleonic games but 99% of all artillery in WWII was organic to divisions and regiments. The only exceptions i can think of are the Soviet Katyushas and the German Nebelwerfers but at this scale of game those units should not even hit the radar.

Is there a reason artillery units are detached? is it to create a rock, paper, scissors type of combat system? (i hope not)

My father was in a US 155 battalion that was corps artillery. But that's not why we have it. We have it for a few reasons. 1) It functions as coast artillery. 2) It adds some variety into the combat system in that it has advantages over infantry in combat but it doesn't hold or take the ground like infantry/mechanized. Since artillery caused the majority of casualties, it seems only reasonable to work it in somehow. It allows additional differences between nationalities, as some have better infantry, and others have better artillery.

thanks for the response Joel.

couple things,

1. The Coastal Artillery makes sense (if they have a movement of 0)
2. Corps Artillery would still be represented inside an Infantry or Mech unit ( i'm pretty sure i read the scale of the game is Corp units? )
3. If there are detached Arty units, i'd just hate to see a huge stack of hunter/killer arty with a small screen of infantry rolling across the board because that really sounds like an ahistorical tactic.

I'd like to second MButtazoni on this one. I understand Joel's reasoning on making them a separate unit, but it's inaccurate.

It seems like a better use of arty would be as a supplement to infantry units. I'm sure it's too late to make a change like this, but it seems like you could make infantry units a lot more versatile (and accurate) by modifying them with supplemental capabilities that modify dice rolls. Armor, arty, could be used, or the supplements could include special capabilities like jungle warfare, winter warfare (Siberians!), etc.

It just seems like detaching artillery from infantry is a bit of a stretch.

I've said this before over at SC battlefront, but it seems applicable here also. The Queen of the Battlefield does indeed need representation, but at this scale it needs an abstract deployment. SC got it right by allowing for enhanced combat factors through HQ support, WaW doesn't have leaders/Hq support. My proposal for SC2 was that there be a user decision to attach "assets" to the combat units. Assets cost; assets have a variability of combat enhancements depending on the type, ie engineers, heavy tanks, artillery etc. etc. Assets can be upgraded per research/tech advancements and can be reattached through expenditure to other combat elements. In short assets provide for a great deal of variability and replayability, anybody remember TSR's "Red Storm Rising"?

ORIGINAL: Rummy

I'd like to second MButtazoni on this one. I understand Joel's reasoning on making them a separate unit, but it's inaccurate.

It seems like a better use of arty would be as a supplement to infantry units. I'm sure it's too late to make a change like this, but it seems like you could make infantry units a lot more versatile (and accurate) by modifying them with supplemental capabilities that modify dice rolls. Armor, arty, could be used, or the supplements could include special capabilities like jungle warfare, winter warfare (Siberians!), etc.

It just seems like detaching artillery from infantry is a bit of a stretch.

All I can say is it's a lot more fun with artillery included, adds another dimension to the game and the strategies that one takes in how you build your army. The fact that the units were part of other units does not take away from the fact that there were 3 main ground services, armor, infantry and artillery. We have flak units as well, and the same can be said about them, but again, it adds to the game to have them. Reserve final judgement until you see how it works out in the game. Maybe the testers can give some feedback on this once we get started testing.

Reserve final judgement until you see how it works out in the game

I hear ya. that's the voice i keep hearing in the back of my head too.

Just consider my questions a form of "rambling on, trying to find something to discuss" till you send us the game to test. [8|]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
All I can say is it's a lot more fun with artillery included, adds another dimension to the game and the strategies that one takes in how you build your army.

Playability and enjoyment carry more weight for me than perfect accuracy. Too many games strive for the latter and don't make the cut.

I am really looking forward to your game Joel.

I agree Yohan, over-emphasis on historical accuracy has crushed the playability of many games. It also opens the door to arguments on what exactly defines historical accuracy, which based on my experience at out local game club in discussion on EiA, WiF, Europa, etc., ultimately detracts from the time playing and/or enjoyment of game(s) that everyone in our club agrees are fun.

-Rein

Thanks Joel. Obviously, we're just nitpicking relatively minor aspects of what appears to be an outstanding game, which is what these forums are for (?). You guys have built up enough credibility that (speaking for myself) I trust you when you say 'it's better this way'.

Having said that, I loved SeaMonkey's comments re: attachments. He put into words what I was trying to say about making arty a supplement. TSR's Red Storm Rising is still one of my all time favorites. Anyone ever do the Red Storm Rising-Hunt for Red October combination?? My brother-in-law and I used to do that twice a year, making for some pretty incredible WWIII scenarios.

A lot of how well an abstraction gets accepted is in how it is presented. If you call artillery something like "Reinforced infantry" or "Heavy Infantry" and explain it has additional assets, it might be a better fit, as far as scale goes. A little note explaining that it represents a unit that is heavy in artillery assets, and bing, it fits.

Yep,.. Rummy I've done the TSR sea/land campaign and its like you said. Don't get to pull out the table tops very much anymore, especially with the likes of HttR and SC, but have to admit that was one well done WW3, still have both games in mint condition.

That game didn't miss much. Though not for grognards, it did a fantastic job of integrating the sea/land/air aspects of a WWIII in Europe. I loved the way it portrayed the Battle for the Atlantic with NATO having to depend on a sound naval strategy for reinforcements. The air stuff was cumbersome, but relatively accurate. Everything mixed so well.

Yep, I had some good all-nighters with that one.

I agree with Joel.

mv