Artillery questions

[Champagne]

Thanks so much for this great info.

Any other experienced hands should add on their thoughts. There are lots of interested parties who don't know as much as do you.

SO.

Digging in my own Arty does not hinder its ability to fire in defensive support during the upcoming enemy turn?

[ogar]

Naming calls...

I think I shift 'philosophies' based on the scenario -- and I'm not familiar with any of the Bulge scenarios, so I can't get specific on yours.
If the scale allows for a lot of separate artillery units (Anzio 1KM or 2KM, TWIN,...) I play differently than, say, Road to Moscow, where there are only a few artillery units, comparatively. And it depends on how the scenario is designed - in some, micro-ing the artillery does not matter, even if you have the units; and who is my opponent, some just wheel 'em up, point, dig and that's it; others who are more detailed, and I think, difficult; and then there's Telumar....

Short version - most of the time I play with artillery units set to overlap the infantry/armor across the line, and deep (where do I think the front will be in 2 or 3 turns). I set most of the artillery in D, E, F is support; I may reserve heavy artillery for direct fires (see below); I use TR when I want flexibility in moving artillery during the time and/or support fire at reduced supply cost.

Longer version -

I do check my units - Man,I hate those mixes of units where 105s are jumbled with 155s and/or 120mm mortars. Range matters, so I try to locate supporting artillery so the maximum amount of tubes bear on the likely zone.
On defense, I mostly go for digging in artillery support to get maximum supporting effect. Exceptions are the heavier guns -- 150/6in guns and larger. Their shell weights make these very effective on breaking down entrenched levels, knocking opponent artillery out of TR,D,E,F - and disrupting likely attackers.

With the new supply rules, I found it important to limit support so that units were not always deep cherry red; sometimes, ya gotta just blast away, but you do get more effect from a unit with higher supply and more readiness. Again, this depends on scenarios - in Anzio 1KM, playing as Allies, I found myself resting 1 out 3 of the 105 batteries almost every turn.
And here's where support comes in, if support levels are Army,Force,Free and the designer has not gone beserk with color-coding units, the artillery units will support everything it can within range, and you wind up burning a lot of supply in disengagement fires, counter-battery, etc for actions or units that I would consider marginal. You're just not shelling against the those infantry regiments hitting your front lines, you shelling everthing that triggers recon and that's a lot of triggering.

So rest helps focus, but resting means that the artillery is more vulnerable to air and/or counter-battery and/or a break-through assault, even when in a hex at 70% or higher entrenchment, the losses are higher than when that unit is in D, E, F.

As Curtis points out, setting a unit at TR allows freedom during the turn to later dig in, or move, or directly bombard some unit. And if the turn ends early, you are in support.
As I understand it, TR does not deliver the same support as D or E or F -- TR delivers one-half the amount. So a TR set at LL will be as effective as D set at ML. Still, that does add up.
AND it only burns half the supply -- this really matters when supply is constrained.

This is for artillery -- air and naval are different cans, and different worms. Oh, and I do not always do as I say - again, scenario and opponent and game-turn-situation matter.

As for those long-range K18s of Telumar's, well, that's why Wallis invented the Wellington - damn fine tactical bomber.

[Champagne]

Thank, ogar!

Very helpful !

[Oberst_Klink]

Craig,

Have a look at my Tutorial '41 scenario where you can see how managing an Artillery Regimnent of your Panzer Division (The 11th) can make a different.

Klink, Oberst

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ogar

So rest helps focus, but resting means that the artillery is more vulnerable to air and/or counter-battery and/or a break-through assault, even when in a hex at 70% or higher entrenchment, the losses are higher than when that unit is in D, E, F.

The entrenchment level in a hex provides no defensive benefit. It only affects how fast a unit can dig in.

As I understand it, TR does not deliver the same support as D or E or F -- TR delivers one-half the amount. So a TR set at LL will be as effective as D set at ML. Still, that does add up.
AND it only burns half the supply -- this really matters when supply is constrained.

TR functions the same as D or E or F. All deliver half the amount and all consume half the supply when indirectly supporting. Their loss tolerance settings only have an effect if they are directly assigned to a bombardment sans a ground attack - and TR is, again, the same as D, E, or F in that regard. If directly assigned to support a ground assault, their loss tolerance settings again have no effect.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


...If directly assigned to support a ground assault, their loss tolerance settings again have no effect.

I once asked Norm very question you answer here. He was somewhat more ambiguous -- he said the loss setting of artillery supporting a ground assault could affect how many rounds were used.

It's possible he just wasn't sure. It's also possible things have changed since then. It's even possible he was just wrong. However, the above is what he did say.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I once asked Norm very question you answer here. He was somewhat more ambiguous -- he said the loss setting of artillery supporting a ground assault could affect how many rounds were used.

It's possible he just wasn't sure. It's also possible things have changed since then. It's even possible he was just wrong. However, the above is what he did say.

It's possible you're mis-remembering. In fact, my memory is of getting the exact opposite response from Norm. As I recall it, he expressly said that those settings don't matter if the artillery is supporting an assault.

Regardless, I've used Ignore Losses on such supporters since that feature was added (before ACOW?) without adverse loss of rounds.

Now, the settings could possibly affect a defending artillery unit's retention of a support deployment upon bombardment. Perhaps that's what he meant.

Edit: Let me add that air units are different animals. Since they have to go through enemy AS and AAA, their loss setting affects whether they get to drop their bombs at all. This is a real problem with Norm's technique here. You try to bomb for one round, but the planes will only get through if you use Ignore Losses. While the loss setting is being used to determine how many rounds to bomb, it still has to be used for morale checks. It would have been better to create a separate parameter for setting the bombing rounds.