Artillery after the beta ground combat changes

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: Zovs

ORIGINAL: Sir.Arnold

ORIGINAL: Great_Ajax

As a retir3d US Army Field Artillery Officer, we always called the artillery "King of Battle". The infantry is the Queen of Battle.

I think it needs to be treated with caution, because this is likely to be a problem, the production team should explain

I disagree, during WW2 65% of the casualties were caused by artillery.


Reference:Office of Medical History

Quote:

A report on the causative agents of battle casualties in World War II showed the comparative incidence of casualties from different types of weapons for several theaters. Compilers of the report believed that, while the more detailed subdivisions within their three major classes were open to question, their findings on the percent of total casualties due to small arms, artillery and mortars, and "miscellaneous" were reasonably accurate.

From these they drew the following conclusions:

1. Small arms fire accounted for between 14 and 31 percent of the total casualties, depending upon the theater of action:

The Mediterranean theater, 14.0 percent

The European theater, 23.4 percent

The Pacific theaters, 30.7 percent.

2. Artillery and mortar fire together accounted for 65 percent of the total casualties in the European and Mediterranean theaters, 64.0 and 69.1, respectively. In the Pacific, they accounted for 47.0 percent.

Obviously, the pictures I sent clearly show that the artillery caused more than 97% casualties, which obviously exceeds the historical figure of 65%

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I'd like to see more results of games to see what impact all of the changes have had. The artillery firing in the direct fire combat rounds may be doing too much now, but it's hard to say given as many have said artillery caused the majority of casualties in WWII. As Gary and I looked over your results it does seem that the infantry guns have gone up quite a bit in their number of shots and hits. Their high rate of fire may be combining with recent changes to give them greater importance than they should have. Let's see how some games play out.

Don't you think it's strange？

[jubjub]

I think the power of artillery is too absurd at the moment

The HE hit caused by 24 105mm guns in Romania is more than the sum of nearly 1000 infantry squads. With the current artillery power, there is no need for infantry and tanks at all. This is completely different in version 1.01.09. At that time, the power of artillery was about 25% of the current power, and infantry and tanks were the main sources of HE hit.

You forget that artillery doesn't contribute CV to the battle. Infantry and tanks are still very much needed.

Also, your combat example happened with no fortification. I think artillery hits are affected by higher fort levels.

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: jubjub

I think the power of artillery is too absurd at the moment

The HE hit caused by 24 105mm guns in Romania is more than the sum of nearly 1000 infantry squads. With the current artillery power, there is no need for infantry and tanks at all. This is completely different in version 1.01.09. At that time, the power of artillery was about 25% of the current power, and infantry and tanks were the main sources of HE hit.

You forget that artillery doesn't contribute CV to the battle. Infantry and tanks are still very much needed.

No, the power of the artillery is too absurd. The CV provided by the infantry will decrease significantly in actual combat. According to the pictures I sent, the CV will decrease from 447 to 31 because the artillery caused more than 97% casualties

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: jubjub

I think the power of artillery is too absurd at the moment

The HE hit caused by 24 105mm guns in Romania is more than the sum of nearly 1000 infantry squads. With the current artillery power, there is no need for infantry and tanks at all. This is completely different in version 1.01.09. At that time, the power of artillery was about 25% of the current power, and infantry and tanks were the main sources of HE hit.

You forget that artillery doesn't contribute CV to the battle. Infantry and tanks are still very much needed.

Also, your combat example happened with no fortification. I think artillery hits are affected by higher fort levels.

Level 2 fortress，Light woods terrain

artillery still caused more than 90% casualties

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

I'd like to see more results of games to see what impact all of the changes have had. The artillery firing in the direct fire combat rounds may be doing too much now, but it's hard to say given as many have said artillery caused the majority of casualties in WWII. As Gary and I looked over your results it does seem that the infantry guns have gone up quite a bit in their number of shots and hits. Their high rate of fire may be combining with recent changes to give them greater importance than they should have. Let's see how some games play out.

You should consider the current artillery power. 1.01.09 is obviously more normal

[jubjub]

You also have to remember that hits /= casualties. If you only count destroyed and damaged, the ratio is 70% casualties from artillery and 30% from everything else in your latest example.

[MakeeLearn]

"It has to do with Chess. A king in chess can only move one space at a time much like how artillery moves. Infantry is the queen of battle because it can mobilize and move anywhere like a queen on a chess board."


"Sure the king of battle is the artillery. They have the balls to knock out the enemy. Just watch We Were Soldiers and you will see a fine example of US artillery.
Infantry is the queen of battle. Being ex-infantry myself, the reason is simple. The infantry is always getting screwed."


"The Infantry may be Queen of Battle, but the Artillery’s got the balls." Artillery class lecture.

[Sir.Arnold]

However, this is still extremely high. This is a battle in Level 2 fortress and light woods terrain. Artillery can cause more than 70% of actual casualties. In level 0 fortress, artillery has caused more than 95% of actual casualties, which is still far from realistic

[DesertedFox]

I am seeing under the latest patch very few casualties for the Germans and it's much much harder playing the Russians now than previously.

There is no doubt in my mind the Germans were not performing well enough in combat previously and needed a boost but I think the pendulum has swung a little too far and is a tad over the "balance" mark, but not by much.

Mine is just one game but I'll provide some rough statistics for turn 10.

The Germans are ahead of ground gained everywhere except in the north where they are about a week behind. In the south, they are way way ahead of the historical dates.

Casualties adjusted for time were historically 500,000 Germans (not Axis) and in my game (one week short of the time for the historical casualties given), is 215,000 including Axis allies. So they are well ahead of the stats there.

German casualties in combat previously were about 40% to 50% too much, now they are way under imho.

The Russians, allowing for my expected casualties to the end of Sept were historically 2.8 million, and mine will come out at about 3 million, so very close. However, there has been no "Kiev" pocket with 550,000 captured. Only a few divs lost surrounded after the first couple of turns.

Given the beating the Russians are now taking in combat, one large pocket after the historical Minsk pocket, and it's most likely game over for the Russians.

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox

I am seeing under the latest patch very few casualties for the Germans and it's much much harder playing the Russians now than previously.

There is no doubt in my mind the Germans were not performing well enough in combat previously and needed a boost but I think the pendulum has swung a little too far and is a tad over the "balance" mark, but not by much.

Mine is just one game but I'll provide some rough statistics for turn 10.

The Germans are ahead of ground gained everywhere except in the north where they are about a week behind. In the south, they are way way ahead of the historical dates.

Casualties adjusted for time were historically 500,000 Germans (not Axis) and in my game (one week short of the time for the historical casualties given), is 215,000 including Axis allies. So they are well ahead of the stats there.

German casualties in combat previously were about 40% to 50% too much, now they are way under imho.

The Russians, allowing for my expected casualties to the end of Sept were historically 2.8 million, and mine will come out at about 3 million, so very close. However, there has been no "Kiev" pocket with 550,000 captured. Only a few divs lost surrounded after the first couple of turns.

Given the beating the Russians are now taking in combat, one large pocket after the historical Minsk pocket, and it's most likely game over for the Russians.

Yes, currently the Axis powers do not need to be encircled at all, you just need to right-click, and the Soviet infantry division will ROUT and lose more than 90% of its troops.

[MakeeLearn]

Urban combat


By Destroyed:

By Total Number of Hits:

[Sir.Arnold]

You also know that this is an urban battle, and most WITE battles do not take place in urban

[MakeeLearn]

ORIGINAL: Sir.Arnold

You also know that this is an urban battle, and most WITE battles do not take place in urban

That just might be a clue.

“There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” S. Holmes

[Nix77]

Comparing some of the FPE/HPE numbers presented here previously, there seems to be a huge difference (up to 5-10x) between the patches. I think this change might need a review?

[Gunnulf]

50mm mortars looking particularly deadly, even more so that MG34s and Maxims. Must be why both sides stopped using light mortars through the war in order to play fair...
I seem to remember this getting mentioned before (maybe in WITW) looks like is still a weird thing. The damage per barrel versus 81mm seems pretty insane and I think some assumptions about RoF are way way exceeding the ability of the platoon teams that carried them by hand to actually have ammo for these things, which as much as anything were often there as much for smoke as HE as well. Much as I agree with the deadly effect, and proportion of casualties caused by indirect fire in WW2 the main culprit was not 50mm mortar fire.

The step change between the bomb size/deadly effect to 81mm, plus the effectiveness of proper Mortar fire control, observer teams, plotted marked targets, proper resupply of ammo (often but not always by vehicle of some sort) of mortar platoons versus a couple of dudes in an infantry platoon with a sachel of 50mm bombs winging it over open sights from the bottom of their foxhole is like Pro footballers versus sunday league weekend warrior amateurs. Ivan or Hans with not much training been told to carry the heavy pipe thing today and give it a good guess. I think there is a real issue driven by paper stats and numbers versus reality. Simply nerfing the RoF to reflect practical restraints of being able to effectively find/engage targets (very particularly in urban!) and the ability/availability of ammo will quickly make 50mm mortar numbers much more realistic. My credentials being as an Infantry platoon commander at a time when 51mm mortars where still an asset, and subsequently an 81mm mortar platoon commander. While 51mm is a nice toy to have, its really night and day in terms of effectiveness for the reasons above.

Also as a final point when we talk about overall casualties from indirect fire most of the deadly effect is usually the first round on target before the enemy takes proper cover. For that reason it should be remembered that overall many of the casualties in game would be from attrition calculations of units stuck on the front line week after week exposed to random stonks catching people out in the dinner queue just as much as well as actual battles where minds were more focused on making friends with a hole.

[IDGBIA]

Inf Gun FPE and HPE are both higher so that fits with the changes described but why are all large guns having the same FPE on both patches but higher HPE by almost always 2x on the beta patch, are they more accurate firing in later combat rounds? some clarification on this would be nice

edit : neverminded I just saw the post about the bombardment phase that was added

[K62_]

ORIGINAL: Gunnulf

50mm mortars looking particularly deadly, even more so that MG34s and Maxims. Must be why both sides stopped using light mortars through the war in order to play fair...
I seem to remember this getting mentioned before (maybe in WITW) looks like is still a weird thing. The damage per barrel versus 81mm seems pretty insane and I think some assumptions about RoF are way way exceeding the ability of the platoon teams that carried them by hand to actually have ammo for these things, which as much as anything were often there as much for smoke as HE as well. Much as I agree with the deadly effect, and proportion of casualties caused by indirect fire in WW2 the main culprit was not 50mm mortar fire.

The step change between the bomb size/deadly effect to 81mm, plus the effectiveness of proper Mortar fire control, observer teams, plotted marked targets, proper resupply of ammo (often but not always by vehicle of some sort) of mortar platoons versus a couple of dudes in an infantry platoon with a sachel of 50mm bombs winging it over open sights from the bottom of their foxhole is like Pro footballers versus sunday league weekend warrior amateurs. Ivan or Hans with not much training been told to carry the heavy pipe thing today and give it a good guess. I think there is a real issue driven by paper stats and numbers versus reality. Simply nerfing the RoF to reflect practical restraints of being able to effectively find/engage targets (very particularly in urban!) and the ability/availability of ammo will quickly make 50mm mortar numbers much more realistic. My credentials being as an Infantry platoon commander at a time when 51mm mortars where still an asset, and subsequently an 81mm mortar platoon commander. While 51mm is a nice toy to have, its really night and day in terms of effectiveness for the reasons above.

Also as a final point when we talk about overall casualties from indirect fire most of the deadly effect is usually the first round on target before the enemy takes proper cover. For that reason it should be remembered that overall many of the casualties in game would be from attrition calculations of units stuck on the front line week after week exposed to random stonks catching people out in the dinner queue just as much as well as actual battles where minds were more focused on making friends with a hole.

Thanks for all the cool info Gunnulf! I've been wondering myself about 50mm vs 81mm and it makes so much more sense now. I completely agree that in-game it would make sense to do something about the 50mm RoF.

[Hardradi]

All things may have been optimal so I am not sure if this is a good example. In some cases every defender was either killed, wounded or disrupted (or even both):

[DeletedUser44]

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox

The Russians, allowing for my expected casualties to the end of Sept were historically 2.8 million, and mine will come out at about 3 million, so very close.

I know the study you are citing, but you are misquoting it a bit.

The study did not include any of the losses for June. It was actually 1941 3Q losses (July, Aug, Sep). And even those were manufactured due to a failure of units that were surrounded or surrendered to report losses. And this is even further challenged, as being too low.

The 2.8 million losses you cited is as close to the absolute "minimal possible losses" as you can get. Even then, it completely excludes the June 22-30 losses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War ... viet_Union
https://documents.theblackvault.com/doc ... Losses.pdf