Artillery in 1.2b5

[EUBanana]

Overall the game is undoubtably more WW1-like now artillery has been trimmed from the silly damage it inflicted.

On the other hand its now been trimmed far, far too much IMO. You can practically hear the crickets on the Western Front now. I've seen months of barrages not even inflict 1 hit.

Its gone from 45 hits from a heavy barrage to 0. Surely we need some intermediate number here - like, 5-10, say...

[Lascar]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Overall the game is undoubtably more WW1-like now artillery has been trimmed from the silly damage it inflicted.

On the other hand its now been trimmed far, far too much IMO. You can practically hear the crickets on the Western Front now. I've seen months of barrages not even inflict 1 hit.

Its gone from 45 hits from a heavy barrage to 0. Surely we need some intermediate number here - like, 5-10, say...

Yes, some of the lighter barrages on well entrenched units have not inflicted many casualties but I have been on the receiving end of your barrages and have still suffered not insignificant casualties. The overall effect is good though. This game is playing very much like WW I now and this forces the respective commanders to make decisions in a more historical context.

I think the game is very close to its optimal fine tuning. No more than just a hair more for the artillery if any at all.

[SMK-at-work]

On the receiving end of TE barrages from the AI on the Western front yes indeed - if yuor opponent has entrenched and you haven't upgraded your artillery then you'll do squat (the AI is pretty slow at upgradign artillery so entrenchments are normally way ahead in that race).
 
Which is exactly how it should be IMO.
 
If you want to inflict losses on advanced entrenchements then you have to invest in improved artillery - your choice.

[EUBanana]

Well, I dunno what I've been inflicting on him.

But he's inflicted 0 to me. (and bashed down 1 level of trench). For probably the best part of a year of fairly continuous shelling (infantry assaults dont count, just casualties from arty). I assume I'm not inflicting a whole lot more to him with my own return fire.

It is true that my trenches are now at 4. And his artillery is a pitiful 3. But even so. 0 casualties from shelling/wastage in a whole year on the Western Front?

Thats grossly ahistorical. One of the incredible things about WW1 is the vast number of people who died even when "nothing" was going on. Wastage was huge. Its artillery that implements the wastage effect. In short, no, its not exactly how it should be IMO.

It also doesn't really feel like WW1 either, I'm not feeling the weight of attrition at all, even with fighting getting quite heavy I got more arms than I know what to do with, almost. I'm feeling the lack of enough CP infantry counters, but thats something else.

[SMK-at-work]

Unimproved artillery vs level 4 trenches and you think they should inflict significant casualties??

You should be congratulating him on wasting his resources!! [:D][:D]

sure there was "wastage" - there was "wastage" even without artillery - it doesn't get represented either.  Nor do any of the rear area troops who were maybe 1/4 to 1/3rd of the army (the US army sent 42 divisions to Europe - 12 of them were broken up to provide support elements as none had been otherwise provided).

It's an abstraction I can live with.

Edit - apparently 1/2 to 3/4 or more of the troops might be support even in WW1 - see http://tinyurl.com/22ugjc

[SteveD64]

Wastage is a good point.  I was one of the anti-artillery types in earlier versions and am still playing PBEM with version 1.2b as the CP and don't have near enough arms to refit my units to full strength.  And I don't think my opponent does either.  It gives a nice drastic feeling to the game, especially when you take a hex and are very vulnerable to counterattacks.  Maybe tone it down a little from this version but I can't comment on the current version.  I just wish there was a minimum (say 1 or 2) and maximum damage (say10-15) you could do, then let the infantry decide the battle.

[SMK-at-work]

Yep - I look for readiness decrease as the main effect of artillery these days - actual enemy strength is unimportant if you've got him down to 1 or 2 readiness - you can often take a hex at 1:1 "odds" and almsot destroy the enemy strength in it while taking only a handful of casualties or even none at all.

[EUBanana]

well, to be honest, you might as well just get rid of it, as far as I can tell its contributed 0 to this game, on either side, aside from perhaps making us waste points on R&D and barrages in the vague hope that maybe it will do something.

Cuz it really has done zip.  At least Lascars artillery has.  Not a bean.  Not a man killed.

[EUBanana]

...and that you can brush off wastage seems a bit... wrong to me.  Wastage was serious.  It was one factor as to why Germany was collapsing at the end.  It is patently ridiculous that if both sides choose strategically to ignore the Western Front (not a bad idea, given force applied there has less effect than anywhere else) in favour of other fronts, the Western Front can't even be used to bleed the enemy of resources in attritional warfare.

I really, /really/ don't like the sound of crickets on the Western Front.  In fact, I go so far as to say that the fact that bleeding without assaulting is no longer even a semiviable option kinda ruins the game for me.

[SMK-at-work]

Phoney war 1940 - crickets are a historical result if both choose it.
 
But it takes both sides to ignore the western front for that to happen - and if the TE does that then it is playing right into the CP's hands.  Taking out Turkey might be relatively easy, but it's unlikely to do much damage to the CP - it's a long way to any vital resources.  Taking out Strasbourg and Metz might be expensive in terms of manpower, but it will inflict considerably more damage on the CP and points a way straight to strategically important assets.
 
And it needs to be done quickly - the massive nubmer of German Cosprs coming online in 1915 beams the TE needs to be hammering at the West Wall by the end of 1914 unless they have a death wish.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Phoney war 1940 - crickets are a historical result if both choose it.

I don't think thats true at all.

What you are saying is that having two armies camped next to each other will not, unless one side assaults the other, inflict any casualties.

I think thats just false. How can you implement a Falkenhayn strategy now? You can't. (Or a British 'aggressive raiding' strategy, or any other of many means in WW1 used to wear down an opponents resources at the cost of some of your resources without actually attempting an advance, all summed up in GoA as 'artillery'). You can't even weaken the line anymore, short of attacking. Unless you assault, you can't actually kill anybody whatsoever.

Even WITP has the bombardment option to eventually wear down bases, it seems decidedly odd to me that you can't do likewise in WW1.

The 'crickets' are being caused by the game engine not by strategy. You sure didnt get crickets before when arty worked like a tacnuke, even on fronts neither side cared about.

While I thought ulvers reducto ad absurdium game was pretty stomach churning (and at the time I was saying artillery needs cutting down and trenches need improving), its now swung too far the other way, where a Western Front involves almost no /intrinsic/ pressure at all. There is no constant gently beating artillery forcing you to siphon off troops you so badly want elsewhere to a quiet front your not really interested in, due to the general press of war. That feeling of a great weight slowly bearing you down as the casualties you can do nothing about rack up is gone, and thats really what WW1 is all about.

Its really ruined the game for me.

But it takes both sides to ignore the western front for that to happen - and if the TE does that then it is playing right into the CP's hands.

Finer points of strategy impacted by this don't really interest me - fact is, it seems to me that a huge chunk of WW1 strategy just got deleted, and the game has been diminished as a result.

[Joel Rauber]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Phoney war 1940 - crickets are a historical result if both choose it.

I don't think thats true at all.

What you are saying is that having two armies camped next to each other will not, unless one side assaults the other, inflict any casualties.

I don't think he is saying that. I imagine its more that the casualties would be below the radar screen at this scale. I think the 1940 example is apropos.

I'm neutral at the moment on the issue; wanting to gain more experience with the current beta version. Having only played the AI so far, it seems artillery is still doing some damage. It enabled me to wear down some French fortress towns and take them in the last game I'm playing.

[EUBanana]

The siege artillery is still important as that tends to remove 1 fort level every time you fire it, and forts have a significant impact on the outcome of an assault, so theres very much an incentive for you to use your siege guns to get rid of the forts.

I think 1940 is a really poor comparison, and the idea that wastage is 'below the radar' frankly ridiculous.  I suppose its true that both sides could decide to literally do nothing on the Western Front, but that would imply both sides dont even bother with barrages.  There should be the ability to zap bad guys without going for an actual offensive.  It need not even be a cost effective way of zapping bad guys, but it should still be there.

[FrankHunter]

This is an extreme situation, minimum artillery versus maximum trench.  He's firing with a negative base number which is pretty much a waste of ammunition.  Its like one of those month long bombardments that wipes out every blade of grass but meanwhile the troops were quite safe down in their concrete reinforced defences ready to come up as soon as the bombardment stopped. 

For artillery to be effective now the base number has to be positive.  If Lascar had put some R+D into artillery and raised it to above "4" I'm sure he would be doing some damage.

[esteban]

First few impulses playing with level 3 arty versus level 1 entrenchments on the west front--only a couple casualties on each side.  Not sure that is a little too low or not just yet.
 
However, the Western Front becoming a backwater is basically your choice as the TE player.  Historically the TE flung themselves at the German trenches to get a breakthrough.  Since you ahistorically are abhorrent of the casualties that will generate, you dont do it.  But this game should be a simulation of what happened in 1915, not a "I'd like to play a little blitzkreig warfare, but with WW1 units" game.  The fact of the matter is that between November 1914 and April 1918, no amount of territory changed hands in the West that could be reflected by a "hex change".  My advice is to start building improved arty and tanks/assault troops.
 
As for wastage, I am all for saying that wastage casualties and the replacements for them are abstracted out of the game or for putting in something that a corps loses 1 sp per impulse that it is next to an enemy corps--either way. 
 
 

[EUBanana]

Well, I appreciate its an extreme - and I have a technological superiority in both artillery and in trenches in this game it seems, which means I'm evidently pursuing a different emphasis.

...I guess I'm just hoping that this emphasis remains a viable one!  Based on the recon data I got, which is pretty unreliable as he moves stuff around, I think my artillery is doing the odd hit to him, but actually costing me much more than him, in terms of arms refits to barrages, which is really what its all about in attritional warfare which this game is simulating.  Thats not 'over analysis', as has been accused, thats the basic mathematics of attrition!

[EUBanana]

And /I/ at least don't want the Western Front to be a backwater so this really isnt an issue and I wish people would stop bringing it up.  It is not relevant to this conversation.  I am quite prepared to invest industry to bleed him on the Western Front so he has to divert resources there.  I'm not interested in attacking though because I have all the hexes I want/need.  I'm even prepared to play the R&D game to try and bleed him at a favourable ratio, but even if its not at a favourable ratio I'm still prepared to pursue that strategy up to a point.

If on the other hand that strategy is costing me 4-5 industry a phase in shells and netting perhaps 1, 2 if I'm lucky industry worth of damage to him, along 1-2 industry a phase in spent on R&D on aircraft and artillery on my part, then clearly its a waste of time.  Even with him on the offensive in low level trenches, ie pretty much the ideal, the artillery isn't actually earning its keep, not by a long shot.  If its not earning its keep then its never going to be used, in exactly the same way that when artillery was too powerful, tanks (and even trenches) were never going to be used.

[Joel Rauber]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

. . .

I think 1940 is a really poor comparison, and the idea that wastage is 'below the radar' frankly ridiculous. I suppose its true that both sides could decide to literally do nothing on the Western Front, but that would imply both sides dont even bother with barrages. There should be the ability to zap bad guys without going for an actual offensive. It need not even be a cost effective way of zapping bad guys, but it should still be there.

My point was that the phony war of 1940 was an example where the wastage (during the phony war), would be below the "radar" at the scale of the game is valid. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. (and there was wastage during the phony war, people were dying, there were French offensives into the Saar area I believe, though all this was small)

Its another question as to whether or not the 1939/1940 phony war comparison is valid is a separate question.

I think Frank's response above is a better explanation and one that I think is reasonable so far.

[Lascar]

In my game with EUBanana the Western Front has been far from quite. The French and British have launched a series of major attacks pushing the Germans back and threatening to form a pocket of at least ten German corps. The French have suffered heavy casualties in these attacks and many HQ activations points have been expended.

The Eastern front has been quiet for a long time, except for recent intense fighting in Romania. The CP has made some gains in Italy, capturing Venice, but have now run out of steam.

I don't know how much effect artillery bombardments are having on reducing enemy trenches or unit readiness but the overall effect of the current artillery modeling is much better than the earlier version when artillery would inflict 35 to 45 hits on a big stack.

Any tweaking to increase the lethality of artillery from the current settings should be done conservatively.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Phoney war 1940 - crickets are a historical result if both choose it.

I don't think thats true at all.

I can't see how you can dismiss it - 2 armies encamped opposite each otehr chose not to be aggressive & inflicted few if any casualties - how can you dismiss that as untrue when it is what happened?

What you are saying is that having two armies camped next to each other will not, unless one side assaults the other, inflict any casualties.

I think thats just false. How can you implement a Falkenhayn strategy now? You can't. (Or a British 'aggressive raiding' strategy, or any other of many means in WW1 used to wear down an opponents resources at the cost of some of your resources without actually attempting an advance, all summed up in GoA as 'artillery'). You can't even weaken the line anymore, short of attacking. Unless you assault, you can't actually kill anybody whatsoever.

Yep.

this is a corps level game - if you want to do aggressive patrolling then you have the wrong product.

There were, AFAIK, no effective means of wearing down the opponents resources other than assaulting. Aggressive patrolling was essentially an information gathering exercise.

Falkenhayn wanted massive attacks in the west while "holding" in the east - how is that a problem??!! you can do Verdun all you like....

Artillery spotting by air is only good if you have effective artillery. Strategic bombing was only in its infancy in 1918, and tactical air support useless except agaisnt troops on the move - which was normally when they were advancing or retreating after an assault and was really only effective on 3 occasions AFAIK (against advancing Germans in 1918, and retreating Turks and Bulgarians in 1918).

This is WW1 - everything is there to support/defeat the asault - if you want something more subtle then you're fighting the wrong war IMO.