Alternate Scenario fire values

[Andrew]

I have just finished playing two games of Bulge '44 using the alternate scenarios with the McNamara data base. A couple of things caused me some angst and I was wondering if anyone else felt the same way.

Firstly the artillery values. The hard attack factor on most artillery units has been reduced to either 1 or 2, so now arty is effectively useless against armour. I find this odd. I have read numerous times of how artillery was used to break up armoured attacks, disrupting the attacking unit and disabling some vehicles. Allied naval gunfire was particularly effective during the Normandy campaign in achieving this and was often quoted as a major factor in the German defeat in Normandy. Yet we now have artillery basically impotent against armoured units. The impact is that you never even bother shooting at armour, rather focus all your arty on soft units irrespective of the situation. Given the Western Allies had pretty poor armour and, generally speaking, average to poor quality infantry, counterbalanced by very good artillery and later in the war very good tactical air support capability, it seems to artificially handicap them in favour of the German armour superiority.

Secondly the assault values of German assault guns has been halved (or worse). I can't see the logic in this either. Lack of a turret seems to be the cited reason, but that alone cannot explain the now near uselessness of these units in supporting infantry assaults. That was the specific purpose the whole Stug line of vehicles was designed to achieve. They would advance with the infantry proving mobile artillery support and armour protection for the assault teams. Why then make them so useless in the assault they are now no longer used for that purpose. Fair enough to encourage appropriate use of the SP anti tank guns like the JgPz IV and the Hetzer, but this goes too far I think.

I realise these are optional values and I don't have to use them, but there are other things in the scenarios that I really like. The increased AT range and firepower work well and the revised set ups and OOB's are an improvement. I actually want to use them but the arty thing in particular pushes me away. Anyone else feel the same thing? Interested in other player's thoughts.

Regards
Andrew

[Jazman]

I haven't played any Alt scenarios where there are lots of bunkers. For example, Minsk. Just imagine all that Russian artillery being mostly useless against bunkers and pillboxes, and the armor is initially fixed. How do you bust through the line? Straight-up assaults?

[Volcano Man]

[Andrew]

VM - Thanks for the reply.

Re assault guns. I guess it depends to some extent on your definition of ranged fire vs assault. I hadn't really envisaged assaults as physically running over enemy positions and using the bayonet, rather getting in close and blasting away at several hundred metres while the infantry get close enough to the enemy for short range small arms fire. The change to assault values effectively forces the SP's to stand back at ranges greater than 1,000 metres to be effective. If I rethink my definition of assault though I can see your point. I am not sure I am wrong, but I do see the argument.

Re artillery. Ya reckon? I saw your earlier emails and thought at the time, yeah maybe, but now I have played with the scenarios I just feel you have overdone it. I have read so many accounts of concentrated artillery fire driving back German counter attacks in Normandy and later. I can see they are unlikely to knock out large numbers of late war armoured vehicles, but I certainly can see confusion, suppression, fatigue and loss of cohesion - i.e. disruption. I can't see "no effect", "no effect", "no effect", "no effect", "no effect", "no effect", "no effect" which is what happens now. The result is a smart player never wastes his arty on a hard target. Its pointless. Yet in the real thing arty did fire at armour - lots. Sorry but just doesn't pass the credibilty test for me.

I do appreciate all the work though. Can I just have the alternate scenarios without the MaNamara artillery changes?

Regards
Andrew

PS :I actually have a beef with the effectiveness of naval artillery and air strikes on hard targets overall. That is not limited to your OOB's though. I think they are underdone in the whole game. I am a big fan of making them more effective.

PPS : While I am raving on about it - I think dug in units should get a defensive fire bonus. The PzC system does favour the attacker. No doubt in my mind and I think it has been noted several times by others in the forum. Giving the defender a fire bonus of one half the defensive bonus percentage of the prepared positions would go a long way to remedy this.

[Volcano Man]

Well, to some extent assaulting is a grey area given the scale of the game. I can see how it can be interpreted many different ways, but to me, given that one side can take the ground away from the other means that when it comes down to it it does indeed involve close quarters hand to hand fighting to push the enemy involunarily from the hex. And given the use of the Alternate Assault Resolution optional rule, that is how this rule interprets what assaults are.

In regards to artillery, you will have to send me specific information about the many accounts you have read. Most intelligent attacks would involve both infantry and armor so I can see how the artillery would break up the infantry. Who is to say that is not what happened in those accounts? As a matter of fact, I am willing to bet that is indeed the case in every acount that you mention and that you might be just creating an assumption on what actually occured. But again, these values were taken from McNamara's data and it is what he placed on the artillery and I agree with them. I don't think it makes sense to use some of the values and deviate from the others.

You say that a smart player would avoid using artillery on armor -- and indeed that is the intent. You are not supposed to just blast everything you see, unless desperation requires it. You can certainly do it for a lucky effect if you have idle guns to spare or you are in the betterment of any of the above variables described (early war, large calibre guns, enemy is in T mode etc), but it is certainly by design that you are compelled to use your guns on other targets if there are more valid ones present.

But then again, I don't know of the situation you are describing. I am playing a Minsk 44 ALT game right now where I have used soviet artillery and mortars to good effect on Pz IVs, as my opponent has used what he has to disrupt my T34/85s. I am also playing France 40 ALT and French artillery can get good effect on German tanks with most being disruption, and rarely a no effect. So I just don't see myself going through and changing the entire database here. Again, it is all relative to the variables of the situation as well. That said, if you are describing N44 then the terrain in N44 is extremely defensive so artillery in general is not very effective there. It might partially be what is causing your frustration.

But I suppose I can recheck how I calculated the values to begin with. I am not above making mistakes. I had to take 250m range intervals in McNamara's db and average out an artillery attack between the lowest range and the maximum range. So perhaps I incorrectly averaged them. In any case, I don't forsee a major change even if I did, but who knows. :)

[Volcano Man]

[Andrew]

"It looks like if I change this formula then the minimum hard attack for all guns of 105mm or less (except for a few mountain guns) will change to 2 and the 150mm will change from 2 to anywhere from 3 to 5. Also, some other guns will exceed 5, in particular the rocket type artillery should see a large increase (saturation fire I guess?)."

Sounds like a good step forward!!!!! Glad I had my little rant. I will do a bit of digging around to find some accounts illustrating my point. Problem of course is that it will be annecdotal evidence vs the more quantitative approach in the revised DB.

Was actually wondering about direct fire too but didn't say anything. Would USA 105's using DF on tanks be a "1"? Re 25 lb'ers, I have read of infrequent encounters (in the desert mainly) where 25lb'ers did fire over open sights at tanks with good effect I understand, so annecdotally the 5 sounds good. For the soft AF, the 25lber was only 95mm if I recall so if using the weight of shot it was roughly proportional with the soft AF for say a 105mm (which I don't recall of the top of my head) sounds OK.

An increase from 1 to 2 doubles effectiveness doesn't it? Sounds significant to me!

Anyway, sorry for causing the extra work and thanks for being open to discussion. I think it is worth revisiting the numbers.

Cheers
Andrew

[Volcano Man]

No problem, you pointed me in the right direction that caused me to find the mistake. :) Now I can't promise reliable kills or even what effect the changes will cause, but it will certainly be better than all artillery HA ratings as 1 or 2 only.

Don't bother with looking up historical accounts, these changes will probably do well enough to get such effects. Well, we are going to have to live with it.

As for your question about 105mm guns using direct fire, yes it uses the HA as a constant regardless of DF or not. That is just something built into the game that we have to live with. Otherwise you would have to have a second set of ratings, one for DF and one for IF.

[Andrew]

An increase from 1 to 2 doubles effectiveness doesn't it? Not sure if the fire effectiveness is linear or not to be honest?

[Volcano Man]

Well, yes indeed --the changes will pretty much double the HA effectiveness of all artillery, except in the case where even with the change some guns still end up with an HA of 1 (mountain guns and light howitzers of 75mm or less).