Effectiveness of Artillery

[Gstockbridge]

So now that Herb and I have a few games under our belt, it seems to both of us that the modeling of artillery damage is on the light side.  This seems especially pronounced for units in the clear and in transport mode.  Has this been discussed?  I didn't see a thread scrolling back a few pages, so thought I would raise it.

[phoenix]

I'm sure it has been discussed. Isn't it a kind of parallel discussion to the lethality of tank combat discussion? In both cases, the game doesn't seem to model what you might imagine would be real world casualties, per turn, but the overall casualties at game end are either way above historical or roughly similar, certainly never way under - am I right? So if you up the artillery effectiveness you could end up with seriously decimated units with full time casualty results even further from the historical, no?

That would be my concern. Of course, as far as arty goes, you might suggest less availability to counter-balance this, or changes so that the arty couldn't just be targeted as it is now, even with the spotting limitations. But that would also make things less realistic in many scenarios, where strong concentrations of arty were available (and where, in fact, it would be more realistic to play not with the default rules but with spotting by the map ticked, so as to be able to prep possible positions.)

For myself, I still worry more that overall casualties are sometimes too high, sometimes way over the historical, even if you play out a scenario with strict historical movement and tactics, and this shows in the big scenarios very clearly if you're not very careful with the men you have. You can easily end up with not enough men to carry things forward to their historical conclusion. In large part I think this is because many players know the actual historical battles really well, and so can play accordingly, or else can practice the scenario against the AI, or else have played it against other players before. Not having arty by map checked is a kind of counter to this, but with this kind of background knowledge possible then having more effective arty could be really too lethal, because at present I feel the arty usually cannot stop an attack dead as it could historically, but historically intelligence about axes of attack and objectives wasn't like it is in the game, so I think it's probably useful that it's limited like this.

Not that I'm much of a player. But those are my thoughts.

Peter

[Xaver]

Problem is that results are to simple... kills, injuried/damage, captured... are all in same counter and you need add to that oposite to PzC units cant recover casualties (i never understand why in PzC when an unit recover strenght is not sustrate from casualties soldiers-vehicles recovered or at least recover 50%).

I feel game needs more hits from arty (specially mortars) that finish in fatigue for units well covered... i refer arty allways do something positive, maybe less damage but allways increasing fatigue.

Something similar with AT combat.

In the end game is to orientated to casualties to open a way to objetives... i prefer see more ability to advance without need destroy enemy, you can do it but you can do same breaking enemy combat morale.

[Gstockbridge]

So now that Herb and I have a few games under our belt, it seems to both of us that the modeling of artillery damage is on the light side.  This seems especially pronounced for units in the clear and in transport mode.  Has this been discussed?  I didn't see a thread scrolling back a few pages, so thought I would raise it.

I hear the comments but still feel this needs tweaking, if for no other reason than to punish poor behavior.  I can ride in transportation mode up to the front line and in the open with relatively low threat of significant damage from artillery.  The real behavior should be to dismount out of site, work up to the front under cover.  So the overall artillery may be on average ok, but units in travel mode and in the open are not impacted near enough.

[Lohengrin]

Problem is that results are to simple... kills, injuried/damage, captured... are all in same counter and you need add to that oposite to PzC units cant recover casualties (i never understand why in PzC when an unit recover strenght is not sustrate from casualties soldiers-vehicles recovered or at least recover 50%).

I would imagine that in PzB you can't recover casualties because that's beyond the scope of the scenario. A much shorter time period being modeled. A PzC campaign can last for many days/weeks.

[Lohengrin]

So now that Herb and I have a few games under our belt, it seems to both of us that the modeling of artillery damage is on the light side.  This seems especially pronounced for units in the clear and in transport mode.  Has this been discussed?  I didn't see a thread scrolling back a few pages, so thought I would raise it.

I hear the comments but still feel this needs tweaking, if for no other reason than to punish poor behavior.  I can ride in transportation mode up to the front line and in the open with relatively low threat of significant damage from artillery.  The real behavior should be to dismount out of site, work up to the front under cover.  So the overall artillery may be on average ok, but units in travel mode and in the open are not impacted near enough.

Good points. Existing time limits in scenarios might be a problem though.

[Strela]

So now that Herb and I have a few games under our belt, it seems to both of us that the modeling of artillery damage is on the light side.  This seems especially pronounced for units in the clear and in transport mode.  Has this been discussed?  I didn't see a thread scrolling back a few pages, so thought I would raise it.

Firstly, artillery will be very effective against units in travel mode if used en masse. The seasoned players will make you fear using travel mode in clear sight. Katyushas or a combined artillery battalion will make short work of exposed units.

Personally, we have created some conundrums for players by including artillery at battery (platoon equivalent) level in line with the rest of the the units. Unfortunately with all the current factors the impact from the 2 - 4 tubes in a battery standalone has a lesser impact. I usually combine into multi battery/battalion units to get some reasonable impact from my indirect units. The trade off is less shots both in my turn and in the defensive fire phases.

That said, this thread and some others before it has sparked a deep discussion among the development team on what we want indirect fire units to do and achieve. We have gone back and started looking at the doctrine each nation used, how flexible artillery use was (or wasn't) and a range of other factors such as spotting, barrages, speed of fire etc. We are also discussing the different impacts the various class of units could have keeping in mind their is distinctions between mortar, rocket, artillery and heavy artillery.

There is no guarantee we will change anything, but there is a discussion underway.

David

[Xaver]

Well, is normal in PzB dont be casualty recover BUT i dont see bad add the system of "reserves" from PzC... you can create in OOB a "reserve" slot where add soldiers that can move to combat units and reinforce them... maybe every hour they could be send to units that palyer "flag" as needing reinforcements, this could help a defender player try save units over use them as last stand block obstacles and attacker can have the option to strenght burned units that are recovering.

Arty... maybe the problem is that outside "big battery" use 2 guns units are useless and in mortars of 50-60-81mm situation is worst, even have 6-8 mortars together is not a great help... i find battalion mortars a little like free xp points for enemy... and well the smoke guys (curious because the heavy mortars that are suposed be more in smoke job are the only ones i dont use to do this).

I prefer see this small arty units be fatigue dealers and leave heavy arty the casualties role, arty can disrupt to or even broken units, mortars fatigue enemy step by step and in good situation over a target in open deal some casualties and be smoke guys (unless you made arty can deploy smoke in 2-3 hexes to create a barrier... something like 2 arties one smoke hex, 4 2 smoke hexes and over 4 smoke hexes),

I am curious about arty in PzB3, covering desert arty power is going to be increased because cover is going to be less powerfull and common... apart the value of smoke because terrain is more open... test deploy 2 smoke hexes with arty could be a good idea and see how impact this leaving mortars more close fire support in the tactical combats of their units... to do this made mortars even with same kill values have a bonus in fatigue.

Well, if is under discussion at least is the option to see some changes in future.

[Captnkev]

So now that Herb and I have a few games under our belt, it seems to both of us that the modeling of artillery damage is on the light side.  This seems especially pronounced for units in the clear and in transport mode.  Has this been discussed?  I didn't see a thread scrolling back a few pages, so thought I would raise it.

Firstly, artillery will be very effective against units in travel mode if used en masse. The seasoned players will make you fear using travel mode in clear sight. Katyushas or a combined artillery battalion will make short work of exposed units.

Personally, we have created some conundrums for players by including artillery at battery (platoon equivalent) level in line with the rest of the the units. Unfortunately with all the current factors the impact from the 2 - 4 tubes in a battery standalone has a lesser impact. I usually combine into multi battery/battalion units to get some reasonable impact from my indirect units. The trade off is less shots both in my turn and in the defensive fire phases.

That said, this thread and some others before it has sparked a deep discussion among the development team on what we want indirect fire units to do and achieve. We have gone back and started looking at the doctrine each nation used, how flexible artillery use was (or wasn't) and a range of other factors such as spotting, barrages, speed of fire etc. We are also discussing the different impacts the various class of units could have keeping in mind their is distinctions between mortar, rocket, artillery and heavy artillery.

There is no guarantee we will change anything, but there is a discussion underway.

David

[Captnkev]

So now that Herb and I have a few games under our belt, it seems to both of us that the modeling of artillery damage is on the light side.  This seems especially pronounced for units in the clear and in transport mode.  Has this been discussed?  I didn't see a thread scrolling back a few pages, so thought I would raise it.

Firstly, artillery will be very effective against units in travel mode if used en masse. The seasoned players will make you fear using travel mode in clear sight. Katyushas or a combined artillery battalion will make short work of exposed units.

Personally, we have created some conundrums for players by including artillery at battery (platoon equivalent) level in line with the rest of the the units. Unfortunately with all the current factors the impact from the 2 - 4 tubes in a battery standalone has a lesser impact. I usually combine into multi battery/battalion units to get some reasonable impact from my indirect units. The trade off is less shots both in my turn and in the defensive fire phases.

That said, this thread and some others before it has sparked a deep discussion among the development team on what we want indirect fire units to do and achieve. We have gone back and started looking at the doctrine each nation used, how flexible artillery use was (or wasn't) and a range of other factors such as spotting, barrages, speed of fire etc. We are also discussing the different impacts the various class of units could have keeping in mind their is distinctions between mortar, rocket, artillery and heavy artillery.

There is no guarantee we will change anything, but there is a discussion underway.

David