Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
There is nothing wrong with the way artillery is modeled in AE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
There is nothing wrong with the way artillery is modeled in AE.

Perhaps you missed the earlier discussion where we delved into the issues surrounding artillery tearing anyone to pieces the way it does in AE. If so, I’d rather not rehash the arguments again here. Here’s the discussion topic where I went to some considerable pains to demonstrate the fact artillery was not the meat grinder some people seem to believe it is:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2293922

The operation Cobra bombardment was probably the most intense bombardment any single combat unit received during the war, especially when you consider all the bombs dropped by the thousands of planes too. The unit lost less than 1000 casualties to the bombardments and very few armored vehicles were lost at all, yet we see entire companies of tanks or more destroyed every turn in AE.

Nothing in the Pacific could ever come close to the intensity and scale of the Cobra bombardment, yet we see equal or higher losses every single turn caused by far less firepower.

In game terms, Cobra would have been a one hex battle. Thousands of artillery tubes (about 1/3rd were very heavy tubes) and about a dozen divisions were involved, along with 2,500-3,000 or so bombers of all types. Only one unit out of the 15+ defending divisions was hit (i.e. no full hex saturation where everyone was plastered like happens in game) and it only suffered about 900 total casualties (i.e. killed, wounded and missing combined).

AE gets it wrong when it comes to modeling artillery.

Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Perhaps if artillery was massed in the Pacific like it was in the examples you cite, AE would model artillery differently. As it is, the AE artillery model is based on historic artillery usage by the Allies and Japan. When players use artillery in such historical manners, they achieve historical results. When players mass artillery in a-historical manners, they see a-historical results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Furthermore, none of the examples you cite deal with the Pacific; how, exactly, do they apply to AE?
And that is an old thread, before patch-2 made adjustments to the artillery model. Why cite it now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Players unhappy with combat results need to look at ALL factors involved in combat results (especially tactics - theirs and opponents) instead of loudly and wrongly crying 'The game is broken.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Once again - THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ARTILLERY IN AE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I see the light. Your use of all CAPS has convinced me.

If you can’t cite some actual history to back up you wild assertions soon, this conversation is over.

Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
I know this a hot button issue Jim, but you might want to cut him a bit of slack. There's a bit of a conceptual disconnect between what actually goes on, in game terms, and what shows up on the show-and-tell reports. One can believe that artillery is acceptably effective in-game, even though the compter generated reports show historically suspect values.

Maybe we should just remove that line item - but that would upset a lot of other players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
No, we don't be barking up the wrong tree. We're using the total casualty figures knowing that they don't necessarily mean "KIA, WIA, MIA," etc. However, they are "bad" since they happen to "our guys."

In my Akyab example, posted previously, over four days I suffered roughly: 4,000 casualites including 40 infantry squads destroyed (240 disrupted), 80 non-combat squads destroyed (280 disrupted), 24 guns destroyed (a bunch more disrupted, but I didn't jot down that number), and 24 vehicles destroyed (and a bunch more disrupted).

No matter how you look at it, JWE, that's total carnage. And for that to happen in a heavily wooded hex while neither side was attacking (other than artillery bombardments) is out of whack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
P.S. We haven't forgotten this is a computer game, for heaven's sake. We are trying to make known and then support our concerns about the game that we love and appreciate so that it can be made even better. But we're fighting a very strong "don't gripe, don't gripe, don't gripe" sentiment. And perhaps that's the way it should be. As advocates for tweaking, we should carry the burden of proof. But I am surprised by the defensive tone of so many that seem to take offense at our "gall" in voicing our concerns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Perhaps if artillery was massed in the Pacific like it was in the examples you cite, AE would model artillery differently. As it is, the AE artillery model is based on historic artillery usage by the Allies and Japan. When players use artillery in such historical manners, they achieve historical results. When players mass artillery in a-historical manners, they see a-historical results.

Hmm, let’s see Iwo Jima was plastered for four days and it was the largest most intense island bombardment of the war. It was pretty much ineffectual. That’s an historical result from a massed barrage and aerial bombardment in the Pacific, and it lasted four days not one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Furthermore, none of the examples you cite deal with the Pacific; how, exactly, do they apply to AE?
And that is an old thread, before patch-2 made adjustments to the artillery model. Why cite it now?

Yeah right, Germans and Japanese were affected differently by high explosive shells… um care to explain to me exactly how it was different?

I cited it because it is probably the most intense artillery barrage of the war that any one unit suffered. The historical significance to a discussion about artillery fire and its affects means it is more than relevant to the topic at hand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Players unhappy with combat results need to look at ALL factors involved in combat results (especially tactics - theirs and opponents) instead of loudly and wrongly crying 'The game is broken.'

No one is complaining about results due to tactics. The problem is the artillery model, doesn’t matter who is doing the shooting, it is not a good model of historical artillery fire during WWII. Care to cite some historical examples that show thousands dying day after day after day after day after day in the pacific from a mere barrage fired at non-engaged troops? I’ll wait… still waiting…

I have no problem with troops formed for the assault getting massacred by artillery as they cross open ground to close with the enemy. I do have problems with thousands of cooks, mechanics, file clerks, etc. getting massacred miles in the rear where the enemy forward observers can’t even see them.

Artillery wasn’t that accurate in WWII and it was never used in a role that saw thousands of shells getting pumped off miles into the distance to “hopefully” hit something in the enemy backfield. It was a targeted weapon system that fired at known spotted targets and still had a damn hard time hitting anything that wasn’t standing upright in the open.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Once again - THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ARTILLERY IN AE.

I see the light. Your use of all CAPS has convinced me.

If you can’t cite some actual history to back up you wild assertions soon, this conversation is over.

Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Yeah you’re right, I guess in the end only a from the ground up build of a brand new WitP 2 engine can ever hope to correct the horrid land combat system in game. It’s just my passion for history and the game that drives me and sometimes it gets the better of me.

Sorry for the tone of my last post ckammp. Please recognize that people get passionate when discussing topics they care about and sometimes they go over the top, don’t take it personally. It stems from my long standing frustration with the combat routines in game not with you personally.

Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

For chris’sake, I was an artillerist in my youth. If there is anything, in this game, I want to see perform correctly it is the guns. Just don’t want people to ping on the ‘casualty’ number. Much better to ping on “combat ineffective” LCU Devices.

We really are listening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Perhaps if artillery was massed in the Pacific like it was in the examples you cite, AE would model artillery differently. As it is, the AE artillery model is based on historic artillery usage by the Allies and Japan. When players use artillery in such historical manners, they achieve historical results. When players mass artillery in a-historical manners, they see a-historical results.

Hmm, let’s see Iwo Jima was plastered for four days and it was the largest most intense island bombardment of the war. It was pretty much ineffectual. That’s an historical result from a massed barrage and aerial bombardment in the Pacific, and it lasted four days not one.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Furthermore, none of the examples you cite deal with the Pacific; how, exactly, do they apply to AE?
And that is an old thread, before patch-2 made adjustments to the artillery model. Why cite it now?

Yeah right, Germans and Japanese were affected differently by high explosive shells… um care to explain to me exactly how it was different?

quote:



I cited it because it is probably the most intense artillery barrage of the war that any one unit suffered. The historical significance to a discussion about artillery fire and its affects means it is more than relevant to the topic at hand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Players unhappy with combat results need to look at ALL factors involved in combat results (especially tactics - theirs and opponents) instead of loudly and wrongly crying 'The game is broken.'

No one is complaining about results due to tactics. The problem is the artillery model, doesn’t matter who is doing the shooting, it is not a good model of historical artillery fire during WWII. Care to cite some historical examples that show thousands dying day after day after day after day after day in the pacific from a mere barrage fired at non-engaged troops? I’ll wait… still waiting…

quote:



I have no problem with troops formed for the assault getting massacred by artillery as they cross open ground to close with the enemy. I do have problems with thousands of cooks, mechanics, file clerks, etc. getting massacred miles in the rear where the enemy forward observers can’t even see them.

Artillery wasn’t that accurate in WWII and it was never used in a role that saw thousands of shells getting pumped off miles into the distance to “hopefully” hit something in the enemy backfield. It was a targeted weapon system that fired at known spotted targets and still had a damn hard time hitting anything that wasn’t standing upright in the open.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
Once again - THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ARTILLERY IN AE.

I see the light. Your use of all CAPS has convinced me.

If you can’t cite some actual history to back up you wild assertions soon, this conversation is over.

Jim

quote:

So, the question - should China be a 'forced' quagmire on the Japanese player? If he wants to take China, he should be able to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Here's the skewed power of artillery from another perspective:  In my PBEM game, my opponent is besieging Chengtah, a key city on the Chinese main line of resistance.  The base has six forts, it's a wooded hex, and the Chinese have about 4500 AV.  The Japanese have some 23 units and an AV well in excess of 3,000.  Here's the combat results:

Ground combat at Changteh (81,50) 
Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 102321 troops, 957 guns, 532 vehicles, Assault Value = 3535

Defending force 121842 troops, 521 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 4603

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 5

Japanese adjusted assault: 1704

Allied adjusted defense: 14135

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 8 (fort level 5)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
     14413 casualties reported
        Squads: 35 destroyed, 953 disabled
        Non Combat: 64 destroyed, 646 disabled
        Engineers: 65 destroyed, 164 disabled
     Vehicles lost 138 (13 destroyed, 125 disabled) 

Allied ground losses:
     2440 casualties reported
        Squads: 14 destroyed, 138 disabled
        Non Combat: 11 destroyed, 213 disabled
         Engineers: 1 destroyed, 9 disabled
     Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Usually, you would expect casualties to be higher in a deliberate attack than in a bombardment.  This attack - which was a major battle involving two large armies - resulted in less casualties to the Allies than did the Japanese bombardments in the jungles around Akyab, even though those bombardments involved considerably less troops.

There was another Japanese deliberate attack the same day at Ankang involving two smaller armies.  The results:

Ground combat at Ankang (82,42) 
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 41072 troops, 352 guns, 132 vehicles, Assault Value = 1482

Defending force 37284 troops, 215 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1301

Japanese adjusted assault: 707

Allied adjusted defense: 664

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 1)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), disruption(-), experience(-)
supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
     2026 casualties reported
        Squads: 4 destroyed, 145 disabled
        Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 121 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 13 disabled
     Vehicles lost 45 (7 destroyed, 38 disabled) 

Allied ground losses:
     2343 casualties reported
        Squads: 15 destroyed, 162 disabled
        Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 167 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled

Another deliberate attack and again considerably less casualties in this "pitched battle" than we saw during the Akyab bombardments.

You can pick through this and try to find reasons the Chinese suffered less casualties than did the Allies at Akyab, but the bottom line is that it shows how bloody artillery bombardments are in this game [not against fortified hexes, because the developers have fixed that].  Battles should be more bloody than artillery bombardments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I updated those figures in Post # 185 - Over four days of bombardment, the Allies at Akyab suffered 4,000 casualites, 40 infantry squads destroyed, 240 infantry squads disrupted, 80 non-combat squads destroyed, 280 non-combat squads disrupted, 24 guns destroyed, and 24 vehicles destroyed.  So, the average per day was roughly 1,000; 10/60; 20/70; 6 and 6.  This is roughly the same as the losses suffered at Changteh in a deliberate attack although the force engaged at Chengtah was considerably larger. 

As noted previously, you would expect a pitched battle to be far more bloody than an artillery bombardment, but that wasn't the case with this particular comparison and I don't think players will find that to be the case in their games.  Artillery is simply too powerful in the game.

ckammp, you've made it clear that you don't think there is anything wrong with artillery.  Let's step aside and allow other players to weigh in with the results from their own games.  A large sampling of data from a variety of ongoing games should shed more light on the issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I updated those figures in Post # 185 - Over four days of bombardment, the Allies at Akyab suffered 4,000 casualites, 40 infantry squads destroyed, 240 infantry squads disrupted, 80 non-combat squads destroyed, 280 non-combat squads disrupted, 24 guns destroyed, and 24 vehicles destroyed. So, the average per day was roughly 1,000; 10/60; 20/70; 6 and 6. This is roughly the same as the losses suffered at Changteh in a deliberate attack although the force engaged at Chengtah was considerably larger.

As noted previously, you would expect a pitched battle to be far more bloody than an artillery bombardment, but that wasn't the case with this particular comparison and I don't think players will find that to be the case in their games. Artillery is simply too powerful in the game.

ckammp, you've made it clear that you don't think there is anything wrong with artillery. Let's step aside and allow other players to weigh in with the results from their own games. A large sampling of data from a variety of ongoing games should shed more light on the issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think also in this issue old saying from WitP forum holds true: "Ahistorical things cause ahistorical results".

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

jackyo123, you are exactly correct. The effects of artillery are applied across-the-board, and when used in appropriate ways and amounts, work just fine. But the algorithm is, of course, open ended, so things like 'Death Stars' are possible. If artillery effect is reduced to accommodate Death Stars, then effect will go to squat for simple, normal, things, because it an across-the-board proposition.

It is possible to program arbitrary limits onto artillery; total # that can shoot, etc.. But one would also have to determine the mix - how many 155s? how many 105s?, 75s, howitzers, or guns?, mortars? Implementing such a program limit is not an insignificant task. And then just whose limits will be used? If 7 is chosen, what about all those angry people, with historical results in hand, that demand 8, or 9, or even 6.

And what about the break point? Below the break, a player could pop 99 155 guns, but above the break, they might only get 50, along with 50 more 105s, 75s, mortars, etc, depending on how the limits are coded.

No, don't think that solution is the sharpest pencil in the box. Severely limits game flexibility in those nominal areas where it works just fine.

Best answer is a house rule for PBEM. Everybody knows about Death Stars, so a negotiated limit is a rational thing to do. It is better than an arbitrary hard code limit, because different players will negotiate to different levels - code limit is one-size-fits-all and take-it-or-leave-it proposition - will likely tick-off as many people as the present system.

I guess, from my perspective, I will have to plagiarize (perhaps paraphrase) ckammp and Sardaukar; arty works just fine if used as it was used, but gamey things cause gamey results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think also in this issue old saying from WitP forum holds true: "Ahistorical things cause ahistorical results".

Use a cookie cutter model--that takes into account diminishing returns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think also in this issue old saying from WitP forum holds true: "Ahistorical things cause ahistorical results".

Use a cookie cutter model--that takes into account diminishing returns.

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-