Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 3:35:03 PM   
mmarquo


Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline 		Some have suggested buying Soviet artillery SUs and placing into HQs. Other players (Flav) suggest not spending APs on anything but construction units. In the end, what is better: HQs stuffed to the gils with artillery/mortars/rockets, or independent on amp artillery units; becasue with the new armament restriction you can't have it both ways?

Marquo
Post #: 1
RE: SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 3:44:56 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		IMO, in 1941 you should ONLY buy Construction Bdes; closer to winter, I would buy a few Sappers and Tank Bns to attach to Cav Corps. But that's it. Sappers are light on Armaments, and Tank Bns are VERY light on Armaments and Manpower (they do consume Vehicles though, which will be a problem later on)

Flav has more experience than I with Artillery, but in my game vs. Tarhunnas, I built very few Artillery Support Units. You start with a fair number; keep using those. If you are short on Armaments, maybe MORTARS aren't a bad idea, since they are economical in terms of Armament consumption.

You really need Artillery Divisions later. Save up if you can. I think they are better than hordes of SUs, since they can be specifically targeted.

With the new Armament rules, I think Soviet players are going to have to manage very economically. I might consider disbanding Motorcycle Regts; they are Armament hogs, and don't add a ton of combat value. I kept them for awhile, but now I might consider disbanding them wholesale. This will also put alot of Motorcycle Squads in the pool, so you won't spend anything to get Tank Bdes up to TOE.

_____________________________


(in reply to mmarquo)
Post #: 2
RE: SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 4:01:06 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		In 1941, you really cannot afford to be buying artillery SUs. You have to do some fairly drastic TOE micromanagement/disbands just to keep armaments from cratering to zero to early as is.

Even in 1942 things are tight with the new multiplier. If you can preserve your initial artillery SUs, you don't need much more than that, imo. I add a few rocket artillery regiments and mortar battalions as the war progresses (no more than one of each per army, and not even for all armies.) I also like to build one AT, one tank, and one AA unit per army, in addition to the construction assets, as the war progresses.

SU production should be geared more towards tricking out combat corps than stuffing all your HQs with them. Attachments are guaranteed to show up in combat. The real artillery power isn't going to come from SUs, it's going to come from late war rifle corps and artillery divisions.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 3
RE: SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 4:16:28 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		There's something else too the Soviet players need to be very aware of. Fort Zones are major Armament hogs. The TOE is chock-full of Artillery and AT Guns. They actually have almost no construction value. Buildling alot in 1941 is going to be very expensive, and letting them get killed is also going to be expensive. You have to build some, but I would make sure you pick them up before the Germans arrive, so the equipment you built for them can get recycled into Rifle Divisions. Otherwise, you will spend alot of Armament points, just to have it be destroyed by the Germans.

German Fort Zone TOE's, on the other hand, are very different. It's Rifle and Construction Squads, a few mortars and MGs. No big guns.

_____________________________


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 4
RE: SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 4:20:02 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		The AP cost alone plus the sheer fludity of the front is enough to discourage me from building too many forts in 1941. You have to be very careful about placing them regardless of the armament hit. There's not a whole lot of places you can be sure that they will actually pay off in terms of the investment in 1941. Especially in the Ukraine.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 5
RE: SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 4:29:21 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The AP cost alone plus the sheer fludity of the front is enough to discourage me from building too many forts in 1941. You have to be very careful about placing them regardless of the armament hit. There's not a whole lot of places you can be sure that they will actually pay off in terms of the investment in 1941. Especially in the Ukraine.


I agree....I would place one on the Leningrad Backdoor Turn 1, then 10 or so immediately around Moscow. But even if you place them, they don't really dig; you need Rifle units there to do that. So, if you place Fort zones, you have to also place 1-2 Rifle units in the hex to build. I would probably stack 2 in the Backdoor hex.

I see the Soviets using Fort Zones mostly in the Spring of 1942 to prepare for the Summer.

The Germans will use them heavily; without it, I can't see how the Wehrmacht can survive 1944.

_____________________________


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 6
RE: SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 4:52:46 PM   
gingerbread


Posts: 2994
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Since A(utomatic build) type Ground elements are priced in ARM, you might want to re-evaluate the cost-benefit of the '41 Cavalry Corps. I know people like to have them during the blizzard offensive, but they are pricey.

How does one get a readable format of tables in posts, I had to take a pic.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 7
RE: SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 5:00:02 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

Since A(utomatic build) type Ground elements are priced in ARM, you might want to re-evaluate the cost-benefit of the '41 Cavalry Corps. I know people like to have them during the blizzard offensive, but they are pricey.

How does one get a readable format of tables in posts, I had to take a pic.







That would be an excellent project: Create a spreadsheet summarizing the COST of all Soviet Units. That will greatly help in making decisions on what to build, and what to shift TOE's on. I think the Soviet players are going to need it.

You are right that Cav is expensive. But I love Cav Corps so!

Cav Corps are also very cheap in terms of VEHICLES, which are another Soviet limitation, at least in the early war (I have a feeling that Lend Lease solves that problem after mid-43)

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 10/4/2011 5:03:01 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 8
RE: SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 5:05:57 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		The cav is worth it, hang the expense.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 9
RE: SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 5:22:09 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		Someone should calculate for the whole Soviet Army. A couple samples is VERY enlightening!

MOTORCYCLE REGT: is 1,670

41c Rifle Division is 6,914 fully-equipped

FORT ZONE: 4,140

41b Corps Artillery (36 x 152mm): 2,378

Look how expensive Fort Zones are!

I would trade 4 MOT REGTS for a nearly-full Rifle Division every time. This data is necessary, so Soviet players can make those kind of choices in builds.

Two of my favorites are cheap: A Sapper Regt will set you back 826 points. Construction Bde? only 100, almost free. A '42 Tank Regt will cost you 22; yes, that's 22 Arm points, just for the Support Squads. Of course, you need the tanks and Vehicles, but they are basically FREE.

PS: Yes, I know that you can't "melt" Motorcycles down for Rifles, but the effect is the same. There are other Soviet units you do want, like Tank Bdes or Tank Corps or Mech Corps that all use Motorcycle Squads. So, DISBANDING them into the pool will allow those units to draw from your "warehouse" rather than building more, thereby savings Armaments for something else, like Rifles. As long as there is something that will use the equipment eventually, it doesn't go to waste, and saves you expense down the road.

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 10/4/2011 6:35:49 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 10
RE: SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 7:09:54 PM   
The SNAFU


Posts: 48
Joined: 3/10/2010
Status: offline 		Forgive me fellows as I am a bit off topic here but I thought the question was close enough to what you're discussing to ask it rather than open a new thread. As the Germans I have a few big siege guns such as Karl. The unit is now in a Corps HQ on the Lenningrad front. How do I assign it to a combat unit or otherwise, how do I use it?

_____________________________

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. Winston Churchill

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 11
RE: SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 7:26:02 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Artillery SUs cannot be assigned to combat units excepting forts (and this is usually a very bad idea given the weakness of fort units.) They can only be be assigned to HQs. Just make sure the HQ is well led.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to The SNAFU)
Post #: 12
RE: SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 7:33:21 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: The SNAFU

Forgive me fellows as I am a bit off topic here but I thought the question was close enough to what you're discussing to ask it rather than open a new thread. As the Germans I have a few big siege guns such as Karl. The unit is now in a Corps HQ on the Lenningrad front. How do I assign it to a combat unit or otherwise, how do I use it?


Artillery can only be assigned at the Corps level (Army for Soviet). It can't be directly assigned to divisions. This is unique to artillery (all types, both player's sides). Put it in Corps HQs, and there is a chance (as discussed in the manual) that the artillery SU will support any (and each) attack conducted by that corps units within range of that corps (but see the rules so you understand the dynamics).

Back to the subject:
Yes, by all means, let's take a look at the data (and 'data' is a plural noun, everyone! Data ARE. Datum IS... I digress uselessly...).

My suspicion is that we're going to find a whole new world that needs balancing in how much things cost.

Does anyone wonder whether fortifications would have been the problem they were in 1.04 if it weren't for the fact that every Soviet army is going to have at least 2 RR construction battalions as soon as the Soviet has AP? I'm not complaining, per se, but noting how that dynamic impacts other design decisions.

I have a chief long-term concern (and I'm not hearing others talk about it) that the Soviet "build what you want" capability is the ultimate exploitable feature in the game for the Soviet. For example, building RR construction battalions over regular construction battalions is in and of itself gaming the Soviet ability to tailor its OOB to use only the optimal choices of brigade/division/corps/SUs.

In the long run, I don't have any idea whether it will be a real problem, but seeing how the leverage works with the ongoing trend of building RR Construction, Sappers, (combat engineers ought to take a long time to train and deploy, whereas now they're basically 'add-water and mix' and they're ready to go in a week) and a great example is mortars: until someone figured out they fire a lot in combat, and are cheap to build on armaments, no one thought much of them; now the rule of thumb is to build them because the cost/benefit ratio is so great compared to any other artillery type.

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to The SNAFU)
Post #: 13
RE: SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery - 10/4/2011 10:14:51 PM   
The SNAFU


Posts: 48
Joined: 3/10/2010
Status: offline 		Thank you both for the quick answer. I knew from the manual artillery could not be assigned directly to combat units but thought I'd seen something in a thread where there was a difference with seige guns. I'll just make sure the HQ they're assigned to is close to the action and well led. Thanks again!

< Message edited by The SNAFU -- 10/4/2011 10:15:37 PM >

_____________________________

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. Winston Churchill

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> SU Artillery versus Onmap Artillery Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984