Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v01.02.08

 
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 2 >> Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v01.02.08 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v01.0... - 12/7/2021 11:12:55 AM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		I've observed that long range indirect fire artillery (both attacking and defending), even when committed to battle, in a hasty attack does not fire at all.

Battle prep points do not matter.

- Can someone confirm this?
- Is it intended?

When committed in a deliberate attack they play a decisive role in disrupting elements.

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
Post #: 1
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/7/2021 2:40:50 PM   
GibsonPete


Posts: 308
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline 		Rule 23.4.1 to get SU support during a hasty attack the HQ must not have moved, and the unit must be eligible (in command range). Rule 23.4.3 during a deliberate attack the HQ can have moved. Rule 23.6 Headquarters can only commit SU's that pass the required leader checks, are within 05 hexes and trace a friendly path of any length to the unit. If a river is involved 23.8.9 kicks in. Also check 23.6.1 for how vehicles play a part and HQ movement effects leader checks. Or just roll the dice screw the odds.

_____________________________

“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 2
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/7/2021 2:59:59 PM   
jubjub

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 5/2/2021
Status: offline
quote:

- Can someone confirm this?


can confirm.

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 3
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/7/2021 3:03:33 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		Hi Pete,

- the support units are committed to battle but do not fire in the battle (0 shots, 0 HPE).
- divisional artillery also does not fire, only the infantry howitzer units fire (direct, not indirect)

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to GibsonPete)
Post #: 4
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/7/2021 3:19:45 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		Yes, hasty attacks have no indirect fire phase.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 5
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/7/2021 3:31:32 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		Hi Joel, so it is a design decision to not allow for indirect fire during hasty attacks (for both defender and attacker). This means that artillery does not play a role at all (exception are the specialized howitzer units part of regimental / divisions TOE as they are used in the direct fire role).

Why is the game adding artillery support to the fight then?

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 6
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/7/2021 4:17:07 PM   
ShaggyHiK

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 10/10/2021
Status: offline 		In my opinion, this is the worst decision in the combat system at the moment. Hasty attacks are too strong to defend against.
This rule must be reviewed for the defender.

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 7
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/7/2021 6:24:47 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		Yes, this has been this way ever since Gary created the indirect fire phase. It's WAD. It does seem a waste of time to commit artillery support units to these battles, but that wasn't anything that was ever looked at. Hasty attacks should be used in very rare situations, mostly just against weak opposition in 41 or when hitting units that have already been in combat and have retreated during the current turn.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 8
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/7/2021 7:13:09 PM   
ShaggyHiK

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 10/10/2021
Status: offline 		At the moment, these attacks are great for attacking even relatively strong units, as long as they are not on level 3 fortifications.
Support and terrain other than urban are not particularly useful for repelling hasty attacks or inflicting casualties on the attacking troops.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 9
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/7/2021 7:15:40 PM   
tonyhnz

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 3/7/2018
Status: offline 		I didn't realize this was the case especially from the defender point of view.
I kind of agree with shaggy - if i am in a defensive posture wouldn't i have my artillery already set up and prepared to repel an attack.
If the attacker decides to do a hasty then they would not have time to get all their artillery into position to support the attack.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 10
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 5:54:27 AM   
Yogol

 

Posts: 199
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Yes, hasty attacks have no indirect fire phase.


For the attacker, I can understand this. But not for the defender: if you are dug in with and someone attacks -hasty or otherwise- the defending artillery would certainly fire, no?

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 11
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 6:56:32 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline 		you are rather over-estimating how responsive artillery was in this period?

_____________________________


(in reply to Yogol)
Post #: 12
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 7:18:24 AM   
ShaggyHiK

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 10/10/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

you are rather over-estimating how responsive artillery was in this period?

Your opinion is absolutely correct, the Soviet artillery had a number of shortcomings, the first was the issue of mobility. In the event of an offensive, Soviet artillery lagged far behind the advancing troops, there were also cases due to poor command and control of troops, not knowing how to use or lack of radio stations, when the army command simply did not have information that 3 artillery regiments of the RVGK were on their side, due to for which they simply did not have the information to open fire.
However, if the difficulties were overcome, then the Soviet artillery was no worse than the German, and in a number of indicators even better than it.
In the context of the game, there is no reason for the defender not to use artillery if it has already entered the battle.
If the commander passed the checks and the artillery regiments were in action, why don't they fire? In any defensive situation, the division's art regiments have clearly designated firing sectors. This is the first thing that artillerymen do, this is their main task. And it is very strange to see when 3 regiments seem to step into battle, but no heavy weapon simply opens fire on the enemy.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 13
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 7:30:21 AM   
Jango32

 

Posts: 307
Joined: 3/15/2021
Status: offline 		To expand on Soviet artillery shortcomings:

https://imgur.com/a/5WEwWhN

(in reply to ShaggyHiK)
Post #: 14
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 7:31:15 AM   
Jango32

 

Posts: 307
Joined: 3/15/2021
Status: offline 		EDIT: looks like the forums had a 500 error and double-posted.

< Message edited by Jango32 -- 12/8/2021 7:32:25 AM >

(in reply to ShaggyHiK)
Post #: 15
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 9:30:23 AM   
DeletedUser44

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline 		All I can say is that during my service in artillery, we planned and trained for both "Hasty" and "Deliberate" operations.

https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCRP%203-31.1%20Formerly%20MCRP%203-16C.pdf?ver=2017-10-02-131649-870

Scroll down to page 21. It even touches on "Hasty Attacks" and "Deliberate Attacks". (these terms were in use well before WiTE)

The idea of my artillery battalion sitting out during a "Hasty Attack" is completely foreign to me.

Following is training material on "Fire Support Planning" (Basic Officer Course).

https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals/207/Docs/TBS/B2C2797%20Fire%20Support%20Planning.pdf

Most important to emphasize, is that "Fire Support Planning" is ongoing, continuous, it never stops - and plans for all possible contingencies, to include:
- advancing to engage an enemy
- breakthrough and exploitation

It is integral in the US Field Artillery Mission Doctrine - which has its roots stemming from WWII.

So, whatever the reasons for excluding artillery fire in the game's hasty attacks... I cannot speak to it. It is not based on anything I know - other than just a game mechanic deemed needed?


< Message edited by Sauron_II -- 12/8/2021 9:33:07 AM >

(in reply to Jango32)
Post #: 16
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 9:31:05 AM   
DeletedUser44

 

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline 		EDIT

Double post, sorry....

(in reply to Jango32)
Post #: 17
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 10:43:37 AM   
ShaggyHiK

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 10/10/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II
It is integral in the US Field Artillery Mission Doctrine - which has its roots stemming from WWII.

Moreover, this goes not only into the Second World War, but also into the First World War, but even deeper into the US Civil War and the Napoleonic Wars.

(in reply to DeletedUser44)
Post #: 18
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 2:58:42 PM   
EddyBear81

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 2/10/2012
From: Lille, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tonyhnz

I didn't realize this was the case especially from the defender point of view.
I kind of agree with shaggy - if i am in a defensive posture wouldn't i have my artillery already set up and prepared to repel an attack.
If the attacker decides to do a hasty then they would not have time to get all their artillery into position to support the attack.


Totally on board : it leads to a "minor" exploit. If you have less powerful artillery than the defender, then it is better to launch a Hasty Attack compared to a Deliberate.

Deciding for a Hasty Attack should only penalize the attacker.

(in reply to tonyhnz)
Post #: 19
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 3:15:56 PM   
Iam5not8

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline 		in-game "hasty assault" is more a meeting engagement than a hasty assault as referred in NATO-western doctrines.
It is an engagement made directly from march columns (while on movement).
when I read the links from Sauron (thanks for those, very instructive) , IMHO it refers more to "movement to contact".

Therefore, on the assault side, it is not absurd to not have artillery involved in the engagement (could be challenged on the Self Propelled Arty).
On the defensive side, it is more difficult to assess. But on the Soviet side, the command&control structure was not very agile, and to have a commitment of non-organic arty in a meeting engagement would have been sporadic at least in the 1st years of the patriotic war.

When comparing to more modern doctrine, communications and availability of maps are a key point to consider (not even speaking of data exchange between front units and arty/support ones).


(in reply to ShaggyHiK)
Post #: 20
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 6:56:42 PM   
Joch1955

 

Posts: 32
Joined: 9/5/2020
Status: offline 		Interesting discussions. In all WitX games, I always viewed a "Hasty attack" as an attack "off the march", i.e. Armored units barrelling through opposition as it encounters them. So yes, makes sense the attacker would not have access to artillery support. re: the defender, that is a bit more tricky, yes a prepared position would generally have artillery support pre-registered against likely avenues of attack. However, a hasty attack is generally a surprise attack so the defender will not always be able to bring all its artillery into play so there should be limits, i.e. as already spelled out in 23.4.1 and 23.6.

Another point to bear in mind is that based on my years of playing Wite1, WitW and now Wite2, "Hasty Attacks" generally work as you would expect,i.e. fine against weak opposition, but you can easily get a bloody nose if you get too ambitious. I would be careful about making changes that would make them substantially weaker.

< Message edited by Joch1955 -- 12/8/2021 6:58:07 PM >

(in reply to Iam5not8)
Post #: 21
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 7:24:09 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline 		If unit organic artillery fires normally - for both ends - I think it's fine.
SU from HQs should not be involved - artilleries or not, due to the nature of the 'hasty' attack. As per an attack on the go.

(in reply to Joch1955)
Post #: 22
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 8:07:14 PM   
Stamb

 

Posts: 1030
Joined: 10/26/2021
Status: offline 		Now the question is if artillery is committed to a battle but does not fire - will it still lose CPP?

(in reply to AlbertN)
Post #: 23
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/8/2021 9:13:39 PM   
jubjub

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 5/2/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Now the question is if artillery is committed to a battle but does not fire - will it still lose CPP?


Yep, it’s a big pain, because then they’re less likely to commit defensively when your panzers are getting attacked.

(in reply to Stamb)
Post #: 24
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/9/2021 3:11:45 AM   
GibsonPete


Posts: 308
Joined: 11/5/2014
Status: offline 		With a turn being a weeklong the idea of a true meeting engagement does not occur. The attacker decides how many MPs he is going to use to attack a defender who may or may not be in a prepared position. The attacker may conduct one to five hasty attacks or conduct one or two deliberate attacks. in a modern battle restricting indirect fire use to only a deliberate attack makes little sense. To assume the defender or attacker could not bring non divisional mortars, howitzers, cannons or guns to bear is not logical. Most indirect fire tubes can be laid and prepared to fire within ten or fewer minutes. If communication is the concern, then that would be an issue whether the attack is designated a 'hasty or deliberate'.

1) Consider increasing the MP cost of Hasty by one and allow Indirect fire.
2) Consider an increased leader check cost to include indirect fire to Hasty attack.
3) Consider a single direct support indirect fire battalion per stack in a hasty attack and two for the defender.

Something to discuss and kick around.

_____________________________

“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

(in reply to jubjub)
Post #: 25
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/9/2021 3:30:09 AM   
K62


Posts: 666
Joined: 6/7/2002
From: DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

With a turn being a weeklong the idea of a true meeting engagement does not occur. The attacker decides how many MPs he is going to use to attack a defender who may or may not be in a prepared position. The attacker may conduct one to five hasty attacks or conduct one or two deliberate attacks. in a modern battle restricting indirect fire use to only a deliberate attack makes little sense. To assume the defender or attacker could not bring non divisional mortars, howitzers, cannons or guns to bear is not logical. Most indirect fire tubes can be laid and prepared to fire within ten or fewer minutes. If communication is the concern, then that would be an issue whether the attack is designated a 'hasty or deliberate'.

1) Consider increasing the MP cost of Hasty by one and allow Indirect fire.
2) Consider an increased leader check cost to include indirect fire to Hasty attack.
3) Consider a single direct support indirect fire battalion per stack in a hasty attack and two for the defender.

Something to discuss and kick around.


In a week long turn a mobile unit can spend up to 50 MPs. A hasty attack is 3 MPs, corresponding to an interval as short as 10 hours. (Possibly shorter if the unit is inactive at night.) In these 10 hours they have to find, fight and drive off an enemy located over an area of 10x10 miles. The idea that heavy artillery could be deployed effectively into the attack plan under such conditions seems a bit challenging. By contrast, a deliberate attack at 16 MPs corresponds to a time interval of over two days.

_____________________________

"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak"
John Adams

(in reply to GibsonPete)
Post #: 26
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/9/2021 6:17:59 AM   
ShaggyHiK

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 10/10/2021
Status: offline 		German players are now abusing the mechanics of the game with Hasty attacks. The USSR may have strong divisions and good positions with the support of a large number of art regiments, but the Germans conduct a Hasty attack, which leads to the fact that the Soviet troops cannot use their advantage, not in territory, not in fortifications, not artillery.
Moreover, such an attack does not cost the German player anything in terms of losses, not in terms of action points, which does not even allow creating any delays in the German offensive.
I am sure that he is working in about the same way with Germany in defense for 44 years, but as a rule, German players do not sit in defense for a long time and late scenarios do not prefer the main scenario from 41 years old, so they do not face this fully.

< Message edited by ShaggyHiK -- 12/9/2021 6:25:16 AM >

(in reply to K62)
Post #: 27
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/9/2021 6:23:04 AM   
ShaggyHiK

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 10/10/2021
Status: offline 		error

(in reply to K62)
Post #: 28
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/9/2021 6:47:21 AM   
Iam5not8

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline 		Hasty attacks should be limited to 1 unit, not a stack of 3 divisions. The coordination needed for an assault with different divisions can not be done in this kind of engagement.

(in reply to ShaggyHiK)
Post #: 29
RE: Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v... - 12/9/2021 7:00:11 AM   
ShaggyHiK

 

Posts: 166
Joined: 10/10/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iam5not8

Hasty attacks should be limited to 1 unit, not a stack of 3 divisions. The coordination needed for an assault with different divisions can not be done in this kind of engagement.

I'm not sure that such a solution can be considered adequate, because the problem is not that the Germans use 3 divisions in hasty attacks, but that the conditions in which the defender turns out to be in comparison with the attacker in combat, are wrong. The point is not how the artillery fires directly in battle, but because in hasty attacks, the attacker uses the TOE that he has much more efficiently, and the defender does not use his heavy weapons at all.

(in reply to Iam5not8)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v01.02.08 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

1.469