RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918



Message

James Ward -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/16/2007 6:21:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

Okay..

Like any good tester...

I tested the counter battery effects of artillery.

What I did was put 5 German artillery units against 1 French one.

Each phase I fired all five German artillery units against the French one.

Result...

The first barrage of 5 shots damaged the French artillery.

The second barrage of 5 shots did not apparently damage the French artillery.

The third, fourth, and fifth barrage of 5 shots did not apparently damage the French artillery.

I fired 25 shots at a single French artillery battery and never destroyed it.

On the other hand on the French side...

I fired one artillery at one German battery... no damage.

I fired two artillery at one German battery... damaged.

The problem here folks...

Counter battery fire does not destroy enemy artillery. It will damage the battery, but it will not destroy it.

Overall, my testing would indicate, that the basic fire and damage in relation to troops in the open and in trenches seem correct.

However, counter battery fire appears to have a bug.

Ray (alias Lava)


You may be right. I don't ever recall losing an artillery unit, to bombardment or assault, but I do end up with a fair amount of them damaged.



ceyan -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/16/2007 6:30:33 PM)

Lava:

Have you ever actually seen any kind of information to backup those statistics? I've seen tons of people reference that huge percentages of the total losses in WWI were caused by artillery, but I've never seen one piece of evidence to support it. Where is the information saying "X number of losses were expected to have taken place before the infantry even moved"? Or how about information on losses when there was no offensive/assault afterwards, just shelling?

Finally, show me an example of anytime during the war when over the course of just 1-2 months entire Corps have been wiped out with the cause being listed as artillery barrages.

Edit:
Also when quoting actual shells burned, remember that a huge chunk of ammunition was spent on the creeping artillery in 1917 and 1918. The artillery while effective in keeping the enemy pinned, didn't actually do any real damage throughout most of the barrage and spent a huge amount of ammo.



hjaco -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/16/2007 6:55:15 PM)

There are no and never will be any statistics on this.

First intelligence gathering wasn't that far developed and more importantly - how do you decide what constitutes a casualty by artillery fire ?

Read this as an example http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Champagne/Champagne_01.htm
This was before the introduction of heavy artillery and implementation of experience using it efficiently but yet used against elaborate trench positions.

There simply are no way to measure outright killed, wounded, demoralised, unfit for combat, ripe for surrender etc.



Raynald -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/16/2007 9:30:35 PM)

Artillery was by far the main killer in WWI and WWII, but not at all the way we (can) see it in this game. A good share of it was due to the guns not represented by the artillery counter : field gun of 75/77/105, trench mortar and mine.

True enough, the field artillery became less and less usefull to destroy trench, but it was needed to pin ennemy troops (readiness ?) and in any offensive both side would have to actually fight "untrenched" at one point (to attack of course and to counter-attack to restore the main line of battle once the second or third line was reached).

Also, lot's of the artillery was used to supress ennemy artillery (again mainly represented in the corps readiness).

Let's face it : no armies ever spent wave of heavy artillery barage if it wasn't in a major offensive, whereas in the game it is the best thing to do every turn, everywhere you can. 1915 was almost as dedaly as 1914 for the French : main reason was the lack of a descent heavy artillery (while they did their best to build one). In the game, they already have it in 14 (while only in mid-16 historically, and not before early 17 for the Brits !).

That's why only activated artillery (in range of an activated HQ) should be allowed to fire. You could still launch artillery barage without attacking, but at least it wouldn't be nearly as much cost effective.

The reason why there was a deadlock in the west between late 14 and early 18, the reason why new assault tactic and tanks were invented, was because simply throwing more and more shell to the ennemy line wasn't enough.



*Lava* -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/16/2007 10:10:31 PM)

Well...

I think you will find that if counter-battery could destroy guns, folks would be a lot more careful how they used them. And, yes, they would be used for assault and counter-attack as we see them used during the war.

You have a basic problem here that needs to be fixed. Once that happens, we can then see how the game plays.

My view is that once counter-battery can destroy enemy guns, you will see a fairly dramatic change in game play.

Get the bugs fixed first before making sweeping changes to the game.

Ray (alias Lava)



*Lava* -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/16/2007 10:33:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raynald

The reason why there was a deadlock in the west between late 14 and early 18, the reason why new assault tactic and tanks were invented, was because simply throwing more and more shell to the ennemy line wasn't enough.


Well...

I believe actually towards the end of the war, armed with heavy siege guns, the combatants were able to destroyed huge swaths of enemy trenches. With air recon. enemy troops trying to counterattack were also literally torn apart. The problem wasn't gaining an initial success, the problem was being able to break through to allow maneuver. Tanks came about as a concept to "break through" but the basic problem that hindered both sides once they were heavily entrenched is that the amount of destruction caused by artillery made it almost impossible to move the troops and all the support they needed forward in time before an effective defense could be mounted.

In fact, towards the end of the war the Germans felt that the offensive had overtaken the defensive because of the huge amount of attrition visited upon the defender by heavy massed artillery, but by that time they had been bled so badly, they were unable to do anything about it.

Ray (alias Lava)



Raynald -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/16/2007 11:11:47 PM)

quote:

I believe actually towards the end of the war, armed with heavy siege guns, the combatants were able to destroyed huge swaths of enemy trenches.


That's why the German defenses were deep. The first line was less and less man, the main line of battle was the second line, a few km behind, while a third line protected the reserve (for the counter-attack) and artillery. Bringing adequate firepower to attack the second and third line was one of the main reason to build tank.

This is level 3 or 4 trench. The French never really did as well as the German in this area : they always packed to many people in the first line (it change only with Petain and only very slowly : as late as july 18 half the French troops were caught to far forward).

In june 16, the allies launch their heaviest barage (several day long) of the war, but it was not nearly enough (especially in the British area). In april 17, on the Chemins des Dames, the French used a far stronger barage than for the Sommes : it was even less successfull because in the meantimes the trench had become much stronger.

quote:

With air recon. enemy troops trying to counterattack were also literally torn apart.


Yep, but that wasn't from heavy artillery and are certainly not represented by barage when no one attack !

Note that air recon had little to do with it : most of the time it was pre-planned fire (because you knew a counter-attack would follow an attack) or fire asked by the infantry. Calling heavy artillery fire directly from the air in a moving situation is something that almost never happen before 40 (you need good and reliable radio, training and good organisation).

quote:

In fact, towards the end of the war the Germans felt that the offensive had overtaken the defensive because of the huge amount of attrition visited upon the defender by heavy massed artillery, but by that time they had been bled so badly, they were unable to do anything about it.


If by "toward the end of the war" you mean the offensive from mars to july 18, artillery was only one part of the equation. Even more so than before, artillery was supposed to suppress the defense (hence the use of gaz, even if by then they didn't kill much), and anyway it was all about very intense and short bombardment followed by wave of assaulting infantry. Not at all month long heavy bombardment to bleed the opponent.

And as far as those offensive goes, one should rememenber that the 2 that succeed the most has been laucnhed against weak point of the allied line. When it stroke strong point, (in the north and near Rheims), it wasn't nearly as successfull.

It's true that both side had learn to made successfull offensive (but still costly), but it wasn't by making a two month long barage without attacking.



esteban -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/17/2007 12:17:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raynald

The reason why there was a deadlock in the west between late 14 and early 18, the reason why new assault tactic and tanks were invented, was because simply throwing more and more shell to the ennemy line wasn't enough.


Well...

I believe actually towards the end of the war, armed with heavy siege guns, the combatants were able to destroyed huge swaths of enemy trenches.

In fact, towards the end of the war the Germans felt that the offensive had overtaken the defensive because of the huge amount of attrition visited upon the defender by heavy massed artillery, but by that time they had been bled so badly, they were unable to do anything about it.

Ray (alias Lava)


I've got to disagree with this. Any examination of the German 1918 offensives shows that they did not rely on a prolonged artillery bombardment to "destroy vast swaths of enemy trenchs". Instead, they relied on several hours of rapid fire bombardment to disorient and pin down the defense, create gaps in the wire and then their assault troops went in behind the bombardment to exploit the weak points in the line.

In fact, Germany went AWAY from the massive pre-attack bombardment (ala Verdun in their case) because all the chewed up territory created reduced the maneuverabilty of the attackers and their ability to rapidly exploit any local breakthroughs that were made.




SMK-at-work -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/17/2007 12:49:36 AM)

In 1918 both sides used "hurricane" barrages - the allies also used rolling barrages



SteveD64 -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/17/2007 5:06:54 PM)

quote:

That's why only activated artillery (in range of an activated HQ) should be allowed to fire


This is another elegant solution.  It would get rid of the barrage for barrage sake and make the player use artillery in conjunction with an attack instead of just firing off artillery willy nilly.

Although the defender would have to use an activation point just to fire artillery when under attack. Hmm



EUBanana -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/17/2007 11:57:44 PM)

I still see, with some despair, that people are still, like the grogs we all are, getting hung up on the differences between "organic" artillery and siege guns, and putting forward ideas which are, IMHO, while strongly based on historical fact will not improve the game, in fact quite the contrary.

I do not disagree with anything said above regarding what caused the casualties, but I do disagree with ideas that basically neuter the artillery barrage.  The bottom line is that the game must duplicate static warfare.  That means things like wastage.  You should be spending lives at constant rate, just to hold still.

The mechanic that lets you do this is the artillery barrage.  While it may not be entirely historical to have separate artillery counters wandering around on the map, It Does The Job.  The way that arty counters take time to move forward during an advance simulates the 'running out of reach of your guns' problem they historically had, the incessant barrages duplicate wastage.  In short it all works perfectly when you consider it in the abstract and do not over-analyse. 

I think the idea of making artillery only work with an activated HQ is absolutely terrible, it would wreck the game and actually, while the idea may be based on historical fact, the end result will make the game play out much differently from as historically happened.  I think people need to look at the bottom line and not over analyse each individual game mechanic, the game is fairly abstract and not an uber-grog game like WITP is.

re. artillery destroying trenches in 1918, thats a bit of an oversimplification.  By 1918 an all-arms approach was being used by all armies, and it was that that was breaking trench lines, not just the sheer weight of the shell, though obviously improvements in artillery were a big part of this. 



SMK-at-work -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/18/2007 12:22:44 AM)

Yes but it shouldn't happen until 1915 and later - in 1914 there was simply not the massed artillery causing casualties such as it does now - payers hould have to purchase the guns, and/or get them as reinforcments from stripping fortifications such as the French did - Paris and Verdun were both stripped.



Joel Rauber -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/18/2007 12:55:05 AM)

EUBanna gave some sage advice, summarized by my caution about the law of unintended consequences.

In game design circles, what he is referring to is "design for effect", if the over all result feels right, don't over analyze the details.



OTOH, I suppose some are saying that the overall effect doesn't feel right. I'm in that camp but just barely. Meaning I worry that any of the fixes (including my suggestion) might be worse than the perceived problems.

I think it might be worthwhile to test a version where you may entrench up to two levels in a strategic phase (noting that this still allows trenches to be demolished faster than they can be built in the summer)

and allow unaccompanied artillery to be overrun in some fashion.

Frank, naturally is the one to decide what, if any, suggestions match his overall vision for the game (simulation). And is probably one of the persons best able to judge whether or not a suggestion might do more damage to the overall design than it helps; given the law of unintended consequences.



EUBanana -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/18/2007 1:19:33 AM)

I do think trenches need be improved, because, well

I've seen several games play out now where people just didn't buy any trenches at all. 
Obviously trenches are optional at best given that.

I've not seen a game yet where people are pondering the thorny problem of how to dislodge a line of level 4 trenches, or waiting for tanks/assault troops to break the Western Front because all other efforts have proven prohibitively expensive. 

This strikes me as wrong.



SMK-at-work -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/18/2007 1:42:18 AM)

Trenches are likely to be allwoed to be built every impulse in the patch.



*Lava* -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/18/2007 1:44:20 AM)

Hi!

I did some more testing...

First off, artillery units which are alone in a hex and attacked by infantry will be overrun and destroyed. I tested against both damaged and undamaged guns and they were both overrun.

Someone gave some bad information here. Artillery can be overrun.

Second, I repeated my testing trying to destroy artillery with artillery, this time with air recon, and once again, it appears that you can only damage the gun but you can't destroy it.

This, I believe needs to be changed.

However, the basic premise... that guns cannot be overrun... is false.

Ray (alias Lava)



SMK-at-work -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/18/2007 2:23:26 AM)

Frank has said they can't because they auto retreat as cavalry does....which I think only applies against infantry - were you over-running them with infantry only, or with cavalry mixed in?

He's going to change it in the patch



*Lava* -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/18/2007 3:09:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Frank has said they can't because they auto retreat as cavalry does....which I think only applies against infantry - were you over-running them with infantry only, or with cavalry mixed in?


Infantry only.

One of the posts that got things going on this thread was an assertion that artillery by themselves could not be overrun.

That is untrue according to my tests.

SMK... you're a tester... set-up a hotseat game and try it yourself.

And while you are at it... see if you can destroy a single battery by itself with as much enemy artillery as you care to use. My result was that you could only damage the battery... you could not destroy it.

Ray (alias Lava)



FrankHunter -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/18/2007 4:29:36 AM)

Previously, counter-battery fire could only inflict damage, it couldn't finish enemy artillery off.

I've changed the procedure for counter-battery fire so that each point firing has a chance of inflicting a hit.  It takes 3 hits to inflict a "Damage" result and two Damage results to kill the artillery unit.  Hits are not saved between impulses which means lower tech artillery will not be as capable of performing counter-battery as more advanced artillery.



*Lava* -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/18/2007 4:54:13 PM)

Thanks Frank.

That will help a lot.

Ray (alias Lava)



SMK-at-work -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/19/2007 1:01:06 AM)

I think counter-battery is wrong - IMO arty should not be able to kill enemy artillery - that should be accomplised by over-run.

counter battery work was complicated, and actually was the aim of almsot the entire air war over the front (I did a paper on it at Uni a long time ago...fascinating stuff but alas I dont' have it any more :()

Certainly in real life counter-battery was important..more so from about 1916 onwards when aircraft recce really started to be useful (mainly due to aerial photography)....but it was something that usually only accompanied an attack.   Attackers would make a big effort to identify enemy batteries and KO them - but the counterbattery work would be in the few days before an attack only - not on-going.

this was only partially effective earlier on.....firing indirect required r"registration" which required a few shots to be fired to spot their fall...but the target might hten recognise their danger and move.  By 1917 the allies had developed "silent registration"....accurate maps and aerial photography meant they could lay their guns reasonably accurately without firing a shot so teh target would get no warning before H-hour.  It wasn't as accurate as properly registered fire, but this could be partially offset by firing more guns than you would normally - thus increasing the beaten zone and the chances of getting a few hits.

The reason for counter-battery was so that defending guns would not get their defensive fires.....ie pre-programmed fires on likely routes for attacking infantry in response to flares from front line positions.  The defender would try to keep his batteries "masked" ie cammo'ed and not firing so they didn't get recognised, and so could fire when the infantry came over.  Artillery barrages on attacking infantry were utterly devastating.

By 1918 the Germans were mixing their counterbattery ammo as 20% HE, and 80% gas......KO'ing guns with HE was simply inefficient and ineffective.  Gasing the general area at least forced gunners to wear gas masks, greatly reducing their efficiency and often killing their animal draught.

It was capturing ground that killed artillery...eg the allies lost 1300 guns against St Michael in 1918.

So For GOA I'd like to see artillery having NO effect on enemy artillery at all as the simplest solution.  Combined with artillery being lost if over-run IMO this would produce the correct effect.

A more accurate model would be defending artillery firing at attacking infantry before combat with the defending infantry, and attacking artillery "neutralising" some of this defensive fire.  but I suspect that would be a bit too complicated to code just now!!

So I propose several changes that I think could be accomplished within the current structure.  the idea of these is to make artillery useful without having the ability to completely destroy all enemy forces in a hex as it has now.

1/ No counter-battery fire - artillery is destroyed solely by being over-run
2/ Increase the stacking points of arty units to 2
3/ Decrease the strength points of artillery so they are the same strength as their tech level (so initial arty would be strength 1).  Those nations with 2 pt arty currently would get a modifier to their arty fire making it less effective at any given tech level.
4/ Decrease the cost of arty points (since they're going to be less effective) so maybe 5 or even 6 per production point.  by the time people research up to 3 and 4 pt artillery they'll be facing 3 and 4 point trenches IMO, so the cheaper shooting will be at least partially neutralised by more extensive protection.
5/ I'm inclined to think that Siege arty should have no effect except on fortifications - only small numbers of the very heavy siege guns were made eg only 4 of the 420mm Big Bertha's, but even 1 or 2 such guns could destroy a fort eg see http://tinyurl.com/2rgxmr for how 1 300mm howitzer destroyed an Italian fort with 3 shots...including 2 ranging ones!! )  Certainly they could be and were used against normal entrenchments, but in that context their effect was probably lost among the 10's of thousands of rounds fired from smaller guns.....ie each round was jsut as devastating, but wasn't really adding much to the barrage due to the sheer volume of smaller fire - Big Bertha fired a max of 8 rounds per hour, the Austrian 300mm howitzers could fire about 20.






Joel Rauber -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/19/2007 6:53:15 AM)

I say that we see what the minor changes Frank mentioned in another thread do. And after playing V1.2 a while, then we bombard him with ideas.

(Assuming our artillery still works in that version.[:D] )



SMK-at-work -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/19/2007 6:57:12 AM)

He hasn't mentioned all the changes he's testing!! :)



Joel Rauber -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/19/2007 7:08:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

He hasn't mentioned all the changes he's testing!! :)


Touche,[:)]

Not being a official tester, I am naturally not privy to all that is being done. I suppose I may be eating my words. At any rate, I'm enjoying this game a lot. Its probably the most interesting WWI simulation I've ever played, which goes back to when AH first published 1914 (a mighty pretty map that one had); assuming we don't count miniatures.

I'm looking forward to enjoying the new changes and seeing how they work.



kcole4080 -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/23/2007 4:59:41 PM)

Counter battery work had become the partly job of the air arm by 1917.
This from Arthur Gould Lee's 'No Parachute', where his 46 Squadron, newly equipped with Camels, were taskd with counter battery work during the opening stages of the battle of Cambrai.

Even in poor flying conditions, they proved quite effective: very low clouds (at 50 to 100 feet), not to mention smoke from the battle made conventional spotting impossible, but tactical bombing knocked out the majority of the guns in their sector: 5.9 guns in Lateau Wood on the first day, on the right flank of the tank attack, then proceeding to soften up opportunity targets.

I think limiting the number of arty units per hex, and the increase in trench building capability may solve the problem.



kcole4080 -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/23/2007 5:17:33 PM)

Another point: the AI does not use killer arty stacks to my knowledge, nor do I, since it's not a realistic tactic.

NOT slamming anyone, but many game fixes are to prevent players doing wildly ahistorical things in the course of a game. Sure, it's imaginitive, but it feels like cheating the rules to me. I enjoy trying to find historically realistic ways to get around the challenges posed in games.
After all, it's what draws us to the game in the first place, the interest in the historical puzzle, so why circumvent that in a way that destroys the 'feel' of the game? It seems counter productive: trying to enjoy a historical simulation, but trying to play the game the way it is obviously NOT intended.
Just my 2 cents![:)]



esteban -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/23/2007 5:54:55 PM)

I'm still of the opinion that artillery is too strong in this game.  When game-winning moves are revolving around decisions like "I won't rebuild these 5 corps so that I can order another 2 artillery units and buy 12 barrages for them to use"  that's grossly ahistorical. 

At the very least, I would suggest that buying barrages not ramp up from 2 barrages per industry point to 3 barrages per point. 



kcole4080 -> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice (9/23/2007 6:08:33 PM)

Perhaps, but in my games, which I try to play a balanced, long term strategy, I can usually only buy half a dozen barrages per turn. Many corps are hammered to single & low double digit strengths after an assault, so they need to be brought up to some kind of defensible strength. Dip pts need to be bought to forstall Italy's entry.
Those very expensive HQ pts need to be bought, & I've even forsaken the fleet after the first strat. phase to try & bolster the crumbling A-H's against the Russians.

R&D can't be ignored either,and  besides, that's a major part of the fun of the game!

I did buy either 4 or 5 arty units on the first opportunity, since it seemed a good idea before all the casualties piled up, but they're spread out at only two to a hex maximum (not including the siege pieces).

I prefer to have four strong corps if possible in a crucial hex, since the Froggy counter attacks can dislodge you fairly easily if you haven't got any trenches yet.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6560059