Artillery (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

HHI -> Artillery (8/28/2010 7:59:26 PM)

Now that artillery has cleverly been transformed from the 'Queen of the Battlefield' to the 'camp ho', does anyone know if it is similary useless in deliberate and shock attacks? Is it now a waste to use valuable transport and supplies on artillery?



herwin -> RE: Artillery (8/28/2010 8:40:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HHI

Now that artillery has cleverly been transformed from the 'Queen of the Battlefield' to the 'camp ho', does anyone know if it is similary useless in deliberate and shock attacks? Is it now a waste to use valuable transport and supplies on artillery?


Japanese artillery should be pretty much useless. Not only did it have to be supplied, the IJA was not good at the types of attacks it supported in Europe and Africa. IJA artillery almost always operated in a direct fire role, which probably tripled its effectiveness, but meant that it had very limited ammo stocks. Allied artillery operated in a more traditional fashion, but the low troop densities, poor communications, and difficult logistics meant that it made a very limited contribution to the fight.



HHI -> RE: Artillery (8/28/2010 10:32:46 PM)

I would agree with your response for Burma, New Guinea and, possibly, the Solomans. But it certainly doesn't apply to U.S. artillery in the Central Pacific, where troop densities were quite high, communications were excellent and logistics were no issue. But artillery is equally useless everywhere, at least in the bombardment roll.

The real question is, however, for the game, is there any point in dragging the stuff around anymore? Does it have any effect in combat?



PaxMondo -> RE: Artillery (8/29/2010 12:23:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
IJA artillery almost always operated in a direct fire role, which probably tripled its effectiveness, but meant that it had very limited ammo stocks.


Can you elaborate? I must be missing something obvious. I don't see the connection between direct fire and limited ammo stocks.

Thanks.



Grfin Zeppelin -> RE: Artillery (8/29/2010 1:58:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
IJA artillery almost always operated in a direct fire role, which probably tripled its effectiveness, but meant that it had very limited ammo stocks.


Can you elaborate? I must be missing something obvious. I don't see the connection between direct fire and limited ammo stocks.

Thanks.

Artillery shells are large and cumbersome and a pain to have around. One can stock only a few shells (safely) within range of the enemy.I think thats what he/she meant.



crsutton -> RE: Artillery (8/29/2010 6:01:06 AM)

It is a support weapon. Use it that way and it works. Just watch your opponent's AV drop during the artillery phase. Really, it works. Better to have it than not.



Sredni -> RE: Artillery (8/29/2010 7:09:46 AM)

I've got 6000 av being sieged in a chinese city right now where I've stacked all my chinese artillery. I don't actually bombard myself with that stack, but counterbombardment inflicts 100-200 casualties daily there (with little initial damage inflicted on me). A good day is 20 disabled squads and various noncombat. Well worth it over months and months of siege. Though the AI seems to repair or replace unit damage faster then it's inflicted there lol, even with 10-20 disabled combat squads daily the enemy AV is still climbing.

I ground a whole division to pretty much nothing in port moresby over the past year with artillery and 2 bomber squadrons.

And I'm using it in burma right now to prep targets for assault. Doesn't inflict many casualties, but I think it makes the deliberate and shock attacks more effective.

Artillery is probably one of the last units I task my transports to haul around, but I still haul it around.

I just wish we could combine tiny artillery units into larger groups. Seems silly to have an artillery unit with less guns then an infantry unit.



herwin -> RE: Artillery (8/29/2010 8:42:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
IJA artillery almost always operated in a direct fire role, which probably tripled its effectiveness, but meant that it had very limited ammo stocks.


Can you elaborate? I must be missing something obvious. I don't see the connection between direct fire and limited ammo stocks.

Thanks.


Direct fire means with line of sight to the enemy position. If you can see them; they can see you (and anyone resupplying you). You certainly don't want an exposed ammo dump in the vicinity.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.031738