Artillery Divison HQs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room



Message

hfarrish -> Artillery Divison HQs (12/13/2012 1:52:42 AM)


Do people generally attach these to Armies or Fronts (and I'm talking about the on-map units, not SUs)? Since artillery doesn't have a CV value per se, do combat penalties for mixed command structures still really apply? On defense will they support any unit in range, or do they only support units in their army? Will artillery divisions attached to Fronts or STAVKA support any unit defensively in range? Thanks in advance.



Aurelian -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/13/2012 1:55:32 AM)

I attach them to the Airborne HQs and leave them under STAVKA. Probably a better way to do it though.



Wally Wilson -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/13/2012 10:40:54 PM)

I can't answer all of your questions, but regarding assigning artillery to HQ's, remember that for the Soviets the CP limit for armies drops to 18 by 4/42, so assigning them to fronts seems like a better plan.



hfarrish -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/13/2012 10:44:34 PM)


Yeah, I pretty much was planning on fronts (arty divisions aren't available to 10/42 anyway, so armies are already tight) although, to Aurelian's point, if they function just as well and provide support defensively (I have my doubts that they do given the support unit structure more broadly) as STAVKA units that would seem like the best option.



Aurelian -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/13/2012 11:09:08 PM)

I don't recall if they do provide defensive support, but keeping them with STAVKA allows one to send them where needed w/o AP costs.

IIRC, using the AB Corps HQ for the artillery was Flav's idea



hfarrish -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/13/2012 11:21:25 PM)


That does make sense and in reality, how much defending will you be doing in '43 and beyond that required arty support. I think as well that since artillery is not a CV contributor there is a decent chance there are no penalties applied for being attached to STAVKA (although I could very easily be wrong about this).



turtlefang -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 12:41:18 AM)

I'm in the airborne HQ camp and picked that up from a post that Flav did. However, I'm ending up with about 40 artillery/rocket divisions, so the AB will cover about 30 of them.

The rest I have assigned to an army (or two) that I keep assigned to STAVKA. The army controls a few more artillery divisions.

I have never assigned them to a "regular" front as I feel that you need to move these around to support different points of the front.



Flaviusx -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 12:59:59 AM)

There's no reason to ever assign these to a Front, imo. All Front command capacity should be reserved for actual maneuver units -- things you actually want to put on reserve and want to pass a leader initiative check. Or things with CVs. Stuff that can actually take and hold ground, in other words.

Arty divisions should either be assigned directly to STAVKA, an independent army, or an airborne HQ.

Front command capacity is a precious resource and on map artillery, properly speaking, is a strategic resource that should be managed at the strategic level. They contribute little to no actual CV, and their purpose is to disrupt well entrenched defenders by sheer volume of fire. They can do this outside the normal command chain.

Alternately, you can occasionally assign one to a rifle army to fill out the 2 CP spare change that's left over after giving it 4 corps. If you are like me you do eventually get to the point where there's not a whole lot of brigades or divisions to fill that capacity late war.



Seminole -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 6:17:04 AM)

quote:

Front command capacity is a precious resource and on map artillery, properly speaking, is a strategic resource that should be managed at the strategic level. They contribute little to no actual CV, and their purpose is to disrupt well entrenched defenders by sheer volume of fire. They can do this outside the normal command chain.


How can on board artillery be expected to act during the defensive?

If I have arty 1 hex behind the front line that gets attacked, will it participate? Does it need to be in reserve mode? Would its reserve activation be materially affected by not being part of the Army/Front that is being attacked on the line (slightly less likely, much less likely, no difference?)?

Or is on map arty just an offensive aide?

Arty at the independent Army or Stavka command level will contribute with a 30% penalty, correct? That would mean you needed to build almost 50% more on map arty to have the same firepower than if they were operating in the same Army, right (if you're fighting at basically 2/3rd strength, you have to build 50% more to get 3/3rd effort than if they were part of the same Army)?



Flaviusx -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 6:25:04 AM)

I don't see it as a defensive tool at all. That's what arty SUs are for. You could put them on reserve I suppose, but, I think other units are better suited for this sort of thing, and arty SUs are more likely to react and don't take up map space.

Bear in mind that there is a limit to the amount of units that can react to any given battle. I'd rather have a rifle division show up than an artillery division.

Also, I tend to use up all their movement points anyways during my own turn on attacks.

On map artillery is what you use to blow up enemy entrenchments. You don't build it for defense.

The penalties are with respect to CV. Artillery has negligible CV. Its role in battle is not to occupy ground, which is what CV ultimately determines. What artillery does is blow sh*t up or disrupt the enemy and make it possible for those elements that actually do contribute to CV to occupy or take ground. It's there to suppress enemy CV, in other words, not to contribute to your own.




randallw -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 9:14:21 AM)

Arty can join a defensive battle ( or offensive battle ) in reserve mode, if behind the very front line; it's liable to the same initiate/MP/unit size rules for other stuff in reserve mode.

It can also join an attack if directly selected, and has enough MPs.



hfarrish -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 3:04:38 PM)


If one attaches the Arty to an Airborne HQ, are there benefits as opposed to a direct STAVKA attachment? Do commander ratings influence their performance at all (if so, is it the INF rating or the initiative rating that is more important)?

If one has an Airborne HQ that uses arty units to support an attack, could you gain additional SU commitments by having SUs attached to the Airborne HQ?



Seminole -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 3:04:56 PM)

quote:

I don't see it as a defensive tool at all.


I'm not saying it the best use for it, but I'm seeking to get the most use out of them, and wondering how they work exactly in the mechanics of the game engine.

quote:

You could put them on reserve I suppose, but, I think other units are better suited for this sort of thing, and arty SUs are more likely to react and don't take up map space.
Bear in mind that there is a limit to the amount of units that can react to any given battle. I'd rather have a rifle division show up than an artillery division.


So they must be in reserve mode to participate in defense of an adjacent hex? That's what I'm trying to clarify.
To that end, how does the Reserve commitment flow exactly? Does a commitment check occur each battle for each unit available (sufficient MP and reserve status), or do the command checks take place, and if successful then an available unit is chosen (randomly?)

quote:

On map artillery is what you use to blow up enemy entrenchments. You don't build it for defense.


I'm not trying to suggest that, I'm just wondering how/if they can be utilized during the opponents movement phase.

quote:

The penalties are with respect to CV. Artillery has negligible CV. Its role in battle is not to occupy ground, which is what CV ultimately determines. What artillery does is blow sh*t up or disrupt the enemy and make it possible for those elements that actually do contribute to CV to occupy or take ground. It's there to suppress enemy CV, in other words, not to contribute to your own.


So the -30% penalty doesn't mean only 70% of tubes are firing, it just affects the odds calculation for who takes the hex after all the firing is done?
I want artillery, when available, to suppress the enemy CV (e.g. Voronezh Front bombarding 4th Pzr Army as they staged to assault at Kursk).

If the -30% penalty is reducing tubes in combat by that amount, then assigning on map artillery to Stavka means you have to build roughly 50% more to have the same punch as if it where assigned at the same Army level. That trade off may have plenty of merit, but I'm trying to get a handle on the benefits/penalties to decide.



Flaviusx -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 4:38:21 PM)

As I understand it, the numbers of elements involved aren't reduced, only their CV is.

If you want to keep artillery under tight control, an alternate organization method would be as follows: create armies with 3 corps and 3 artillery divisions. These are essentially single hex armies (3 corps up front, 3 division supporting immediately in their rear.) But this is going to require a lot more army commands and will drastically reduce the amount of command points at the Front level dedicated to controlling maneuver elements. A typical late war Front with around 90 CP organized in this fashion will sport 5 armies with a total of 15 corps and 15 artillery divisions and be able to attack on a 5 hex front with max stacks at each hex and max support behind each hex. This assumes no tank armies. You could drop one of the combined arms HQs and switch in a tank army with 3 corps, and use the spare change to squeeze in an arty division and brigade. Then the Front would have a bit of leftover command capacity for direct attachments, but not enough to include another full army. (5 armies is about as good as it gets.)



Schmart -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 5:24:11 PM)

They should be assigned to Armies or Fronts, but typically they operated on a front level. Anything else is a gamey loophole. Later in the war, they were grouped under Artillery Corps HQs within the Fronts, but this is not represented in WitE. In a way, the Airborne HQs act as Artillery Corps HQs, but they should still be under a Front command. Not everyone likes playing by historical rules, but there it is.



Flaviusx -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 5:34:46 PM)

Schmart, problem is that Front command capacity in this game is terribly restrictive.

Take a look at how badly overloaded some of the late war Fronts get in the 44 scenario. 1. Ukrainian in particular. (The armies are also mostly overloaded, some of them by a huge amount.)

So you can stuff these Fronts as much as you want and put together a historical organization...and make the Front commander a non entity in the process.

If someone ever puts together a Vistula-Oder scenario 1. Belorussian and 1. Ukrainian will probably be even more severely overloaded in CP. Ditto a Berlin 45 scenario. (They each had around 10 armies assigned, as I recall.)

As a result, the natural solution here is to concentrate maneuver elements in Fronts and take all the firepower support out of them except for whatever spare change is left after maxing out your corps count within the armies and fronts.



Wally Wilson -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 5:56:17 PM)

Thanks Flaviusx for the great explanations. They make great sense.




hfarrish -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 6:00:51 PM)


I agree with not putting them in Armys/Fronts if tubes aren't reduced and CVs are largely irrelevant. My only outstanding question (not that I'm entitled to answers) is if you use Airborne HQs does commander play any role at all or is he irrelevant?



Flaviusx -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 6:09:43 PM)

The Airborne HQ gives the attached unit a better chance at passing admin checks. Which does matter to me at least. With enough MPs, arty divisions can put in two deliberate attacks per turn.

This is also a good way to train up leaders assigned to them. These HQs tend to get a lot of wins. Never seen them flip to guards, though.



hfarrish -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 6:23:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The Airborne HQ gives the attached unit a better chance at passing admin checks. Which does matter to me at least. With enough MPs, arty divisions can put in two deliberate attacks per turn.

This is also a good way to train up leaders assigned to them. These HQs tend to get a lot of wins. Never seen them flip to guards, though.


Makes sense - thank you.



Schmart -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/14/2012 8:31:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Schmart, problem is that Front command capacity in this game is terribly restrictive.

Take a look at how badly overloaded some of the late war Fronts get in the 44 scenario. 1. Ukrainian in particular. (The armies are also mostly overloaded, some of them by a huge amount.)

So you can stuff these Fronts as much as you want and put together a historical organization...and make the Front commander a non entity in the process.

If someone ever puts together a Vistula-Oder scenario 1. Belorussian and 1. Ukrainian will probably be even more severely overloaded in CP. Ditto a Berlin 45 scenario. (They each had around 10 armies assigned, as I recall.)

As a result, the natural solution here is to concentrate maneuver elements in Fronts and take all the firepower support out of them except for whatever spare change is left after maxing out your corps count within the armies and fronts.


I fully agree. Even some earlier war Front commands had way more attached than can be safely done in the game (Western Front comes to mind). But it is a failure of the game system that historical circumstances can't be replicated. I think the Russians should be given 2-3 Fronts (or Front commanders) that can have some form of special rating or capability to be able to hold a much larger number of units (in order to be able to replicate some of those historical circumstances), than the roughly arbitrary limits established.



CowboyRonin -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/17/2012 4:01:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If you want to keep artillery under tight control, an alternate organization method would be as follows: create armies with 3 corps and 3 artillery divisions. These are essentially single hex armies (3 corps up front, 3 division supporting immediately in their rear.)


I like this particular organization for Shock armies. This makes them very good at smashing a single, tough hex; IMO, this should be the specialty of Shock armies. Those are fixed in allocation (1-4 you get in the first Blizzard, 5 later), so they're not major line-holders. I had not thought of using the Airborne corps HQs as artillery containers; that is a good idea to handle others that you want to have around.



Seminole -> RE: Artillery Divison HQs (12/17/2012 3:47:07 PM)

quote:

I fully agree. Even some earlier war Front commands had way more attached than can be safely done in the game (Western Front comes to mind). But it is a failure of the game system that historical circumstances can't be replicated.


They can be replicated (the CP limit isn't a hard ceiling), there are simply penalties associated. Is it not possible that Western Front was swamped with responsibilities?

quote:

I like this particular organization for Shock armies. This makes them very good at smashing a single, tough hex


With the rules as they are now for Shock Armies I think they're best focused on mobile units to maximize their MP.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.953125