Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire



Message

WiZz -> Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/23/2021 7:38:37 PM)

Around ~100 hours of game passed and I've noticed that hard (and below) AI never builds and uses any type of artillery. Normal howitzer, Rockets, Missile - anything. Am I missing something?
However, I can understand its unwillingness - I find artillery pretty weak and inefficient. Maybe I used it wrong? I tried massed artillery, max calibers, researched applied upgrades.[:(] Nothing. Infantry in battledress completely ignores 300 mm howitzers salvos.



Clux -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/23/2021 9:58:12 PM)

The AI barely uses artillery, and for practical reasons, it depends a lot on the terrain than you will be fighting for.

Now, the comparison than you made was correct
quote:


Nothing. Infantry in battledress completely ignores 300 mm howitzers salvos.


Artillery its good against infantry till your enemy starts using Infantry with HCA and personal armor optimization, by that point you're better using tanks with howitzer guns, micro nuke rpgs or other weapons. Now, why should you invest into artillery instead of tanks? you would do so only when you're fighting in hard terrain (forests/hills) and even then if your tanks are too good you might prefer use them instead, as they need fewer numbers to have the same effect.



WiZz -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/23/2021 10:36:39 PM)

But this is wrong from gameplay and logical reasons. From gameplay perspective - whole group of units becomes completely useless and can't be upgraded. Where is my tactical nuke for howitzers and mortars? I understand when light tanks become obsolete coz they have limitations. But IRL artillery is extremely devastating. Even conventional. It can destroy any target literally. I doubt that infantry in battledress may be tougher than tanks.



phyroks -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/24/2021 6:57:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WiZz

Around ~100 hours of game passed and I've noticed that hard (and below) AI never builds and uses any type of artillery. Normal howitzer, Rockets, Missile - anything. Am I missing something?
However, I can understand its unwillingness - I find artillery pretty weak and inefficient. Maybe I used it wrong? I tried massed artillery, max calibers, researched applied upgrades.[:(] Nothing. Infantry in battledress completely ignores 300 mm howitzers salvos.


In my game AI spammed way too much SAM launchers. :(
Arty is currently rather weak because movement but rocket launchers are really good, but arty used to be ok for preventing breakthrough.



WiZz -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/24/2021 7:46:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: phyroks
In my game AI spammed way too much SAM launchers. :(
Arty is currently rather weak because movement but rocket launchers are really good, but arty used to be ok for preventing breakthrough.


AI prefers to spam AA version.
In my opinion rocket launchers are much worse. If normal artillery occasionally kills some AT-cannons or single inf units rockets kill nothing.



zgrssd -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/24/2021 4:55:36 PM)

quote:

However, I can understand its unwillingness - I find artillery pretty weak and inefficient. Maybe I used it wrong? I tried massed artillery, max calibers, researched applied upgrades. Nothing. Infantry in battledress completely ignores 300 mm howitzers salvos.

How much Recon did you have/how much was nesseary for the Hex?

Artillery need accurate target information to actually hit something worthwhile.
One hex is 200km short diagonal - even nuclear weapons have issues hitting something valuable with that size.



WiZz -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/24/2021 5:51:56 PM)

I tried with max recon too. I tried even after attacks with tanks/infantry.



mattpilot -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/24/2021 6:47:28 PM)

For a readiness reducer, artillery seems ok to me. I dont build much of it, but usually have 1-2 motorized onces tag along to reduce readiness so the tanks/inf have a easier time to dislodge them. As for actually killing enemy units - its not that good.



WiZz -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/24/2021 8:00:28 PM)

Artillery costs pretty high and eats ammo non-stop. I'd raise another tank regiment and destroy enemy with guaranty.



Uemon -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/26/2021 4:16:54 PM)

For me personally, artillery is nothing but a vanity project unit that you build once you can because you just can.



zgrssd -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/27/2021 12:11:32 AM)

Artillery is capable of a lot of rather unique feats. However it is not a "Wonder Weapon" - it is a part of every well oiled army:
- it is capable of indirect attack. Meaning it can shoot the enemy without being shot back - which in turn means there is a capped loss of readiness. Making it capable of keeping the enemy supressed, while the infantry rests for the next attack
- it is a defensive weapon: "If a Subunit is not hit for 2 combat rounds and made at least one successful attack (a hit!) it will break through. Also, if the Subunit attacker has not even been targeted (let alone hit) in the last 2 combat rounds, it will break through. There is a chance the breakthrough fails if the attack is overstacked. The defender has no non-backbench Subunits left, the breakthrough always succeeds." The high number of attacks realy helps it prevent breakthroughs - which is really good for itself as well
- it is a stopgap anti-tank weapon. The high callibre means it never suffers callibre penalty in direct combat. However note: "Ranged attacks see their mm divided by three due to the likelihood of a proximity instead of a direct hit."



WiZz -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/27/2021 2:57:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
Artillery is capable of a lot of rather unique feats. However it is not a "Wonder Weapon" - it is a part of every well oiled army:
- it is capable of indirect attack. Meaning it can shoot the enemy without being shot back - which in turn means there is a capped loss of readiness. Making it capable of keeping the enemy supressed, while the infantry rests for the next attack

It doesn't work well on AI. Also there won't be any readiness hit if artillery missed completely.
quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
- it is a defensive weapon: "If a Subunit is not hit for 2 combat rounds and made at least one successful attack (a hit!) it will break through. Also, if the Subunit attacker has not even been targeted (let alone hit) in the last 2 combat rounds, it will break through. There is a chance the breakthrough fails if the attack is overstacked. The defender has no non-backbench Subunits left, the breakthrough always succeeds." The high number of attacks realy helps it prevent breakthroughs - which is really good for itself as well


Didn't see the difference honestly...

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd- it is a stopgap anti-tank weapon. The high callibre means it never suffers callibre penalty in direct combat. However note: "Ranged attacks see their mm divided by three due to the likelihood of a proximity instead of a direct hit."


Haha, did you know what happens with artillery in combat vs. tanks? Arty gets completely destroyed.[;)]

All things above look good on paper but on practice it's better to raise another tank regiment.



zgrssd -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/27/2021 4:28:43 PM)

quote:

Haha, did you know what happens with artillery in combat vs. tanks? Arty gets completely destroyed.

All things above look good on paper but on practice it's better to raise another tank regiment.

Did you deploy the Artillery without a infantry screen?
Offense or defense?



WiZz -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/28/2021 1:58:35 PM)

Offense vs. tanks? LOL
In defense result is much worse than high-caliber AT guns.



solops -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/28/2021 2:52:48 PM)

I am beginning to suspect the whole caliber mechanic might be in need of a slight tweak.



zgrssd -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/28/2021 4:59:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WiZz

Offense vs. tanks? LOL
In defense result is much worse than high-caliber AT guns.

1. You did not answer the question.

2. I never said anything as ludicrous as "as good as AT guns".
In fact I very specifically said "it is a stopgap anti-tank weapon."

If you want to continue the discussion, please answer my questions. And stop trying to insult my intelligence by missreading what I wrote.


quote:

ORIGINAL: solops

I am beginning to suspect the whole caliber mechanic might be in need of a slight tweak.

I am not sure they do. Artillery still has less hard attack/defense, so it will not be a "primary tank killer". It is very unlikely to suffer a penalty in direct combat, but that does not make it awesome.

RPG's and Infantry armor would benefit from having their effective Armor Piercing/Armor thickness displayed. But a rework goes overboard.



solops -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/28/2021 5:12:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: solops

I am beginning to suspect the whole caliber mechanic might be in need of a slight tweak.

I am not sure they do. Artillery still has less hard attack/defense, so it will not be a "primary tank killer". It is very unlikely to suffer a penalty in direct combat, but that does not make it awesome.

RPG's and Infantry armor would benefit from having their effective Armor Piercing/Armor thickness displayed. But a rework goes overboard.


Nothing major and I was not really focused on the artillery discussion here. But some of the cut-offs and effects of the caliber mechanic seem a bit...umm...abrupt. Particularly when it is just not possible to adjust for all of the ammo variants that are available and their effects as well as the types of damage that can be inflicted. It does not take a huge cannon to render a tracked vehicle mission incapable. But, I don't think we want to dive off too far down into the weeds of detail either. So, I don't know. It just seems off to make the smaller guns almost totally worthless.



WiZz -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/28/2021 5:23:57 PM)

quote:

Did you deploy the Artillery without a infantry screen?
Offense or defense?


1. Ofc no.
2. Both. Offense as arty attacks first then infantry. That was infantry vs. infantry combat.

quote:

I am not sure they do. Artillery still has less hard attack/defense, so it will not be a "primary tank killer".


High caliber artillery could be decent vs. hard targets. Also top tank projection is relatively thin.

quote:

It just seems off to make the smaller guns almost totally worthless.


True. I tried to spam low caliber guns (aka mortars) and failed.[:(] Waste of resources.



solops -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/28/2021 5:46:55 PM)

I remember reading about a Tiger tank in the Normandy area that was flipped over by a near miss from a BB shell. The crew apparently survived and they got the tank turned back over and continued on. But I have also read about arty wreaking havoc on tanks as well.



zgrssd -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/28/2021 6:40:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: solops


quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

quote:

ORIGINAL: solops

I am beginning to suspect the whole caliber mechanic might be in need of a slight tweak.

I am not sure they do. Artillery still has less hard attack/defense, so it will not be a "primary tank killer". It is very unlikely to suffer a penalty in direct combat, but that does not make it awesome.

RPG's and Infantry armor would benefit from having their effective Armor Piercing/Armor thickness displayed. But a rework goes overboard.


Nothing major and I was not really focused on the artillery discussion here. But some of the cut-offs and effects of the caliber mechanic seem a bit...umm...abrupt. Particularly when it is just not possible to adjust for all of the ammo variants that are available and their effects as well as the types of damage that can be inflicted. It does not take a huge cannon to render a tracked vehicle mission incapable. But, I don't think we want to dive off too far down into the weeds of detail either. So, I don't know. It just seems off to make the smaller guns almost totally worthless.


The "High-Velocity" approach top armor piercing requires shooting a hard bullet really, really fast. So with high Muzzle Velocity. This is a lot easier with a big/long/high callibre gun.
However this did not scale forever. Very bug guns:
- were relatively expensive to produce compared to a even a (light) tank hull to mount it on
- were progressively harder to move, unless mounted on a self-driving chassis (like tank, SPG)
- were progressively harder to hide
All things making them pretty unuseable for the infantry.

The Hollow Charge weapon changed that. Hollow Charge weapons make muzzle velocity a non-issue. And is what makes RPG/Bazooka/Panzerschrek, AT(G)M and the like possible. And at times it was even used in shells for former high-velocity guns.
As a good example, look at the Pak 36 - aka the "Doorknocker" because it had issues penetrating anything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rvlqqdw7u4

Hollow charge or a variant is what we use today.
The high-velocity gun itself is a stopgap until hollow charge weapons came around.
And artillery was the stopgap before the high-velocity guns were developed.


quote:

ORIGINAL: solops

I remember reading about a Tiger tank in the Normandy area that was flipped over by a near miss from a BB shell. The crew apparently survived and they got the tank turned back over and continued on. But I have also read about arty wreaking havoc on tanks as well.

Ship cannons have at least +100mm over any landbased artillery or AT gun. Anything landbased is ludicrously outclassed.
One thing that made the "Landkreuzer Ratte" (equivalent to a SE Monitor Tank) so ludicrous, was the plan calling for a heavy cruiser main turret to be mounted as main gun.

If artillery hit it oculd be absolutely devastating. Hitting was the issue, especially if the tank was close. Artillery was rarely designed for direct fire.
But in a pinch, anything that could penetrate would fire on tanks with priority. It either scores a kill, a mobility kill or scares the crew away - all 3 are good outcomes.



WiZz -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/28/2021 9:00:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
If artillery hit it oculd be absolutely devastating. Hitting was the issue, especially if the tank was close. Artillery was rarely designed for direct fire.


Accuracy already isn't an issue for modern artillery. Computer systems and recon drones greatly increases accuracy even for old artillery like bm-21 or 2s1. Donbass conflict proves this when numerous tank columns were destroyed by MLRS or high caliber artillery.



Uemon -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (8/30/2021 4:30:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: solops

I remember reading about a Tiger tank in the Normandy area that was flipped over by a near miss from a BB shell. The crew apparently survived and they got the tank turned back over and continued on. But I have also read about arty wreaking havoc on tanks as well.


Soviets used artillery against tanks specifically to destroy them, in particular very heavy and slow tanks and tank destroyers. So yeah its definitely a thing.

Tanks tend to have very thin armor on top, meaning that even a low caliber direct hit can be devastating to a tank.

On the other hand, artillery and high caliber mortars are quite good at detracking tanks even if they dont hit them at all. Fragmentation shells in particular could be excellent vs light armored vehicles, as we have seen this in real life in last 10 years (Ukraine and Syria where entire lines of Soviet armored vehicles were pretty much proven useless for the battlefield they were fielded on as shrapnel could penetrate them sideways even from 150+ meters away).



Cavgunner -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (9/9/2021 1:19:25 AM)

Some of you seem to be looking at artillery from a completely incorrect perspective.

1) Unless the enemy also has artillery, you are immune to retaliation.

2) Artillery reduces YOUR casualties. There is no better weapon for reducing an entrenched enemy unit's Readiness and thus paving the way for an effective assault.

3) Any actual casualties inflicted by the artillery itself are icing on the cake. However, casualties on mid-tech units can be quite devastating, especially if you have Cluster Bombs.

4) Aircraft can perform a similar function, but are even more resource-intensive.






WiZz -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (9/9/2021 3:09:33 PM)

1. The only visible advantage of artillery. However, most of the time artillery kills nothing.
2. Not really. Build a few tank battalions and see better results.
3. Again - casualties from artillery are almost non-existent.
4. I don't build air forces coz AI doesn't build it. It's simply not fair.



postfux -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (9/9/2021 6:50:42 PM)

I always have one motorized battalion of arty with the biggest tubes driving along any offensive force. I use them on strongpoints and troops in difficult terrain.

Ideally first comes an attack from a recon plane, then arty softens up the position with long range fire, only then the ground attack starts.

Reducing enemy readiness and entrechment can make the difference between a battle lost and a battle won. If the odds arent close it helps reduce casualities. Perhaps low readiness even increases enemy casualities?



Cavgunner -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (9/9/2021 8:58:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiZz

1. The only visible advantage of artillery. However, most of the time artillery kills nothing.
2. Not really. Build a few tank battalions and see better results.
3. Again - casualties from artillery are almost non-existent.
4. I don't build air forces coz AI doesn't build it. It's simply not fair.


1. You mean viable advantage, not visible. That aside, do you think we talking about militia units here? If your artillery isn't killing anything, ever, then the problem is YOU.

2. And much higher casualties, especially if your opponent has a tech advantage.

3. That's just flat-out incorrect. Currently my motorized and mechanized arty units are pasting slightly higher-tech infantry regiments and divisions. PASTING. Each gun in a regiment is consistently getting 4-6 hits each, sometimes more, with typically around 25% of the guns getting at least one kill apiece. Sometimes they even manage to kill a couple of tanks. Morale and readiness crumbles under such an onslaught. In my current game my army was much smaller and somewhat less advanced than my nemesis. Massed arty don't care. It's the great equalizer. Expensive? Perhaps. But effective. And much preferable to replacing units that would have been lost during attacks on entrenched positions otherwise, especially expensive tanks.

4. Irrelevant. The point stands.



WiZz -> RE: Does AI build artillery at all? Isn't it a bit weak? (9/10/2021 4:03:09 PM)

1. Read my first posts. I was talking about max-caliber arty + rocket arty.
2. If your opponent has tech advantage your arty won't kill anything. Simple example: 300 vs arty can't scratch inf in battledresses. Arty has some ups like cluster mines.
3. That's really different from my experience.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5625