RE: Killer Artillery Stacks

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> Guns of August 1914 - 1918 >> RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 1:46:41 AM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

Actually, when you say that Entente artillery was the big killer of CP soldiers, most of the artillery you would be talking about are organic artillery within the units that would be identified as corps within the game. The arty units in the game probably represent heavy artillery at the army or frontal reserver level. Those units killed far fewer soldiers than many of the light artillery units in the corps.

For example, French doctrine during the war was that they would use light artillery to break up enemy attacks, which is why they developed their famous "French 75". It was guns like the 75 that accounted for a large percentage (maybe even the majority) of CP casualties to artillery, and the 75s would not be represented in the French arty units. So I would say that the artillery units in this game need to be toned down significantly.

On a more practical level, I play with a house rule that limits the number of arty units that can fire into one hex to 3 units per hex per impulse.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 31

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 1:51:42 AM

FrankHunter

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline

I've made some changes. I've made a slight increase to the benefits of level 2 trenches and a larger benefit to level 3 and 4.

Also, I've allowed trench construction once per impulse instead of once per turn.

Just experimenting here at the moment using hotseat to see how it goes.

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 32

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 1:53:01 AM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

I wouldnt get too het up about IRL OOBs and "organic artillery" and such. Really, simply being adjacent to an enemy unit should cause some wastage. Far as the game is concerned if you have two infantry units dug in next to each other nobody dies. Its the artillery counters that let you put some attrition on the opponent without actually advancing, so its that thats duplicating the whole static warfare thing.

I'm actually pretty impressed, I've never seen a game that duplicated trench warfare before but GoA does a pretty good job.

_____________________________

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 33

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 1:57:02 AM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

I've made some changes.� I've made a slight increase to the benefits of level 2 trenches and a larger benefit to level 3 and 4.

Also, I've allowed trench construction once per impulse instead of once per turn.

Just experimenting here at the moment using hotseat to see how it goes.

You might want to consider reducing the cost of entrenchment points as well.

(in reply to FrankHunter)

Post #: 34

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 1:58:20 AM

FrankHunter

Posts: 2111
Joined: 3/26/2004
Status: offline

I am considering doing just that.

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 35

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 2:34:01 AM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

I was also thinking about possibility for entrenching each impulse which i think make really sense.

During the long summer turns its easier to make the elaborate trench work than during shorter muddy spring/autumn turns and the very short winter turns.

(in reply to FrankHunter)

Post #: 36

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 3:09:38 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: esteban

Actually, when you say that Entente artillery was the big killer of CP soldiers, most of the artillery you would be talking about are organic artillery within the units that would be identified as corps within the game. The arty units in the game probably represent heavy artillery at the army or frontal reserver level. Those units killed far fewer soldiers than many of the light artillery units in the corps.

Do you have any sources for that? AFAIK the lighter artillery became much less use once the digging in started - troops underground are totally impervious to standard field artillery for example

Attrition caused by patrolling etc is, IMO, well below the level of GoA, and to say that artillery is simulating it is not good game design - if you wanted to simulate it then you'd give a 1 pt loss per impulse in each stack that is adjacent to any enemy or something like that. Often times there were informal truces along long stretches of fronts that resulted in no casualties at all.

However IMO there is too much artillery at the start of the game, and possibly the effect of trenches is not adequate - the No side used artillery bombardments as you can in this game to kill a corps/turn without actually attacking.

I'd be in favour of limiting the number of artillery units that can fire into a hex to a maximum of 1 unit of "normal" plus 1 siege, and possibly changing the effect of siege artillery....give it the same effect on forts as it has, but no effect on troops...and probably make it cheaper in cost.

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 37

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 3:12:05 AM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: esteban

Actually, when you say that Entente artillery was the big killer of CP soldiers, most of the artillery you would be talking about are organic artillery within the units that would be identified as corps within the game. The arty units in the game probably represent heavy artillery at the army or frontal reserver level. Those units killed far fewer soldiers than many of the light artillery units in the corps.

For example, French doctrine during the war was that they would use light artillery to break up enemy attacks, which is why they developed their famous "French 75". It was guns like the 75 that accounted for a large percentage (maybe even the majority) of CP casualties to artillery, and the 75s would not be represented in the French arty units. So I would say that the artillery units in this game need to be toned down significantly.

On a more practical level, I play with a house rule that limits the number of arty units that can fire into one hex to 3 units per hex per impulse.

Well with big killer i didn't mean just physical dead but casualties in general whether physical or psychic. Sustained bombardment for days had a tendency to get to ones nerves you know

By the way the famous French 75 was adopted as early as 1897 and was indeed a crucial weapon up until the race or the sea in 1914. With a staggering rate of fire of 15 shells per minute no wonder it was murderous in the open terrain. And if this was not enough it was even possible to increase ROF for a shorter time period if needed

But after adoption of trench warfare they became pretty useless except where Germany was attacking like first part of Verdun because it was an excellent anti personnel weapon.

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 38

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 3:17:05 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

15 shells a minute was not remarkable by 1914 tho...it was great in 1897, but the French sort of forgot that everyone else would be catching up. 18 pdrs and 77mm's clocked at 20 rounds per minute according to Hogg.

They did the same pre WW2 with their 155mm GPF too...a great gun in 1917, and as modified by the USA between hte wars....but the original 1917 version wasn't so flash in 1939, and hte French had doen exactly the same thing....failed to develop a good gun and thus lost the advantage it gave them.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 39

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 12:34:22 PM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:

ORIGINAL: esteban

Actually, when you say that Entente artillery was the big killer of CP soldiers, most of the artillery you would be talking about are organic artillery within the units that would be identified as corps within the game. The arty units in the game probably represent heavy artillery at the army or frontal reserver level. Those units killed far fewer soldiers than many of the light artillery units in the corps.

Do you have any sources for that? AFAIK the lighter artillery became much less use once the digging in started - troops underground are totally impervious to standard field artillery for example

Attrition caused by patrolling etc is, IMO, well below the level of GoA, and to say that artillery is simulating it is not good game design - if you wanted to simulate it then you'd give a 1 pt loss per impulse in each stack that is adjacent to any enemy or something like that. Often times there were informal truces along long stretches of fronts that resulted in no casualties at all.

However IMO there is too much artillery at the start of the game, and possibly the effect of trenches is not adequate - the No side used artillery bombardments as you can in this game to kill a corps/turn without actually attacking.

I'd be in favour of limiting the number of artillery units that can fire into a hex to a maximum of 1 unit of "normal" plus 1 siege, and possibly changing the effect of siege artillery....give it the same effect on forts as it has, but no effect on troops...and probably make it cheaper in cost.

I don't have any books to cite, but I have read histories of the Verdun offensive for example, and it was quite common there for German attacks to be bled heavily by French 75s, per normal French defensive doctrine. But yes, light artillery was not useful against dug in troops, but then even heavy artillery was less useful then.

That doesn't mean that the artillery is not present in the corps units in the game though.

As for "normal attrition" from patrolling, trench raiding, skirmishing, light arty bombardments, etc. Frank Hunter would have to speak to that, not I. On some levels, the game seems to only count as casualties dead and captured/missing soldiers, with wounded soldiers being abstracted out as not "real" casualties and returning to duty at a rate that approximates the creation of new wounded soldiers.

Its tough to say if the normal attrition from exposure, disease and intermittent combat with nearby enemy units is not also abstracted in the game design or not.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 40

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 1:16:22 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

"All quiet on the western Front"

Yes I agree that "normal" unit artillery is included in the Corps - look at the bEF for example - 2 Corps and no artillery unit - IIRC each division had 3 field artillery brigades of 18 pdrs and 1 howitzer brigade of 4.5" howitzers (each brigade would be 4 x 6 gun/howitzer batteries), and a Royal Garrison Artillery battery of 60 pounders

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 41

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 1:16:37 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

There are three main reasons for the lethality of the French 75 mm compared to the German main 77 mm.

1) It had been around since 1896 so crews were highly trained and equally important tactical use had been improved to perfection.

2) Technical superiority in general.

3) Better quality of shells.

So not only did it have a high ROF but it was used very effectively as well.

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 42

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 2:01:16 PM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Do you have any sources for those comparisons?? AFAIK they hadn't practiced tactical siege warfare at all, and the French army was conscript and so no better trained than anyone elses's. Indeed their training for hte attack was probably completely unsuitable for the type of warfare they found themselves fighting almost for the first day - defensive and going backwards.

The lethality in places like Verdun was down to german infantry attacking in close formations over open ground fully visible from French observer posts....almost any artillery would have cut them to pieces.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 43

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 3:48:44 PM

Rhetor

Posts: 117
Joined: 1/31/2005
From: Gdansk, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

Do you have any sources for those comparisons??

Practically every source tells us that German 77 was one generation behind the French Soixante-Quinze.

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 44

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 4:19:27 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

I didn't note the sources just finding the necessary information on the internet.

But France went to war with 4000 of these guns all manned with graduates from their Engineering schools. They only used conscripts for the dirty work like moving guns around and doing resupply.

The Germans on the other hand constantly made improvements to their 77 to try to match it to the technological superior 75. This had the obvious effect of decreased effectiveness of their crews, which had to adopt to changing material and how to use them

The 77 had a superior range but lacked quality shells. The French shell was vastly more explosive within their effective range and immensely precise. In fairness though France was never able to match the quality of their prewar stocks but it still took a year for Germany to catch up in shell quality.

With regard to tactics that naturally only relates to mobile warfare which all parties had prepared for. Having had almost two decades to find unique ways of using their guns France had the advantage to their German counterpart.

An example. The French lost very few guns in 1914 to opposing artillery while excelling in counter battery themselves by using the large mobility of their guns and terrain to split up and disguise their batteries. Eventually the Germans adopted to this and the French naturally had the benefit of being the defender but still.

On the other hand Germany had a large advantage with howitzers.

(in reply to Rhetor)

Post #: 45

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 4:20:06 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

The Genesis of the Field Artillery

1. In the beginning there was chaos and the chaos was the
infantry, for the infantry was alone.

2. And fear was with the infantry and they cried unto the
Lord saying, "Lord, save us for we are afraid."

3. And the Lord heard their grunts and set some of the
infantry on beasts of burden and these he called
cavalry, and the cavalry became armor.

4. And when the lord had seen what he had done, he laughed
saying, "Well, you can't win them all."

5. The infantry and the armor again cried out to the Lord
saying, "Lord, save us for we are afraid." And the Lord
heard their cries and decided to end their weepings.

6. And the Lord said unto them, "Lo and behold, I send you
a race of men noble in heart and spirit," and the Lord
created the Gunners.

7. And the Lord said unto the infantry and armor, "When
it gets dark, the Gunners shall light your way."

8. "And when you need smoke, there shall be smoke, and
when you need HE, WP, H & I and counter battery fire,
all this ye shall have."

9. And the Lord gave the Gunners big guns, and field guns,
and the infantry and armor were jealous for they had
naught.

1O. And the infantry cried out saying, "Lord, thou hast
created the infantry as Queen of Battles, and now thou
has made the Gunners King of Battles and well knowest
thou what the King does to the Queen."

11. And the Lord replied, "Right On!"

12. And the Lord gave unto the Artillery rockets and
missiles and, best of all, nukes. And when the infantry
and armor saw this they fell to their knees in wonder
saying, "Surely God is on the side of the greatest
-The Gunners."

13. And the Lord sayeth, "You got that right."

14. Now abideth infantry, armor and Artillery but the
greatest of these is Artillery.

- Author Unknown

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 46

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 6:05:22 PM

seaforth7

Posts: 76
Joined: 8/12/2007
Status: offline

I think your idea of allowing trench building in each impulse will go a long way to negating the effects of the artillery. It takes too long to build up your trenches when you make a breakthrough currently, that is where I'm seeing the major casualties coming from artillery, when you forced to sit for 3 impulses with level 0 or 1 trenches,

great idea Frank, when's the 1.2 patch likely to become available? sounds like it's going to be a real winner!

cheers

(in reply to FrankHunter)

Post #: 47

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 7:46:28 PM

James Ward

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

I am considering doing just that. �

I like the idea of being able to build trenches each impulse but I think the cost doesn't need to be reduced. You get 6 trenches for one point and 3 barrages for one point so you should be able to maintain your trenches in the face of barrages and regroup the front line. Getting more than 6 trenches might throw something else out of whack.

(in reply to FrankHunter)

Post #: 48

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 7:51:08 PM

pat.casey

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

I am considering doing just that.

I like the idea of being able to build trenches each impulse but I think the cost doesn't need to be reduced. You get 6 trenches for one point and 3 barrages for one point so you should be able to maintain your trenches in the face of barrages and regroup the front line. Getting more than 6 trenches might throw something else out of whack.

Is that necessarily true? Can somebody who knows the barrage algorithm better than me answer this:

If I barrage a hex with > 1 artillery unit, can I potentially knock > 1 trench level off of it?

In other words if I shell a level 4 trench with a stack of 4 artillery units, is there any chance it'll end up as something less than a level 3 trench? Because if so, you still won't be able to keep up, even if you can build 1 trench per impluse, because you'll lose > 1 trench per impulse.

(in reply to James Ward)

Post #: 49

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 8:05:17 PM

James Ward

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward

quote:

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

I am considering doing just that.

I like the idea of being able to build trenches each impulse but I think the cost doesn't need to be reduced. You get 6 trenches for one point and 3 barrages for one point so you should be able to maintain your trenches in the face of barrages and regroup the front line. Getting more than 6 trenches might throw something else out of whack.

Is that necessarily true? Can somebody who knows the barrage algorithm better than me answer this:

If I barrage a hex with > 1 artillery unit, can I potentially knock > 1 trench level off of it?

In other words if I shell a level 4 trench with a stack of 4 artillery units, is there any chance it'll end up as something less than a level 3 trench? Because if so, you still won't be able to keep up, even if you can build 1 trench per impluse, because you'll lose > 1 trench per impulse.

It might be possible but I have never seen it happen.
You can lose trenches in assaults though so it certainly is possible to lose more than 1 level per impulse but at least you have a chance to cause losses to the other side in the assault.

(in reply to pat.casey)

Post #: 50

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 8:42:30 PM

hjaco

Posts: 872
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

Actually you only get 3 trenches for 1 IP - same as with barrage

(in reply to James Ward)

Post #: 51

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/15/2007 8:57:41 PM

Raynald

Posts: 37
Joined: 7/14/2004
From: Paris, France.
Status: offline

quote:

However IMO there is too much artillery at the start of the game, and possibly the effect of trenches is not adequate - the No side used artillery bombardments as you can in this game to kill a corps/turn without actually attacking.

Definitly agree with that.

Artillery is far too powerfull and right I consider it by far the main pb of the game.

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 52

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/16/2007 1:40:57 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

Yeah I'm aware of lots of opinion about the 77 being inferior to the 75 - net sources are fine (eg see http://tinyurl.com/2rbmdj) but by 1914 the 77 had a long recoil mechanism too....indeed the original idea was patented by a German (in 1891).....but I've never really tracked down much exact info. All I can find on hte 'net is that hte German shel had less HE filling (.5kg vs .69kg) and generated fewer fragments (500 vs 800)

I've read that the Germans had a lot of obsolete field artillery in 1914, but have never been able to track down just exactly what is meant by this.

However the popular view is completely turned on its head in heavier artillery - here the Germans were streets ahead with a range of excellent howitzers up to 210mm that had high trajectories, rapid rates of fire (for their size) and were very light as well.

(in reply to Raynald)

Post #: 53

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/16/2007 1:50:28 AM

SteveD64

Posts: 570
Joined: 10/26/2006
From: Shaker Hts, Ohio, USA
Status: offline

I'm still sticking with the idea I posted on another thread-� there should not be artillery units in this game.� The barrages should come from the HQ units.�

< Message edited by CLEVELAND -- 9/16/2007 1:51:43 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 54

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/16/2007 2:38:00 AM

Joel Rauber

Posts: 195
Joined: 10/4/2000
From: Brookings, SD, USA
Status: offline

I'd be careful about making too drastic of a change at first. It works pretty well at the moment and don't forget the law of unintended consequences.

I think two small tweaks I'd make:

a) allow entrenching up to two levels per hex per strategic phase. As noted by others above, the asymmetry in the rate of destruction of trenches versus building them is a problem

b) A hex should not be defensible by artillery alone, so some sort of overrun rule is needed. Though I think that being stacked with defending infantry should typically overrun proof them.

c) I'd like to just try the above two things only in light of my opening comments, but perhaps making barrages slightly more expensive would be a help, or perhaps instead, making construction of new artillery units more expensive. There is a lot of point to the comments stating that wastage is well represented by artillery rules at the present, so I'd want to be careful about implementing this suggestion too hastily. I'd first try suggestions (a) and (b)and see what the community "playtest" experience is for a while.

_____________________________

Any relationship between what I say and reality is purely coincidental.

Joel Rauber

(in reply to EUBanana)

Post #: 55

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/16/2007 8:43:04 AM

ulver

Posts: 527
Joined: 9/9/2001
From: Danmark, Europe
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjaco

I was also thinking about possibility for entrenching each impulse which i think make really sense.

During the long summer turns its easier to make the elaborate trench work than during shorter muddy spring/autumn turns and the very short winter turns.

Yes � that would be a great improvement. As an added benefit it would reduce the motivation for the Central Powers to go all out for Paris and open up many more possible strategies for both sides.

Currently the temptation is to make an all-out gamble to take out France. If it succeeds they win and if it fails the Russians overrun them. Allowing the Germans to dig in quickly after a limited offensive should be a viable strategy and currently I don�t think it is.

I would much rather see more games going all the way to 1919 and reducing the odds for a knockout victory in 1914-15 would accomplish that

< Message edited by ulver -- 9/16/2007 8:45:36 AM >

(in reply to hjaco)

Post #: 56

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/16/2007 9:13:58 AM

ceyan

Posts: 168
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

I think the best solution to the Artillery problem is to make the Artillery actually historical. For one, its way to easy to get lots of it with tons of reloads.

The reality of 1914 - mid-1915 was that Artillery was in extremely short supply. Neither side accounted for just how much ammunition and parts they'd run through in the early offensives. The end result is a significant chunk of production capacity for each nation was shifted into artillery production and even that couldn't keep units in full operational status.

Likewise later on the war heavy artillery wasn't used much as nations would stockpile the ammunition for major offensives. The Triple Entente used, for the most part, artillery as a softener similar to the early stages in the war whereas Germany began using their infiltration tactics which ate up artillery shells quicker than just about any other period (relatively speaking) in human history.

I suppose it all boils down to exactly what the artillery in the game is supposed to represent? Are we talking about field artillery, or heavy artillery? If you're looking at Field Artillery then you shouldn't be able to kill more than a few strength points, even with several units. This type of artillery should be doing almost pure readiness damage. If we're talking heavy artillery than there is WAY to much of it, it is far too cheap, but is fairly accurate as to its power.

So you're looking at either making it a rare assest, such that each side isn't going to have more than a few units unless they dedicated a big chunk of their economy, or artillery should be adjusted to do very little physical damage. We're talking freaking Corps and Army here people, at no time in the history of artillery has it ever been easy to just wholesale wipe out 30,000+ troops even with a few months of straight bombardment.

Artillery just isn't that big of a killer, even in WWI. It's primary use is in breaking down defense and morale. People seem to forget all the side-effects of artillery which led to the high kill score associated with them. For example, it gave advanced warning to the enemy that your about to attack so often times you'd face heavier, and prepared, defenses.

Edit:
Actually I will add the exception that artillery in the modern era can be extremely deadly thanks to pin-point accuracy with instantaneous communications from front-line troops.

< Message edited by ceyan -- 9/16/2007 9:16:40 AM >

(in reply to ulver)

Post #: 57

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/16/2007 11:24:38 AM

Rhetor

Posts: 117
Joined: 1/31/2005
From: Gdansk, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ceyan

Artillery just isn't that big of a killer, even in WWI. It's primary use is in breaking down defense and morale.

And breaking enemy infantry assaults.

(in reply to ceyan)

Post #: 58

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/16/2007 1:34:24 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ceyan

Artillery just isn't that big of a killer, even in WWI.

I totally disagree here.

Casualties caused by artillery in WW1 were massive.

quote:

In France, the number of heavy guns rose from 300 in 1914 to 5 200 in 1918 and the number of 75-mm guns from 3 900 to 5 600. The types of mat�riel also changed - field artillery lost ground to heavy artillery and so-called 'trench' artillery. Further figures: at the end of the war, there were 600 000 artillerymen, as compared with a million infantry. In August 1917, during the French offensive to secure the positions around Verdun, three million shells were fired inside three days. On September 26th 1918 alone, in order to break through the German front in Champagne, 1 375 000 75-mm shells were fired, representing a third of the entire stockpile of this calibre for 1914. One last figure: during the Great War, losses due to artillery fire rose to 67% of total casualties. The figure had previously stood at around 15%.

http://www.art-ww1.com/gb/guide/4guide.html

Radically changing artillery... would be an awful mistake.

Ray (alias Lava)

(in reply to ceyan)

Post #: 59

RE: Killer Artillery Stacks - Tactical advice - 9/16/2007 5:12:47 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

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)

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 60